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 Wanaka Hampshire 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.
Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park
Valid Reviews
144 Valid Reviews
The Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has a total of 147 reviews. There are 144 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 144 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 23 |
|
16% |
| 9/10 | 27 |
|
19% |
| 8/10 | 32 |
|
22% |
| 7/10 | 19 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 19 |
|
13% |
| 5/10 | 13 |
|
9% |
| 4/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
| 3/10 | 2 |
|
1% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 4 |
|
3% |
74.24% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park valid reviews is 74.24% and is based on 144 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
34 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 144 valid reviews, the experience has 34 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 34 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 9/10 | 3 |
|
9% |
| 8/10 | 7 |
|
21% |
| 7/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 6/10 | 7 |
|
21% |
| 5/10 | 7 |
|
21% |
| 4/10 | 2 |
|
6% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
3% |
| 1/10 | 3 |
|
9% |
60.88% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park face-to-face reviews is 60.88% and is based on 34 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
84.34%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dean | 10/10 | 112 days | 100% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 234 days | 97% |
| Hannah | 10/10 | 234 days | 98% |
| Jorian | 6/10 | 265 days | 83% |
| Lou | 10/10 | 294 days | 96% |
| Tal Tal | 10/10 | 325 days | 95% |
| Donna Harbidge | 9/10 | 447 days | 88% |
| Charlie | 9/10 | 478 days | 87% |
| Henry | 9/10 | 509 days | 85% |
| Amy Catley | 6/10 | 570 days | 71% |
| FitzHanss | 10/10 | 631 days | 78% |
| Lieke | 4/10 | 659 days | 49% |
| Ju | 4/10 | 659 days | 49% |
| Alexandra | 9/10 | 690 days | 73% |
| Aiden | 6/10 | 690 days | 63% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 690 days | 73% |
| RR | 9/10 | 721 days | 70% |
| Sophie | 8/10 | 721 days | 69% |
| Amel | 10/10 | 721 days | 71% |
| Julia | 9/10 | 721 days | 70% |
| Evan | 8/10 | 751 days | 67% |
| Marcus | 3/10 | 751 days | 37% |
| Rebecca Woodbridge | 8/10 | 751 days | 67% |
| Eoin from Ireland | 10/10 | 782 days | 66% |
| Hannah and Matthew | 7/10 | 843 days | 56% |
| Justin | 10/10 | 1055 days | 39% |
| Wayne | 10/10 | 1147 days | 31% |
| Karthik | 10/10 | 1330 days | 19% |
| Thomas neil | 9/10 | 1361 days | 17% |
| Ange | 10/10 | 1420 days | 14% |
| Rach | 8/10 | 1481 days | 11% |
| Grace | 10/10 | 1481 days | 12% |
| JS | 8/10 | 1542 days | 9% |
| Jed Barnett | 10/10 | 1755 days | 5% |
| Clauds | 9/10 | 1755 days | 5% |
| Amanda | 8/10 | 1786 days | 5% |
| Fran | 9/10 | 1817 days | 5% |
| Sheri | 10/10 | 1847 days | 5% |
| Linda QLD | 9/10 | 2000 days | 4% |
| Lisanne | 7/10 | 2061 days | 4% |
| Beth | 9/10 | 2092 days | 4% |
| John | 3/10 | 2092 days | 2% |
| Michi | 9/10 | 2092 days | 4% |
| Jacqui | 8/10 | 2151 days | 4% |
| Inna | 10/10 | 2151 days | 4% |
| Tac | 9/10 | 2151 days | 4% |
| Anwang | 7/10 | 2182 days | 4% |
| Juraj | 7/10 | 2182 days | 4% |
| Kelsie | 9/10 | 2212 days | 4% |
| Nifty | 8/10 | 2212 days | 4% |
| Violet Murphy | 5/10 | 2243 days | 3% |
| Philip Page | 7/10 | 2243 days | 4% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 2243 days | 4% |
| Adva Cohen | 1/10 | 2273 days | 2% |
| Rachel | 8/10 | 2273 days | 4% |
| Holly Bartholomew | 7/10 | 2273 days | 4% |
| Cassie | 8/10 | 2273 days | 4% |
| Andres | 10/10 | 2304 days | 4% |
| Abu Samah Harun | 10/10 | 2335 days | 4% |
| Bex & Jake | 9/10 | 2396 days | 4% |
| Nathaniel Bond | 9/10 | 2455 days | 3% |
| Nicky Edwards | 9/10 | 2470 days | 4% |
| Hanneke van Dijk | 6/10 | 2490 days | 2% |
| Rogier van de Wiel | 8/10 | 2496 days | 3% |
| Helen Bond | 10/10 | 2516 days | 4% |
