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 Rapahoe Beach 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.
Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
90 Valid Reviews
The Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park experience has a total of 93 reviews. There are 90 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 3 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 90 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 36 |
|
40% |
| 9/10 | 22 |
|
24% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
16% |
| 7/10 | 8 |
|
9% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
4% |
| 5/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
3% |
85.00% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park valid reviews is 85.00% and is based on 90 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
22 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 90 valid reviews, the experience has 22 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 22 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 9/10 | 9 |
|
41% |
| 8/10 | 6 |
|
27% |
| 7/10 | 4 |
|
18% |
| 6/10 | 2 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 4/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
5% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
78.18% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 78.18% and is based on 22 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
93.96%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew | 10/10 | 39 days | 100% |
| Doug | 10/10 | 39 days | 100% |
| Dora | 10/10 | 70 days | 100% |
| Bruce Ross | 10/10 | 70 days | 100% |
| Jojo&Skoko | 10/10 | 70 days | 100% |
| Franklin | 10/10 | 101 days | 100% |
| Annette McGrath | 7/10 | 131 days | 92% |
| TravelingVan | 10/10 | 162 days | 99% |
| Shenay | 10/10 | 192 days | 98% |
| Sheryl Watson | 9/10 | 345 days | 92% |
| Sally Gillespie | 10/10 | 376 days | 92% |
| Christopher Parker | 10/10 | 376 days | 92% |
| Mike C | 10/10 | 376 days | 92% |
| Ginny | 10/10 | 405 days | 91% |
| velvetmayhem | 9/10 | 436 days | 88% |
| Alex | 9/10 | 436 days | 88% |
| Heledd | 9/10 | 436 days | 88% |
| Tom | 10/10 | 436 days | 89% |
| Wendy | 8/10 | 467 days | 86% |
| Steve Collins | 8/10 | 467 days | 86% |
| Pauline | 10/10 | 467 days | 88% |
| George | 10/10 | 528 days | 84% |
| Chelsea | 10/10 | 528 days | 84% |
| Marie Perret | 9/10 | 528 days | 83% |
| Maria Fidler | 9/10 | 528 days | 83% |
| Mae | 10/10 | 681 days | 73% |
| Corrina Smith | 10/10 | 681 days | 73% |
| Riley | 10/10 | 742 days | 68% |
| Kate Fairhall | 10/10 | 770 days | 66% |
| Karen Gilchrist | 10/10 | 770 days | 66% |
| Dannie | 7/10 | 801 days | 59% |
| Matt | 8/10 | 801 days | 62% |
| Jamieson Kohe | 10/10 | 832 days | 60% |
| K Arnold | 1/10 | 954 days | 19% |
| Emma Brownless | 9/10 | 1472 days | 12% |
| Amber | 9/10 | 1500 days | 10% |
| Jay W | 8/10 | 1684 days | 6% |
| Lena L. | 10/10 | 1837 days | 4% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 1897 days | 4% |
| Georgie | 10/10 | 2172 days | 4% |
| Mirandah | 8/10 | 2203 days | 4% |
| Sebastian | 10/10 | 2262 days | 4% |
| Moritz | 10/10 | 2293 days | 4% |
| Philip Page | 8/10 | 2384 days | 3% |
| Sandra Day | 1/10 | 2568 days | 1% |
| Wolfgang Sulzer | 5/10 | 2878 days | 2% |
| Andrea Aschenbrenner | 10/10 | 2893 days | 2% |
| Kathy Miller | 9/10 | 2920 days | 2% |
| Johanna Dorner | 9/10 | 2947 days | 2% |
| Annalena Harmeyer | 10/10 | 2957 days | 2% |
| Z H | 1/10 | 2961 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Lindsey | 10/10 | 2992 days | 2% |
| Tracy Ivory | 4/10 | 3023 days | 1% |
| Greg MacFire | 10/10 | 3029 days | 2% |
| Ivan Wee | 8/10 | 3057 days | 2% |
| Ulrich Rix | 8/10 | 3298 days | 2% |
| Ives van Neck | 7/10 | 3320 days | 1% |
| Bianca Nielsen | 10/10 | 3327 days | 2% |
| Philippa and Adam | 6/10 | 3330 days | 1% |
| Manu Hume | 9/10 | 3335 days | 1% |
| Singapore Sling | 6/10 | 3389 days | 1% |
| Tom H | 10/10 | 3664 days | 1% |
| Nicki Rehn | 10/10 | 3680 days | 1% |
| Tim Porter | 9/10 | 3724 days | 1% |
| Helene Andersen | 9/10 | 4024 days | 0% |
| Douglas Dean | 9/10 | 4029 days | 0% |
| Antton Vappula | 9/10 | 4047 days | 0% |
| Michael Turek | 9/10 | 4057 days | 0% |
| Tanje Norton | 10/10 | 4057 days | 0% |
| Sugar Price | 7/10 | 4057 days | 0% |
| Florian Carli | 9/10 | 4088 days | 0% |
| Orla Hughes | 9/10 | 4097 days | 0% |
| Abby Rescr | 7/10 | 4394 days | 0% |
| Frederick Dean | 9/10 | 4394 days | 0% |
| Helen Dean | 9/10 | 4394 days | 0% |
| Joey Mertzig | 9/10 | 4411 days | 0% |
| Henry Howard | 10/10 | 4453 days | 0% |
| Jaap & Susanne | 7/10 | 4768 days | 0% |
| Cindy & Glen Kerunsky | 9/10 | 4775 days | 0% |
| Heini | 8/10 | 4787 days | 0% |
| Fran Williams | 8/10 | 5105 days | 0% |
| Winskowsky | 3/10 | 5127 days | 0% |
| Kuno Eugster | 7/10 | 5133 days | 0% |
| Marleen Meyers | 8/10 | 5136 days | 0% |
| Bob Warne | 7/10 | 5136 days | 0% |
| Irene and Thib Schneider | 6/10 | 5141 days | 0% |
| Patrick Hugener | 8/10 | 5149 days | 0% |
| mikestep | 8/10 | 5824 days | 0% |
| davidne | 8/10 | 5824 days | 0% |
| David_H | 6/10 | 5883 days | 0% |
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 Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.28% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 57 days. However the Rapahoe Beach 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 Rapahoe Beach Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 14 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 11 | -0.22% |
| 12 | -0.24% |
| 13 | -0.26% |
| 14 | -0.28% |
| 15 | -0.30% |
| 16 | -0.32% |
| 17 | -0.34% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
0.56% 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
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.