Hey, 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 Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks.
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.
Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks
Valid Reviews
135 Valid Reviews
The Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has a total of 137 reviews. There are 135 valid reviews that are included when calculating the ranking score and 2 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 135 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 16 |
|
12% |
| 9/10 | 30 |
|
22% |
| 8/10 | 35 |
|
26% |
| 7/10 | 22 |
|
16% |
| 6/10 | 15 |
|
11% |
| 5/10 | 8 |
|
6% |
| 4/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
2% |
75.26% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks valid reviews is 75.26% and is based on 135 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
75 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 135 valid reviews, the experience has 75 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 75 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 12 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 16 |
|
21% |
| 8/10 | 20 |
|
27% |
| 7/10 | 14 |
|
19% |
| 6/10 | 7 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 4 |
|
5% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
78.93% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks face-to-face reviews is 78.93% and is based on 75 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
73.12%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| RM | 3/10 | 61 days | 55% |
| Aoife | 9/10 | 122 days | 100% |
| Matt H | 8/10 | 580 days | 81% |
| Judy | 10/10 | 641 days | 78% |
| Miemil | 1/10 | 641 days | 32% |
| Stephanie | 1/10 | 730 days | 29% |
| Jouke | 9/10 | 822 days | 62% |
| Felix | 7/10 | 1491 days | 11% |
| Andrew Hammond | 8/10 | 1979 days | 5% |
| Lisanne | 4/10 | 2102 days | 3% |
| Kate | 7/10 | 2102 days | 4% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2191 days | 4% |
| Regina | 8/10 | 2222 days | 4% |
| Angela | 8/10 | 2314 days | 4% |
| Ray Tombs | 9/10 | 2497 days | 4% |
| Michael McMahon | 10/10 | 2497 days | 4% |
| Shira LA | 9/10 | 2556 days | 4% |
| Claire Hodges | 6/10 | 2566 days | 3% |
| Alecsandra Dimofte | 6/10 | 2600 days | 3% |
| Emilie Krasowski | 8/10 | 2606 days | 3% |
| Gary Prescot | 7/10 | 2681 days | 3% |
| Vanessa Stubbs | 8/10 | 2705 days | 3% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 2740 days | 3% |
| Chris Nugent | 6/10 | 2823 days | 3% |
| Francis Williams | 9/10 | 2936 days | 3% |
| Luke Young | 9/10 | 3096 days | 3% |
| Aaron Gunning | 5/10 | 3254 days | 2% |
| Jane Louise Stokes | 9/10 | 3272 days | 2% |
| Glinys Weller | 9/10 | 3298 days | 2% |
| Jean marc Daubenfeld | 8/10 | 3312 days | 2% |
| Dennis Biedermann | 5/10 | 3409 days | 1% |
| Melissa Darlington | 10/10 | 3415 days | 2% |
| Stephanie | 9/10 | 3551 days | 2% |
| Erica b | 5/10 | 3593 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 8/10 | 3624 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cruickshank | 9/10 | 3624 days | 1% |
| Nonrev | 8/10 | 3652 days | 1% |
| Nina Müller | 6/10 | 3652 days | 1% |
| Kim Frey | 6/10 | 3687 days | 1% |
| Bjorn Privat | 2/10 | 3705 days | 1% |
| neil holdaway | 6/10 | 3714 days | 1% |
| Jacques Revel | 6/10 | 3959 days | 1% |
| Matusala Habtemariam | 8/10 | 4013 days | 1% |
| B D | 6/10 | 4017 days | 1% |
| sreve | 6/10 | 4048 days | 1% |
| Andrew Cattanach | 6/10 | 4048 days | 1% |
| GARRYBLOWER | 9/10 | 4079 days | 1% |
| Alan Blackburn | 7/10 | 4079 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 5/10 | 4109 days | 0% |
| Stewart Littleford | 9/10 | 4170 days | 0% |
| Grantygrant | 7/10 | 4323 days | 0% |
| ramy | 2/10 | 4323 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 8/10 | 4364 days | 0% |
| Willem de Jong | 9/10 | 4375 days | 0% |
| Michael Nolan | 8/10 | 4382 days | 1% |