| Leong Mee Yee | 8/10 | 2518 days | 3% |
| Meijerelske | 9/10 | 2522 days | 3% |
| Laura Meelynn | 8/10 | 2546 days | 3% |
| Joe Trigg | 8/10 | 2588 days | 3% |
| Jenna Neivandt | 10/10 | 2628 days | 3% |
| Jozef Pinkerton | 6/10 | 2628 days | 3% |
| c mccabe | 8/10 | 2660 days | 3% |
| Chloe Watson | 8/10 | 2693 days | 3% |
| Duncan | 7/10 | 2745 days | 3% |
| Marc Lambert | 5/10 | 2797 days | 2% |
| Renard D | 5/10 | 2825 days | 2% |
| Daniel Andersson | 8/10 | 2849 days | 3% |
| Victoria Strong | 8/10 | 2879 days | 3% |
| David Townsend | 6/10 | 2930 days | 2% |
| Alicia McCormick | 6/10 | 3056 days | 2% |
| W Donovan | 8/10 | 3132 days | 2% |
| Wayne Jeskie | 5/10 | 3143 days | 2% |
| phillip dudman | 7/10 | 3143 days | 2% |
| Sara Dimnik | 7/10 | 3169 days | 2% |
| Sean Stevens | 8/10 | 3188 days | 2% |
| Corina Sima | 8/10 | 3194 days | 2% |
| Perrine Pilate | 8/10 | 3205 days | 2% |
| Helen James | 6/10 | 3217 days | 2% |
| Alex Macdonald | 6/10 | 3246 days | 2% |
| Harriet Bramley | 7/10 | 3372 days | 2% |
| Mitchell Henderson | 6/10 | 3398 days | 2% |
| Amy Steiger | 7/10 | 3399 days | 2% |
| Shelley | 5/10 | 3423 days | 1% |
| Nicole | 6/10 | 3468 days | 1% |
| Alistair Millward | 7/10 | 3549 days | 1% |
| Sam Smith | 5/10 | 3552 days | 1% |
| Adam Wight | 6/10 | 3555 days | 1% |
| Sebastiaan Kemperman | 6/10 | 3567 days | 1% |
| Wilma Senior | 7/10 | 3580 days | 1% |
| Stefanie Feldman | 7/10 | 3600 days | 1% |
| Rebecca Weight | 8/10 | 3604 days | 1% |
| Alexis Leneveu | 10/10 | 3619 days | 1% |
| Viki Ziemba | 9/10 | 3636 days | 1% |
| Bert Snel | 9/10 | 3672 days | 1% |
| Claudia | 10/10 | 3733 days | 1% |
| Ane Didriksen | 6/10 | 3884 days | 0% |
| Iris Anette Berger | 6/10 | 3884 days | 0% |
| Mike Fricker | 9/10 | 3887 days | 1% |
| JoMary Smith | 7/10 | 3946 days | 1% |
| catherine welsh | 6/10 | 3977 days | 1% |
| andrewmh | 8/10 | 4008 days | 1% |
| PipandJon | 8/10 | 4038 days | 0% |
| Jitka Krejcova | 10/10 | 4269 days | 0% |
| Bertiethebus | 7/10 | 4283 days | 0% |
| Patrycja Polakowska | 9/10 | 4293 days | 0% |
| Peter & Kate Carmichael | 8/10 | 4659 days | 1% |
| Aoife Lillis | 9/10 | 4665 days | 1% |
| G Tulloch | 1/10 | 4977 days | 0% |
| Sally Reeves | 1/10 | 4993 days | 0% |
| Hanggi | 10/10 | 4994 days | 1% |
| Julie | 5/10 | 4996 days | 0% |
| Alex | 7/10 | 5001 days | 1% |
| Eddie Stevens | 5/10 | 5008 days | 0% |
| Claudia Vermeer | 8/10 | 5028 days | 1% |
| Gillian de Vries | 6/10 | 5035 days | 0% |
| dollimyxture | 7/10 | 5104 days | 1% |
| Polil | 5/10 | 5365 days | 0% |
| Marcus Kippner | 8/10 | 5370 days | 1% |
| Barbara & Sven | 5/10 | 5381 days | 0% |
| Rolf X | 6/10 | 5389 days | 0% |
| Schygulla | 8/10 | 5399 days | 1% |
| Sinjc Grude | 8/10 | 5404 days | 1% |
| Lorena | 9/10 | 5407 days | 1% |
| Ross & Catherine Litherland | 2/10 | 5420 days | 0% |
| asselman | 4/10 | 5454 days | 0% |
| Decuq | 5/10 | 5480 days | 0% |
| paulandcathy | 5/10 | 5524 days | 0% |
| Kelly | 5/10 | 5624 days | 0% |
| OliverG1 | 8/10 | 5701 days | 1% |
| JoR | 4/10 | 5701 days | 0% |
| Vivien Williams | 1/10 | 5731 days | 0% |
| MetteK | 8/10 | 5747 days | 1% |
| Lucas | 6/10 | 5756 days | 0% |
| Frank | 7/10 | 5756 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 Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has plenty of reviews and does not meet the criteria for any adjustment.
Recent Reviews Adjustment
-1.82% Adjustment
There may be an adjustment if this experience hasn't received any reviews within the last 43 days. However the Wanaka Hampshire 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 Wanaka Hampshire Holiday Park experience has been adjusted for 90 days. Adjustments are according to the following table.
| Days | Adjustment |
|---|---|
| … | … |
| 87 | -1.76% |
| 88 | -1.78% |
| 89 | -1.80% |
| 90 | -1.82% |
| 91 | -1.84% |
| 92 | -1.86% |
| 93 | -1.88% |
| … | … |
Balancing Adjustment
2.36% 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
85%
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.