Hi, thanks for your interest in how we calculate an experience's ranking score. It's at the core of Rankers so I'm pleased you're curious.
The ranking score percentage is used to compare and sort experiences in ranking tables. It is not necessarily a direct measurement of the quality of a particular experience as rated by its customers. I've found it a useful tool to allow me to find the best experiences with confidence. But I've also found it important to read the customer reviews before making any final judgements!
We calculate an experience's ranking score using a multi-factor data model instead of a raw data average (mean). This model takes into account several important questions. For instance - is there a trusted body of reviews? What is the age of a review and is the review from a credible source?
Below you'll find details around some of the important factors that went into calculating the ranking score for Whakapapa Holiday Park.
If you have any questions or comments about our ranking score calculation please get in touch at info@rankers.co.nz. We don't believe this is perfect or complete so we're always interested in ways we might make improvements.
Whakapapa Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
192 Valid Reviews
The Whakapapa Holiday Park experience has a total of 197 reviews. There are 192 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 5 invalid reviews that are excluded from the calculation. Reviews can be excluded only when a reviewer is not verified or after an investigation by our team determines the reviewer is not genuine.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 192 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 48 |
|
25% |
| 9/10 | 62 |
|
32% |
| 8/10 | 40 |
|
21% |
| 7/10 | 27 |
|
14% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
2% |
| 5/10 | 4 |
|
2% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 2/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
83.70% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Whakapapa Holiday Park valid reviews is 83.70% and is based on 192 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
Face-to-Face Reviews
72 Face-to-Face Reviews
The Rankers team meets with travellers while they’re in New Zealand and conducts face-to-face surveys. These reviews, in our opinion, are the most trusted in the industry and represent a critical control sample. To our knowledge, we are the only travel review website in the world that has gone to this extent.
More about face-to-face reviews
Within the 192 valid reviews, the experience has 72 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 72 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 8 |
|
11% |
| 9/10 | 18 |
|
25% |
| 8/10 | 23 |
|
32% |
| 7/10 | 20 |
|
28% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
80.97% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Whakapapa Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 80.97% and is based on 72 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
80.52%
Rankers calculates a weighted mean as a base average on which we can improve. Individual review's ratings are given a weight based on several factors. The weight of a review determines the overall impact it'll have on the final weighted average.
Recent reviews have more weight as they are more relevant and reflect the experience as it currently operates. Over time reviews become less relevant and loose their impact on the ranking score.