| Stripeyfish | 1/10 | 4413 days | 0% |
| Rob | 6/10 | 4430 days | 1% |
| Fred and Carin | 6/10 | 4433 days | 1% |
| Urs Kloter | 9/10 | 4435 days | 1% |
| Toby Clark | 9/10 | 4711 days | 1% |
| launch | 7/10 | 4719 days | 1% |
| Richard and Janet | 7/10 | 4722 days | 1% |
| Jeltje | 6/10 | 4728 days | 1% |
| Josef | 7/10 | 4729 days | 1% |
| Jim Addicott | 4/10 | 4732 days | 1% |
| Jim Delacruz | 8/10 | 4734 days | 1% |
| Horst Langstein | 8/10 | 4741 days | 1% |
| Frank Krivauek | 5/10 | 4742 days | 1% |
| Thyg Lingdal | 9/10 | 4747 days | 1% |
| Colin Jenkins | 7/10 | 4759 days | 1% |
| Herbert | 9/10 | 4761 days | 1% |
| Jackie & Ray | 10/10 | 4761 days | 1% |
| Fred Saunders | 10/10 | 4774 days | 1% |
| CMJ | 8/10 | 4779 days | 1% |
| Harry Simpson | 6/10 | 4817 days | 1% |
| Ruth & Derrick | 6/10 | 4823 days | 1% |
| Peter Spooner | 9/10 | 4827 days | 1% |
| Tamara | 8/10 | 4840 days | 1% |
| Jason Ritenour | 8/10 | 4901 days | 1% |
| qofd | 8/10 | 5024 days | 1% |
| Ilse & Thys | 7/10 | 5068 days | 1% |
| Victoria Boolsen | 10/10 | 5077 days | 1% |
| Malin Emanuelsson | 8/10 | 5088 days | 1% |
| Brian Clothier | 10/10 | 5089 days | 1% |
| D Hoekstra | 8/10 | 5108 days | 1% |
| Gerry Nichols | 9/10 | 5108 days | 1% |
| Mr & Mrs Winter | 9/10 | 5108 days | 1% |
| H Schepers | 8/10 | 5109 days | 1% |
| hendrik king | 7/10 | 5144 days | 1% |
| Mikeminch | 8/10 | 5175 days | 1% |
| kristy | 9/10 | 5236 days | 1% |
| Andrew Hammond | 9/10 | 5236 days | 1% |
| Zac Morris | 10/10 | 5266 days | 1% |
| Don & Geraldine | 7/10 | 5425 days | 1% |
| Brett & Tanille | 10/10 | 5438 days | 1% |
| Janny en Bert | 8/10 | 5440 days | 1% |
| Westermann | 4/10 | 5441 days | 1% |
| Shirley C | 8/10 | 5442 days | 1% |
| Pam Know | 5/10 | 5445 days | 1% |
| Colin Daniels | 5/10 | 5452 days | 1% |
| Janny Meerdinnk Veldboow | 8/10 | 5456 days | 1% |
| Bert Tonwen | 8/10 | 5459 days | 1% |
| Dale King | 7/10 | 5459 days | 1% |
| Dieter Groscurth | 8/10 | 5460 days | 1% |
| Gordon and Joyce | 10/10 | 5460 days | 1% |
| Yona | 7/10 | 5464 days | 1% |
| Pascal Auber | 10/10 | 5464 days | 1% |
| Silvia Kern | 9/10 | 5472 days | 1% |
| R Gilge | 9/10 | 5474 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 9/10 | 5475 days | 1% |
| Frances Hay | 7/10 | 5477 days | 1% |
| Paul Frew | 7/10 | 5487 days | 1% |
| Catherine Clavel | 7/10 | 5487 days | 1% |
| John J | 8/10 | 5492 days | 1% |
| Heino keyssler | 10/10 | 5498 days | 1% |
| middendorp | 8/10 | 5524 days | 1% |
| Robbertsen | 7/10 | 5532 days | 1% |
| Kirsty McGrath | 8/10 | 5544 days | 1% |
| Simon Bartholomew | 9/10 | 5552 days | 1% |
| Daniel Alonso | 10/10 | 5552 days | 1% |
| Ana Garcia | 10/10 | 5553 days | 1% |
| X Neils | 8/10 | 5562 days | 1% |
| Emily and Alex | 8/10 | 5567 days | 1% |
| PatH | 10/10 | 5584 days | 1% |
| Kazmeister | 7/10 | 5723 days | 1% |
| Johnnie | 8/10 | 5765 days | 1% |
| RussC | 7/10 | 5776 days | 1% |
| SteveB | 5/10 | 5784 days | 1% |
| Becca1 | 10/10 | 5786 days | 1% |
| RonB | 7/10 | 5796 days | 1% |
| Christine | 8/10 | 5797 days | 1% |
| LucyPoland | 9/10 | 5804 days | 1% |
| Suzie Lechner | 9/10 | 5804 days | 1% |
| ChrisWeb | 7/10 | 5818 days | 1% |
| VolkerS | 9/10 | 5818 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 Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-0.87% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 49 days. However the Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks 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 Christchurch Tasman Holiday Parks experience has been adjusted for 42 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 39 | -0.81% |
| 40 | -0.83% |
| 41 | -0.85% |
| 42 | -0.87% |
| 43 | -0.89% |
| 44 | -0.91% |
| 45 | -0.93% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
5.83% 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
78%
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.