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 Linksview 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.
121 Valid Reviews
The Linksview Holiday Park experience has a total of 126 reviews. There are 121 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.
Within these 121 valid reviews, the experience has 1 face-to-face review collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 121 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 108 |
|
89% |
| 9/10 | 5 |
|
4% |
| 8/10 | 6 |
|
5% |
| 7/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 6/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
97.52% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Linksview Holiday Park valid reviews is 97.52% and is based on 121 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
96.19%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emily | 8/10 | 192 days | 98% |
| Kevin Izzadeen | 10/10 | 192 days | 100% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 282 days | 97% |
| Matthew | 10/10 | 312 days | 96% |
| Kyra De rooy | 10/10 | 404 days | 92% |
| Mark | 10/10 | 404 days | 92% |
| Anonymous | 8/10 | 585 days | 80% |
| Greg Caruso | 10/10 | 585 days | 82% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 585 days | 82% |
| olive | 10/10 | 616 days | 80% |
| Ellen | 9/10 | 647 days | 76% |
| 无名氏Y_3 | 10/10 | 677 days | 75% |
| Stephane | 10/10 | 738 days | 70% |
| Connie Buckley | 10/10 | 1043 days | 39% |
| Victoria | 9/10 | 1074 days | 36% |
| vabene1111 | 10/10 | 1074 days | 36% |
| Sue | 10/10 | 1257 days | 22% |
| Kristina | 6/10 | 1316 days | 15% |
| Enny Kraaijveld | 10/10 | 1347 days | 16% |
| BR | 1/10 | 1347 days | 5% |
| Florian S. | 10/10 | 1378 days | 15% |
| Alastair McQueen | 8/10 | 1378 days | 14% |
| Niels Wamsler-Jensen | 10/10 | 1408 days | 13% |
| Caolan Harvey | 10/10 | 1408 days | 13% |
| Genevieve Belliveau | 10/10 | 1408 days | 13% |
| CT | 10/10 | 1469 days | 10% |
| Chrissy | 10/10 | 1592 days | 6% |
| Taimi | 10/10 | 1653 days | 4% |
| Denise | 10/10 | 1653 days | 4% |
| Steph and Denise | 10/10 | 1712 days | 3% |
| Jenna | 10/10 | 1743 days | 3% |
| Karen Harper | 10/10 | 1926 days | 2% |
| Julie Sanderson | 10/10 | 1957 days | 2% |
| Nikki and B | 10/10 | 1987 days | 2% |
| Helen | 10/10 | 1987 days | 2% |
| Bethan | 10/10 | 1987 days | 2% |
| Ellie Richards | 10/10 | 2018 days | 2% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 2046 days | 2% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 2046 days | 2% |
| Johnwnz | 10/10 | 2046 days | 2% |
| Emma | 10/10 | 2077 days | 2% |
| Matt | 10/10 | 2077 days | 2% |
| Hannah Shaw | 10/10 | 2077 days | 2% |
| Keybags | 10/10 | 2108 days | 2% |
| Raquel | 10/10 | 2108 days | 2% |
| ErinLouise | 9/10 | 2108 days | 2% |
| Gemma | 10/10 | 2169 days | 2% |
| Abi | 10/10 | 2169 days | 2% |
| Jane & Peter | 10/10 | 2199 days | 2% |
| Emma | 10/10 | 2230 days | 2% |
| Rewa Pompey | 10/10 | 2230 days | 2% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 2230 days | 2% |
| Boardwalk Blss | 10/10 | 2261 days | 2% |
| Anna Swain | 8/10 | 2291 days | 2% |
| Joep Smits | 10/10 | 2383 days | 1% |
| Andrew Dickson | 10/10 | 2383 days | 1% |
| AC Koopal | 10/10 | 2383 days | 1% |
| Diane SG | 10/10 | 2383 days | 1% |
| Louise & Tom | 10/10 | 2412 days | 1% |
| Stefano | 10/10 | 2412 days | 1% |
| sara hollander | 10/10 | 2442 days | 1% |
| Anna-Lena | 10/10 | 2443 days | 1% |
| Phoebe | 10/10 | 2474 days | 1% |
| Rhianne & Rich | 10/10 | 2474 days | 1% |
| David and zoe | 10/10 | 2474 days | 1% |
| Mark | 10/10 | 2474 days | 1% |
| Tim | 10/10 | 2474 days | 1% |
| Beverley | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| Rasmus | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| A&E | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| Laura | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| Kenneth Richter | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| Sarah | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| John | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| Laura Ridout | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| Robert G | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| Willi | 10/10 | 2504 days | 1% |
| Alex S | 10/10 | 2535 days | 1% |
| Katharina and Tom | 10/10 | 2535 days | 1% |
| Elise B | 10/10 | 2596 days | 1% |
| Silvia Andorra | 10/10 | 2596 days | 1% |
| Ruud and Susan | 10/10 | 2627 days | 1% |
| Helen | 10/10 | 2627 days | 1% |
| Charlotte | 10/10 | 2657 days | 1% |
| Christa | 10/10 | 2657 days | 1% |
| FamilyOfFourFromDenmark | 10/10 | 2718 days | 1% |
| Jen | 10/10 | 2718 days | 1% |
| Pip - UK | 10/10 | 2749 days | 1% |
| becs42 | 10/10 | 2749 days | 1% |
| Federico | 10/10 | 2749 days | 1% |
| Volker | 10/10 | 2749 days | 1% |
| Eva & Florian | 10/10 | 2749 days | 1% |
| Erik Bendtsen | 10/10 | 2749 days | 1% |
| p Schwartz | 10/10 | 2777 days | 1% |
| Lucy | 10/10 | 2777 days | 1% |
| Maud | 10/10 | 2808 days | 1% |
| Sebastian | 10/10 | 2808 days | 1% |
| Nadja Kampfhenkel | 8/10 | 2808 days | 1% |
| Andy | 10/10 | 2808 days | 1% |
| Jorja | 10/10 | 2808 days | 1% |
| Campbell watt | 10/10 | 2808 days | 1% |
| Megan | 10/10 | 2839 days | 1% |
| Arne | 9/10 | 2839 days | 0% |
| Dirk | 10/10 | 2839 days | 1% |
| Sunny | 10/10 | 2869 days | 0% |
| Jakob Simons | 10/10 | 2869 days | 0% |
| Gary | 10/10 | 2869 days | 0% |
| Audiomigo | 8/10 | 2869 days | 0% |
| Grizzly Girl | 10/10 | 2900 days | 0% |
| Chris | 10/10 | 2900 days | 0% |
| Soenke and Christina | 10/10 | 2900 days | 0% |
| Emmy and Laurie | 9/10 | 2900 days | 0% |
| TT Tang | 10/10 | 2900 days | 0% |
| Pete | 10/10 | 2930 days | 0% |
| Baizurah and Friends | 10/10 | 2930 days | 0% |
| Cassie | 10/10 | 2930 days | 0% |
| Theresa Low | 10/10 | 2936 days | -1% |
| Theresa | 10/10 | 2961 days | 0% |
| Cindy & Henry | 10/10 | 2992 days | 0% |
| Justine | 10/10 | 3083 days | 0% |
Several adjustments to the weighted average are added to improve relevancy and credibility. These adjustments apply equally to all experiences that meet the criteria.
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 Linksview Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
-2.16% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 85 days. However the Linksview 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 Linksview Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 155 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 152 | -2.12% |
| 153 | -2.13% |
| 154 | -2.14% |
| 155 | -2.16% |
| 156 | -2.17% |
| 157 | -2.19% |
| 158 | -2.20% |
| … | … |
0.53% 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.
95%
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.