Kia ora, 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 Hanmer Field Base and Picnic Area.
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.
Hanmer Field Base and Picnic Area
Valid Reviews
91 Valid Reviews
The Hanmer Field Base and Picnic Area experience has a total of 98 reviews. There are 91 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 7 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 91 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 18 |
|
20% |
| 9/10 | 27 |
|
30% |
| 8/10 | 29 |
|
32% |
| 7/10 | 9 |
|
10% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
82.42% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Hanmer Field Base and Picnic Area valid reviews is 82.42% and is based on 91 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
5 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 91 valid reviews, the experience has 5 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 5 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 9/10 | 2 |
|
40% |
| 8/10 | 1 |
|
20% |
| 7/10 | 1 |
|
20% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
20% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
78.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Hanmer Field Base and Picnic Area face-to-face reviews is 78.00% and is based on 5 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
85.21%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chloe | 9/10 | 32 days | 100% |
| Debbie | 8/10 | 32 days | 99% |
| Everyonecantravel2024 | 6/10 | 63 days | 87% |
| Susan | 8/10 | 123 days | 98% |
| Mike Fricker | 10/10 | 215 days | 98% |
| Tara | 9/10 | 246 days | 97% |
| @follow.tim.warren | 9/10 | 246 days | 97% |
| Deb | 10/10 | 246 days | 98% |
| L&M | 10/10 | 277 days | 97% |
| Julian | 7/10 | 306 days | 89% |
| Carolyn | 8/10 | 368 days | 91% |
| Victoria | 7/10 | 429 days | 84% |
| Marie Perret | 8/10 | 458 days | 87% |
| Michelle & Rob | 7/10 | 520 days | 80% |
| Matt H | 9/10 | 520 days | 85% |
| DBennie | 9/10 | 581 days | 81% |
| Ty | 10/10 | 612 days | 79% |
| Joe | 9/10 | 643 days | 76% |
| Tom | 8/10 | 671 days | 74% |
| Stacey & Mike | 7/10 | 702 days | 68% |
| Corrine | 10/10 | 763 days | 67% |
| Evan | 7/10 | 763 days | 63% |
| Heidi Maurice | 8/10 | 763 days | 66% |
| Rebecca Woodbridge | 8/10 | 763 days | 66% |
| Georgia | 9/10 | 823 days | 61% |
| Lucy | 10/10 | 854 days | 59% |
| Mike&Fe | 10/10 | 1036 days | 41% |
| Jack | 10/10 | 1373 days | 17% |
| Henrique | 9/10 | 1432 days | 14% |
| Rey | 8/10 | 1463 days | 12% |
| Shalamar | 10/10 | 1463 days | 12% |
| Neal McCarthy | 9/10 | 1493 days | 11% |
| Josephine | 6/10 | 1524 days | 9% |
| Helen | 9/10 | 1553 days | 9% |
| Claire ALLMON | 9/10 | 1553 days | 9% |
| Doug | 8/10 | 1615 days | 7% |
| Tim | 10/10 | 1738 days | 5% |
| Stefan Hohmann | 8/10 | 1767 days | 5% |
| Daria | 10/10 | 1767 days | 5% |
| Lua | 10/10 | 1829 days | 5% |
| Jayme | 8/10 | 1859 days | 5% |
| Ambs | 10/10 | 1890 days | 5% |
| Ana | 8/10 | 1890 days | 5% |
| Jordie | 8/10 | 1919 days | 5% |
| Cass | 9/10 | 1919 days | 5% |
| Tarsha | 8/10 | 1950 days | 5% |
| Becca | 9/10 | 2011 days | 4% |
| Anastasia | 10/10 | 2011 days | 5% |
| Kristal | 10/10 | 2042 days | 4% |
| Deb | 8/10 | 2163 days | 4% |
| B.R. | 7/10 | 2163 days | 4% |
| Ymke Huisman | 6/10 | 2194 days | 4% |
| Ben | 8/10 | 2194 days | 4% |
| Sophie Skinner | 9/10 | 2224 days | 4% |
| Noreasters | 1/10 | 2224 days | 2% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2255 days | 4% |
| Lance | 9/10 | 2255 days | 4% |
| Jenna webber | 8/10 | 2284 days | 4% |
| Brittany Jackson | 8/10 | 2315 days | 4% |
| Christina | 8/10 | 2407 days | 4% |
| Michelle D | 9/10 | 2407 days | 4% |
| Carl Fogarty | 9/10 | 2438 days | 4% |
| Simon Springett | 8/10 | 2483 days | 4% |
| Luis Vigil Vidal | 9/10 | 2511 days | 2% |
| Patrick Currier | 8/10 | 2525 days | 3% |
| Rogier Kavelaars | 8/10 | 2575 days | 3% |
| Vander Plancke Julien | 8/10 | 2581 days | 3% |
| Jasmine Andrew | 9/10 | 2604 days | 3% |
| Katherine Ong | 10/10 | 2610 days | 3% |
| Jo Dawson | 7/10 | 2731 days | 3% |
| Henry | 10/10 | 2731 days | 3% |
| Beverley Halfhide | 5/10 | 2775 days | 2% |
| Ann Le | 9/10 | 2784 days | 3% |
| Les Tregier | 10/10 | 2799 days | 3% |
| Craig Wilcock | 8/10 | 2808 days | 3% |
| Tim Statler | 9/10 | 2853 days | 3% |
| Walter Neff | 1/10 | 2861 days | 1% |
| Catherine Johnston | 8/10 | 3025 days | 2% |
| Matt Hughes | 9/10 | 3167 days | 2% |
| Sam Smith-Palomeque | 9/10 | 3185 days | 2% |
| Sean Stevens | 8/10 | 3200 days | 2% |
| Zdenda Barvinek | 9/10 | 3251 days | 2% |
| Dieter Schmees | 6/10 | 3636 days | 1% |
| Moudry Vojtech | 8/10 | 3670 days | 1% |
| Sina Leidig | 1/10 | 3684 days | 0% |
| Kathy Hart | 9/10 | 3868 days | 1% |
| Nadia R | 8/10 | 3899 days | 1% |
| John Treasure | 7/10 | 3958 days | 1% |
| Kirbyfamily | 8/10 | 4264 days | 0% |
| Bev Stott | 7/10 | 4301 days | 0% |
| Daniel Jezak | 9/10 | 4305 days | 0% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Hanmer Field Base and Picnic Area does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
1.78% 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 folk 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
87%
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.