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 Gillespies Beach Campsite.
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.
![](data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg width="300" height="300" viewBox="0 0 300 300" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"><rect id="bg" width="300" height="300" fill="rgb(46,196,145)" /><path d="m 150 605 Q 206 94 -305 150 Q 206 206 150 -305 Q 94 206 605 150 Q 94 94 150 605 z" fill="rgb(70,136,0)" /><path d="m 150 515 Q 296 4 -215 150 Q 296 296 150 -215 Q 4 296 515 150 Q 4 4 150 515 z" fill="rgb(185,119,255)" /><path d="m 150 176 Q 165 135 124 150 Q 165 165 150 124 Q 135 165 176 150 Q 135 135 150 176 z" fill="rgb(209,59,110)" /></svg>)
Gillespies Beach Campsite
Valid Reviews
107 Valid Reviews
The Gillespies Beach Campsite experience has a total of 110 reviews. There are 107 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 107 valid reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 29 |
|
27% |
| 9/10 | 19 |
|
18% |
| 8/10 | 28 |
|
26% |
| 7/10 | 14 |
|
13% |
| 6/10 | 7 |
|
7% |
| 5/10 | 4 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 3/10 | 4 |
|
4% |
| 2/10 | 1 |
|
1% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
80.65% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Gillespies Beach Campsite valid reviews is 80.65% and is based on 107 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
47 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 107 valid reviews, the experience has 47 face-to-face reviews collected during interviews by our team.
Below is the distribution of ratings for the 47 face-to-face reviews:
| Rating | Count | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/10 | 14 |
|
30% |
| 9/10 | 8 |
|
17% |
| 8/10 | 14 |
|
30% |
| 7/10 | 4 |
|
9% |
| 6/10 | 4 |
|
9% |
| 5/10 | 2 |
|
4% |
| 4/10 | 1 |
|
2% |
| 3/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 2/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
| 1/10 | 0 |
|
0% |
82.98% Average
The raw data average (mean) for all the Gillespies Beach Campsite face-to-face reviews is 82.98% and is based on 47 face-to-face reviews. This value is not used to calculate the ranking score and it only provided here for comparison purposes.
Weighted Average
79.10%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aaron | 5/10 | 186 days | 78% |
| Lea | 8/10 | 186 days | 100% |
| Tom | 8/10 | 460 days | 90% |
| Amparo | 6/10 | 460 days | 79% |
| Linda | 8/10 | 460 days | 90% |
| Lauren | 10/10 | 735 days | 72% |
| Ju | 8/10 | 794 days | 65% |
| Caolan Harvey | 9/10 | 886 days | 57% |
| The Gillies | 10/10 | 1524 days | 10% |
| Boardwalk Blss | 9/10 | 1647 days | 7% |
| John | 10/10 | 1677 days | 6% |
| Sandy | 9/10 | 1739 days | 5% |
| Niven | 10/10 | 1890 days | 5% |
| RYAN | 8/10 | 1982 days | 5% |
| Anonymous (117919) | 10/10 | 2013 days | 5% |
| John | 8/10 | 2227 days | 4% |
| Vanessa | 10/10 | 2227 days | 4% |
| Shaun | 10/10 | 2255 days | 4% |
| Helena Wong | 9/10 | 2255 days | 4% |
| Anwang | 10/10 | 2317 days | 4% |
| Michael | 9/10 | 2317 days | 4% |
| Connor | 10/10 | 2317 days | 4% |
| Macker | 7/10 | 2347 days | 4% |
| Karo | 8/10 | 2347 days | 4% |
| Arne | 7/10 | 2561 days | 3% |
| Luis Vigil Vidal | 9/10 | 2634 days | 3% |
| Phil and Mel Rowson | 9/10 | 2731 days | 3% |
| Bruce Graham | 8/10 | 2900 days | 3% |
| Judy Aspinall | 7/10 | 2911 days | 3% |
| Grace White | 7/10 | 2913 days | 3% |
| Marissa Carlberg | 9/10 | 2983 days | 3% |
| vaylenmoothia | 9/10 | 3014 days | 3% |