Low rating reviews carry slightly less weight. This dampens the effect of very low ratings for every experience across the board. This is especially important when the experience has few reviews overall and a single negative rating can grossly mischaracterise an experience. Consistent poor reviews will still result in the experience receiving a comparitively low ranking score.
Credible sources provide reviews that can be trusted. If we have verified a reviewer is genuine via a face-to-face meeting then the review carries additional weight.
| Reviewer | Rating | Age | Relative Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Christina | 2/10 | 214 days | 49% |
| LH | 7/10 | 242 days | 100% |
| Ana | 2/10 | 273 days | 48% |
| Charlie | 10/10 | 548 days | 92% |
| Morgane | 8/10 | 638 days | 84% |
| Jojo&Skoko | 10/10 | 638 days | 85% |
| Cam an | 3/10 | 669 days | 45% |
| Kc | 9/10 | 669 days | 82% |
| Bobo | 9/10 | 669 days | 82% |
| Emily | 9/10 | 669 days | 82% |
| Nadia | 9/10 | 699 days | 79% |
| Fabienne | 5/10 | 944 days | 42% |
| Jorian | 10/10 | 973 days | 52% |
| Mike Howe | 8/10 | 973 days | 51% |
| Sydney Piskor | 10/10 | 1065 days | 42% |
| Anne | 6/10 | 1096 days | 34% |
| Henry | 9/10 | 1157 days | 33% |
| Ka Gill | 9/10 | 1249 days | 26% |
| Anne | 9/10 | 1279 days | 24% |
| Helen E | 8/10 | 1310 days | 22% |
| V L Nelson | 9/10 | 1338 days | 20% |
| Inge | 8/10 | 1369 days | 18% |
| Cindi Wight | 10/10 | 1430 days | 15% |
| Annie | 1/10 | 1826 days | 2% |
| Melissa | 10/10 | 2009 days | 5% |
| Jaeneen | 10/10 | 2068 days | 5% |
| Koe | 2/10 | 2099 days | 2% |
| Dan | 7/10 | 2160 days | 4% |
| Paul | 8/10 | 2160 days | 5% |
| Carl Bright | 10/10 | 2283 days | 5% |
| Ashleigh Lim | 10/10 | 2283 days | 5% |
| Linda | 9/10 | 2283 days | 4% |
| Reba | 9/10 | 2405 days | 4% |
| Stefan Hohmann | 10/10 | 2405 days | 4% |
| Peter | 10/10 | 2496 days | 4% |
| Su | 9/10 | 2496 days | 4% |
| Luis Vigil Vidal | 10/10 | 2526 days | 4% |
| Lua | 10/10 | 2526 days | 4% |
| Michal Mazaki | 3/10 | 2557 days | 2% |
| Bites | 9/10 | 2557 days | 4% |
| Chris Plummer | 10/10 | 2557 days | 4% |
| Martinez Whanau | 9/10 | 2649 days | 4% |
| Andy | 3/10 | 2649 days | 2% |
| Paige | 9/10 | 2740 days | 3% |
| Michael | 10/10 | 2740 days | 4% |
| David Hart | 9/10 | 2771 days | 3% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2771 days | 3% |
| Tash & Laura | 8/10 | 2799 days | 3% |
| Francois & Caroline | 9/10 | 2830 days | 3% |
| Elke fuenfstueck | 6/10 | 2861 days | 3% |
| Rachael Dyson | 9/10 | 2891 days | 3% |
| Grizzly Girl | 9/10 | 2922 days | 3% |
| Ingrid Peters | 10/10 | 2922 days | 3% |
| Kenza | 8/10 | 2922 days | 3% |
| Jennie and kids | 9/10 | 3075 days | 3% |
| Martha Godon | 8/10 | 3075 days | 3% |
| Bradletn | 8/10 | 3105 days | 3% |
| Helene | 9/10 | 3136 days | 3% |
| The Weathersons | 10/10 | 3149 days | 2% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 3164 days | 3% |
| Luis Vigil Vidal | 10/10 | 3178 days | 2% |
| Millka Pietikainen | 10/10 | 3206 days | 2% |
| Ronald Daigneault | 8/10 | 3219 days | 2% |
| Debbie Lesurf | 10/10 | 3233 days | 2% |
| Joe Trigg | 7/10 | 3258 days | 2% |
| Javier Mimbrera | 9/10 | 3317 days | 2% |
| Alexander | 10/10 | 3435 days | 2% |
| Mark Ravenscroft | 10/10 | 3441 days | 2% |
| Roger | 9/10 | 3456 days | 2% |
| Mailhos Cécile | 9/10 | 3504 days | 2% |
| Mark Haydon | 10/10 | 3529 days | 2% |
| Liz K | 10/10 | 3540 days | 2% |
| Erich Brueggermann | 7/10 | 3558 days | 2% |
| Monique Pos | 10/10 | 3581 days | 2% |
| abd malik ahmad | 8/10 | 3591 days | 2% |
