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 Riverside 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.
128 Valid Reviews
The Riverside Holiday Park experience has a total of 133 reviews. There are 128 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 128 valid reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 60 |
|
47% |
9/10 | 28 |
|
22% |
8/10 | 17 |
|
13% |
7/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
6/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
5/10 | 6 |
|
5% |
4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
1/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
86.33% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Riverside Holiday Park valid reviews is 86.33% and is based on 128 valid reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here as a comparison to the weighted average.
20 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 128 valid reviews, the experience has 20 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 20 face-to-face reviews:
Rating | Count | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
10/10 | 2 |
|
10% |
9/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
8/10 | 6 |
|
30% |
7/10 | 3 |
|
15% |
6/10 | 3 |
|
15% |
5/10 | 3 |
|
15% |
4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
3/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
1/10 | 2 |
|
10% |
63.50% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Riverside Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 63.50% and is based on 20 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
94.48%
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Felix Koester | 10/10 | 80 days | 100% |
EI | 9/10 | 110 days | 99% |
Ellie | 9/10 | 141 days | 98% |
Kay | 9/10 | 324 days | 93% |
Georgie | 10/10 | 355 days | 93% |
Doreen Kirk | 8/10 | 355 days | 91% |
Emma B | 10/10 | 384 days | 92% |
Dylan | 10/10 | 568 days | 82% |
Tzan from CA | 10/10 | 599 days | 80% |
Julie | 10/10 | 660 days | 75% |
Tom | 10/10 | 749 days | 68% |
Amy Shoemake | 10/10 | 811 days | 63% |
Evan | 10/10 | 841 days | 60% |
Roxanne | 10/10 | 1206 days | 27% |
Cera | 10/10 | 1359 days | 17% |
Wayne Ravelich | 8/10 | 1451 days | 13% |
Clive | 10/10 | 1510 days | 11% |
Tourist in my own country | 1/10 | 1510 days | 4% |
Jade Bray | 9/10 | 1510 days | 11% |
Harry | 10/10 | 1510 days | 11% |
Dan | 9/10 | 1571 days | 9% |
Teesh K | 9/10 | 1571 days | 9% |
Daretobe | 9/10 | 1571 days | 9% |
Manuela | 10/10 | 1632 days | 7% |
Shar-ron & Jim | 9/10 | 1632 days | 7% |
Holly J | 8/10 | 1694 days | 6% |
Anneke | 10/10 | 1816 days | 5% |
Red G. | 10/10 | 1845 days | 5% |
Thpes | 8/10 | 1876 days | 5% |
Brad | 10/10 | 1876 days | 5% |
Josh & Eleanor | 9/10 | 1968 days | 5% |
Phil Bennett | 9/10 | 1998 days | 5% |
Phil | 9/10 | 1998 days | 5% |
Shelbi Kelly | 10/10 | 1998 days | 5% |
Gaudenz Schnell | 10/10 | 2181 days | 4% |
Marie van Tol | 9/10 | 2210 days | 4% |
Beth | 10/10 | 2210 days | 4% |
Jeremy | 9/10 | 2241 days | 4% |
Jacqui | 10/10 | 2272 days | 4% |
Marco | 9/10 | 2302 days | 4% |
Ryan | 10/10 | 2333 days | 4% |
Grizzly Girl | 10/10 | 2333 days | 4% |
Lance | 10/10 | 2333 days | 4% |
Daphne H | 9/10 | 2363 days | 4% |
Cassie | 9/10 | 2363 days | 4% |
Esther | 8/10 | 2455 days | 4% |
Clovis C. | 10/10 | 2516 days | 4% |
Tom J. | 9/10 | 2547 days | 3% |
Anke | 9/10 | 2547 days | 3% |
S Weslake | 9/10 | 2547 days | 3% |
Tom Meulders | 5/10 | 2619 days | 3% |
Joe Trigg | 5/10 | 2669 days | 2% |
Gary Prescot | 8/10 | 2700 days | 3% |
Peter Suan | 10/10 | 2813 days | 3% |