| Madi | 7/10 | 3041 days | 2% |
| Frederick Yott | 8/10 | 3041 days | 3% |
| Megan Jurgensmeyer | 10/10 | 3050 days | 3% |
| Peter Moore | 10/10 | 3057 days | 3% |
| Benjamin Nuttin | 3/10 | 3076 days | 1% |
| The Beans | 3/10 | 3076 days | 1% |
| Matthiew Rey | 9/10 | 3300 days | 2% |
| Howard Kestrel | 3/10 | 3303 days | 1% |
| Rachel Denham | 10/10 | 3317 days | 2% |
| Flo Egger | 8/10 | 3333 days | 2% |
| Marina | 7/10 | 3348 days | 2% |
| Baptiste Morin | 8/10 | 3392 days | 2% |
| Max Brunner | 10/10 | 3405 days | 2% |
| Sarah Gurney | 9/10 | 3415 days | 2% |
| Beau Corazon | 8/10 | 3439 days | 2% |
| Steve Warren | 9/10 | 3473 days | 2% |
| Dianne van der Wal | 7/10 | 3552 days | 1% |
| Matt Betts | 10/10 | 3632 days | 1% |
| Stephanie Poppe | 8/10 | 3662 days | 1% |
| Katharina Block | 8/10 | 3678 days | 1% |
| Annika Fletemeyer | 9/10 | 3678 days | 1% |
| Evelyn | 6/10 | 3715 days | 1% |
| Claudia | 9/10 | 3868 days | 1% |
| Daniel Jarrett | 8/10 | 3868 days | 1% |
| Caroline Hennache | 6/10 | 4021 days | 1% |
| Justin globalgauthiers.blogspot.com | 7/10 | 4022 days | 1% |
| Karen Garvin | 10/10 | 4023 days | 1% |
| jefft | 8/10 | 4023 days | 1% |
| Charlotte | 10/10 | 4024 days | 1% |
| Vuillermet | 9/10 | 4024 days | 1% |
| Agathe Dupuis | 6/10 | 4050 days | 0% |
| SC W | 7/10 | 4053 days | 1% |
| Tiit Pullerits | 7/10 | 4068 days | 0% |
| Marion Busch | 7/10 | 4068 days | 0% |
| Guillaim Terrangle | 8/10 | 4069 days | 1% |
| Evyatar Karni | 10/10 | 4115 days | 0% |
| Bjorn Van Mulders | 10/10 | 4122 days | 0% |
| Kim Maertens | 8/10 | 4122 days | 0% |
| Adam Taniwha | 2/10 | 4143 days | 0% |
| Andrew Potratz | 8/10 | 4204 days | 0% |
| Pei | 8/10 | 4326 days | 0% |
| Héléna Degres | 6/10 | 4387 days | 1% |
| Mycall | 7/10 | 4387 days | 1% |
| Michael Heuer | 8/10 | 4395 days | 1% |
| Giles Leonard | 5/10 | 4400 days | 1% |
| Sian Bolderson | 6/10 | 4401 days | 1% |
| Stientje van den Heuvel | 5/10 | 4404 days | 1% |
| Billy Koichopolos | 8/10 | 4411 days | 1% |
| Gina Lisi | 8/10 | 4411 days | 1% |
| Katey Justice | 8/10 | 4418 days | 1% |
| Stella Thoben | 9/10 | 4420 days | 1% |
| Patrick O'Connell | 10/10 | 4428 days | 1% |
| Daniel Jezak | 6/10 | 4428 days | 1% |
| Rena and Kirsten | 10/10 | 4522 days | 1% |
| Jessica Tilly | 10/10 | 4758 days | 1% |
| Petr Stepanek | 10/10 | 4775 days | 1% |
| Hanna Clement | 10/10 | 4777 days | 1% |
| Les Barnes | 9/10 | 4792 days | 1% |
| Maximilian Heller | 10/10 | 4804 days | 1% |
| Rainer Renntzsch | 9/10 | 4810 days | 1% |
| Mike1952 | 7/10 | 4812 days | 1% |
| Judith | 8/10 | 4863 days | 1% |
| Rachel_Flowers | 5/10 | 4874 days | 1% |
| Lydia McLean | 8/10 | 4890 days | 1% |
| jule | 10/10 | 4904 days | 1% |
| jhwjhw | 3/10 | 5088 days | 0% |
| Brian Jones | 10/10 | 5128 days | 1% |
| Karsten Tannhauser | 7/10 | 5132 days | 1% |
| Mark Walker | 9/10 | 5137 days | 1% |
| Marcel Camsch | 8/10 | 5141 days | 1% |
| Michael Long | 4/10 | 5142 days | 1% |
| Andy Cameron-Daniels | 10/10 | 5147 days | 1% |
| Galamez | 10/10 | 5156 days | 1% |
| csziegler | 10/10 | 5588 days | 1% |
| Seiler | 8/10 | 5606 days | 1% |
Adjustments
No Adjustment
Several adjustments to the weighted average may be added to improve relevancy and credibility. Gillespies Beach Campsite does not meet the criteria for any of these adjustments to apply.
Balancing Adjustment
3.26% 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 folk 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
82%
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.