| Gary Cohen | 9/10 | 3621 days | 2% |
| S Webb | 9/10 | 3621 days | 2% |
| Greg Mackay | 8/10 | 3682 days | 1% |
| Mikael Torres | 9/10 | 3714 days | 1% |
| Bianca Macri | 10/10 | 3796 days | 1% |
| David Elliott | 10/10 | 3835 days | 1% |
| Susan Woods | 10/10 | 3866 days | 1% |
| Torben Koop | 10/10 | 3869 days | 1% |
| Heather Scoltock | 10/10 | 3891 days | 1% |
| Ian Robb | 10/10 | 3895 days | 1% |
| Michele Johns | 10/10 | 3895 days | 1% |
| Steve Newton | 10/10 | 3895 days | 1% |
| Tine Fook | 9/10 | 3912 days | 1% |
| Paul Read | 9/10 | 3926 days | 1% |
| Sarah Hammond | 8/10 | 3926 days | 1% |
| Pablo Suarez Fernandez | 9/10 | 3926 days | 1% |
| Roel Boorsma | 9/10 | 3944 days | 1% |
| David Walter | 5/10 | 3946 days | 1% |
| Jo Batt | 9/10 | 3961 days | 1% |
| Jamie | 9/10 | 3987 days | 1% |
| Jule & Thomas aus Hamburg Elternzeit 2015 | 5/10 | 4018 days | 1% |
| Suzanne Vermeulen | 7/10 | 4018 days | 1% |
| Denelle Coutts | 9/10 | 4029 days | 1% |
| María del Carmen Escandell | 8/10 | 4056 days | 1% |
| Andreas Knipper | 9/10 | 4072 days | 1% |
| Niall Crosby | 10/10 | 4110 days | 1% |
| Julie Walles | 9/10 | 4110 days | 1% |
| Constantin D | 7/10 | 4264 days | 0% |
| holidaymad from Solihull | 8/10 | 4291 days | 0% |
| John K | 9/10 | 4352 days | 0% |
| Mark Fisher | 8/10 | 4352 days | 0% |
| GN100 | 8/10 | 4383 days | 1% |
| Daniel Capener | 7/10 | 4475 days | 1% |
| tim winders | 9/10 | 4505 days | 1% |
| Leonie Moeller | 9/10 | 4575 days | 1% |
| Gillian Scott | 9/10 | 4595 days | 1% |
| Janina Zwerver | 9/10 | 4599 days | 1% |
| Rita Hochstiasser | 9/10 | 4622 days | 1% |
| Matthias Freiling | 7/10 | 4623 days | 1% |
| Johannes | 8/10 | 4624 days | 1% |
| Bert Snel | 9/10 | 4656 days | 1% |
| kiwifamily2 | 8/10 | 4656 days | 1% |
| David Restell | 9/10 | 4840 days | 1% |
| David Lee | 8/10 | 4974 days | 1% |
| Christopher Saunders | 7/10 | 5004 days | 1% |
| Henrik Steinruecken | 7/10 | 5034 days | 1% |
| Ramon Keller | 10/10 | 5042 days | 1% |
| Anne Kerpershoek | 8/10 | 5044 days | 1% |
| Camille Gerjat | 7/10 | 5057 days | 1% |
| Faassen | 5/10 | 5060 days | 1% |
| Fam von Hattem | 7/10 | 5064 days | 1% |
| sueadegizmo | 10/10 | 5235 days | 1% |
| Mark Westebring | 9/10 | 5314 days | 1% |
| Be Groen | 8/10 | 5319 days | 1% |
| Daniel & Manuela | 8/10 | 5333 days | 1% |
| Graham Platt | 8/10 | 5336 days | 1% |
| Lars | 9/10 | 5336 days | 1% |
| Michael Stoll | 8/10 | 5337 days | 1% |
| Moritz | 9/10 | 5340 days | 1% |
| Dominique | 8/10 | 5340 days | 1% |
| Charlotte | 7/10 | 5342 days | 1% |
| Hardy | 9/10 | 5342 days | 1% |
| Marjolein Hartsuiker | 8/10 | 5342 days | 1% |
| Corv V D Hof | 7/10 | 5353 days | 1% |
| Guillaume Milcent | 7/10 | 5353 days | 1% |
| Lotte Foged | 8/10 | 5354 days | 1% |
| snoopidoops | 9/10 | 5387 days | 1% |
| Waldemar Schuler | 9/10 | 5434 days | 1% |
| Lardy | 8/10 | 5435 days | 1% |
| R & M Willows | 9/10 | 5435 days | 1% |
| Amelia Tan-MaKhmalchi | 10/10 | 5479 days | 1% |
| james11 | 9/10 | 5479 days | 1% |
| kelvin88 | 10/10 | 5479 days | 1% |
| Jon11 | 10/10 | 5479 days | 1% |
| john_seasoned_traveler | 10/10 | 5479 days | 1% |
| de Smedt | 9/10 | 5665 days | 1% |
| Philip Gierke | 7/10 | 5667 days | 1% |
| Knapen | 9/10 | 5673 days | 1% |
| Kuhu | 7/10 | 5677 days | 1% |
| Christian Pflegi | 6/10 | 5681 days | 1% |
| Marianne Wheatley | 10/10 | 5681 days | 1% |
| Wheeler | 7/10 | 5682 days | 1% |
| Nick Tinnemeier | 8/10 | 5683 days | 1% |
| Fam de Kruyf | 8/10 | 5690 days | 1% |