Lotta Vuorjoki | 10/10 | 2844 days | 3% |
Janet Pentelow | 7/10 | 2873 days | 3% |
Julia Kurtz | 8/10 | 2882 days | 3% |
Tracey Leyston | 10/10 | 2922 days | 3% |
Kati Behrendt | 9/10 | 2930 days | 3% |
Tombeadle | 10/10 | 2939 days | 3% |
Peter Armstrong | 6/10 | 2939 days | 2% |
Erich Brueggermann | 7/10 | 2969 days | 2% |
Rebecca Lindsey | 7/10 | 2970 days | 2% |
Robert Hunt | 8/10 | 3012 days | 3% |
Sheryl Hicks | 8/10 | 3034 days | 2% |
Ivan Wee | 10/10 | 3038 days | 3% |
Daphne H | 9/10 | 3086 days | 2% |
Daniel Gold | 10/10 | 3184 days | 2% |
william Sinclair | 10/10 | 3184 days | 2% |
samuele cason | 10/10 | 3215 days | 2% |
Wayne Jeskie | 9/10 | 3226 days | 2% |
Ray Tombs | 10/10 | 3236 days | 2% |
Julian Minnis | 10/10 | 3237 days | 2% |
Jean Evans | 10/10 | 3276 days | 2% |
Richard Thorpe | 7/10 | 3281 days | 2% |
Philippa and Adam | 9/10 | 3292 days | 2% |
Mike Awater | 10/10 | 3294 days | 2% |
Julia Rey | 10/10 | 3302 days | 2% |
Henry Gann | 10/10 | 3304 days | 2% |
Jenn | 10/10 | 3334 days | 2% |
Brian Gray | 10/10 | 3336 days | 2% |
Meta bobnar | 9/10 | 3427 days | 2% |
Kirsty Longland | 10/10 | 3460 days | 2% |
Wolfgang Rank | 10/10 | 3611 days | 1% |
Stephanie Poppe | 7/10 | 3617 days | 1% |
Esther Itier | 8/10 | 3637 days | 1% |
Thomas Neron | 8/10 | 3637 days | 1% |
Jaron Frost | 10/10 | 3642 days | 1% |
Pete Arney | 9/10 | 3643 days | 1% |
Averil Brown | 9/10 | 3668 days | 1% |
Janie James | 10/10 | 3701 days | 1% |
Enrico Anna | 10/10 | 3701 days | 1% |
mark radford | 10/10 | 3701 days | 1% |
Bjorn Privat | 10/10 | 3710 days | 1% |
Ingrid Harder | 10/10 | 3732 days | 1% |
Joanne Robertson | 8/10 | 3740 days | 1% |
johno Tunnell | 9/10 | 3762 days | 1% |
Karen Boot | 8/10 | 3762 days | 1% |
Emma Barr | 10/10 | 3762 days | 1% |
Nicola Whelan Henderson | 10/10 | 3762 days | 1% |
Ellen McKee | 10/10 | 3762 days | 1% |
Scott kearney | 10/10 | 3762 days | 1% |
Lucas MacDonald | 10/10 | 3762 days | 1% |
Hartwig Crailsheim | 10/10 | 3762 days | 1% |
kim haward | 10/10 | 3855 days | 1% |
Alan Williams | 10/10 | 3976 days | 1% |
Thomas Hölscher | 10/10 | 3976 days | 1% |
Thomas Walsh | 9/10 | 4008 days | 1% |
Steve Fraser | 5/10 | 4036 days | 0% |
Lee D | 1/10 | 4251 days | 0% |
Alex Laidlaw | 5/10 | 4470 days | 0% |
Sander Heike | 8/10 | 4710 days | 1% |
Monika Kneidl | 7/10 | 4713 days | 1% |
Lorna Williams | 7/10 | 4733 days | 1% |
Hilbert vanEssen | 3/10 | 4735 days | 0% |
Ed & Katie Riches | 6/10 | 4750 days | 0% |
Preben vil Helmsen | 6/10 | 4750 days | 0% |
Thomas & Ruth Hardmeier | 1/10 | 4755 days | 0% |
Kurt & Noemi Buhler | 1/10 | 4762 days | 0% |
Des & Ann Bidwell | 6/10 | 4762 days | 0% |
Dugald McCallum | 5/10 | 4766 days | 0% |
James McColl | 10/10 | 4859 days | 1% |
Powerfamily | 8/10 | 4982 days | 1% |
Jaime Ress | 8/10 | 5084 days | 1% |
Cory Wornell | 10/10 | 5093 days | 1% |
Thelia Beament | 8/10 | 5107 days | 1% |
Tim Wright | 7/10 | 5130 days | 1% |
SonjaG | 5/10 | 5820 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 Riverside Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
-1.06% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 53 days. However the Riverside 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 Riverside Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 51 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
Days | Adjustment |
---|---|
… | … |
48 | -1.00% |
49 | -1.02% |
50 | -1.04% |
51 | -1.06% |
52 | -1.08% |
53 | -1.10% |
54 | -1.12% |
… | … |
0.59% 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.
94%
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.