| Fee_MacIntosh | 10/10 | 5693 days | 1% |
| Vincent | 7/10 | 5697 days | 1% |
| Sanne | 8/10 | 5697 days | 1% |
| Erica Moorhouse | 8/10 | 5698 days | 1% |
| mr Schumader | 10/10 | 5707 days | 1% |
| Helene Descamps | 7/10 | 5709 days | 1% |
| Patrick Decoster | 8/10 | 5714 days | 1% |
| Jane Hancock | 9/10 | 5716 days | 1% |
| Nadia Husain | 6/10 | 5721 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 9/10 | 5752 days | 1% |
| Christof | 10/10 | 6027 days | 1% |
| astridaus | 9/10 | 6027 days | 1% |
| Flora | 9/10 | 6060 days | 1% |
| John Harrison | 10/10 | 6065 days | 1% |
| anon | 7/10 | 6065 days | 1% |
| Pierre Pilon | 9/10 | 6066 days | 1% |
| Peter Koeck | 10/10 | 6067 days | 1% |
| Sebastien Briant | 8/10 | 6085 days | 1% |
| Schubert, Wolfgang & Claudia | 8/10 | 6091 days | 1% |
| Beute Jacob | 7/10 | 6099 days | 1% |
| Family van Hessem | 7/10 | 6106 days | 1% |
| Thomas Signes | 7/10 | 6113 days | 1% |
| kevinp | 7/10 | 6129 days | 1% |
| ilkal | 8/10 | 6134 days | 1% |
| elskeb | 8/10 | 6136 days | 1% |
| Hanne Wichmann | 10/10 | 6152 days | 1% |
| Steffi Marco | 7/10 | 6152 days | 1% |
| Volker Jåkel | 7/10 | 6155 days | 1% |
| MartinG | 8/10 | 6425 days | 1% |
| GillianK | 9/10 | 6427 days | 1% |
| Nick | 8/10 | 6435 days | 1% |
| Nick | 9/10 | 6436 days | 1% |
| Chris | 9/10 | 6441 days | 1% |
Adjustments
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
Sample Size Adjustment
No Adjustment
A reasonable number of reviews are necessary in order for the average to be credible and for an experience to take a prime position within the ranking tables. As such, experiences with only a few reviews have a moderated score. This does not mean that the experience or the reviews can't be trusted. The Whakapapa Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-2.99% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 67 days. However the Whakapapa Holiday Park experience does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
In addition, an experience's ranking score may be adjusted for each day there is no new ranking. After 1 day the adjustment comes into effect. The maximum number of days that can be adjusted for is 200 days. Due to the seasonal nature of many businesses, this adjustment is applied dynamically throughout the year.
The Whakapapa Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 183 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 180 | -2.95% |
| 181 | -2.96% |
| 182 | -2.98% |
| 183 | -2.99% |
| 184 | -3.01% |
| 185 | -3.03% |
| 186 | -3.04% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
3.74% Adjustment
Every experience's review score is adjusted to balance out the disproportional number of negative reviews that are contributed.
You won't be surprised to learn that disgruntled customers are more likely to leave a review than happy ones. They are motivated to share their experience and warn others. We consider this a good thing and it's why reading the reviews is important. However we've learned it can misrepresent the experience in a more overall sense.
We apply a balancing adjustment to counteract this effect and ensure the ranking score is a more fair representation of the experience. This adjustment is applied equally to all experiences.
Final Ranking Score
81%
The final ranking score once any adjustments, ratings, and rounding has been applied. This value is recalculated each day and a short rolling average is applied. Therefore it may not be precisely accurate based on the other values presented.