How we rate
THMPRK · Editorial policy · Version 1.1 · October 24, 2026
The THMPRK Score is our researched editorial assessment of an individual park, out of 10. We use published park information and relevant visitor experiences to explain what a day out may offer, what it may cost and where the trade-offs lie. It is a judgment, not a visitor-star average, inspection or claim of a THMPRK visit.
This version allows a reasoned, clearly identified editorial estimate when review evidence or a full comparison is unavailable. It does not permit invented sources, review counts, observations, prices or visits. Earlier methodology 1.0 assessments retain their original evidence and approval rules until explicitly revised. Visitor submissions remain corrections rather than public star reviews.
The seven categories
| Category | Weight | What we assess |
|---|---|---|
| Value for a day out | 30% | The worthwhile included experience relative to a realistic total cost: admission, tax, unavoidable fees, parking where relevant, and realistic food options. Optional queue upgrades and other extras are disclosed separately. Cheap alone does not mean good value. |
| Attractions and experiences | 20% | Quality, variety, repeat appeal and a coherent day’s worth of experiences for the park’s intended audience. Count operating attractions, not announced projects. A small family park is judged against appropriate peers, not against the coaster count of a major destination park. |
| Operations and time well spent | 15% | Reported reliability, queue handling, communication, staffing and realistic opportunities to enjoy what admission includes. Distinguish peak-day experiences from typical days, weather closures from persistent issues, and premium access from normal admission. |
| Reported cleanliness and upkeep | 10% | Recent, repeated visitor evidence about restrooms, litter, seating, dining areas and visible upkeep. This is reported visitor experience, not a hygiene inspection, water-quality measurement or safety certification. |
| Accessibility and inclusion | 10% | Practical access: clear advance information, physical and sensory access, assistance processes, family needs and evidence of how those arrangements work. Clear documentation alone cannot prove a barrier-free visit. Do not penalize a visitor’s needs or infer legal compliance. |
| Comfort and amenities | 10% | Shade or weather protection appropriate to the setting, seating, toilets, drinking water, food choice, dietary information, lockers and a manageable day. Avoid scoring cleanliness twice. |
| Character and distinctiveness | 5% | What makes this park worth choosing: coherent atmosphere, memorable setting, original experiences and local character. Licensed intellectual property and marketing budget are not proxies for quality. |
The calculation
Score = 0.30V + 0.20A + 0.15O + 0.10C + 0.10I + 0.10M + 0.05D
Each category uses 0–10 in half-point steps. We keep calculation precision and display the weighted total to one decimal place. The weights have not changed. Scores 8, 9, 7, 8, 7, 8 and 9 produce 8.0/10. That is an illustration, not a park assessment.
All seven categories need a stated score, cited support and an explanation. An estimate is acceptable when its actual basis and uncertainty are explained. A category with no relevant source or reasoned basis remains unassessed; missing information is never silently converted into zero, five or a redistributed weight. An incomplete composite is Not yet assessed.
Consistent anchors
0 represents the weakest supported judgment; 2 serious shortcomings; 4 material weaknesses; 6 a satisfactory experience with trade-offs; 8 strong performance with limited drawbacks; and 10 an exceptional case supported by the available information. Intermediate scores require a rationale. Confidence describes the strength of the evidence, not the quality of the park, and is never an automatic numerical penalty.
Sources, visitor experience and estimates
Every scored category needs at least one relevant public source, a real publisher, an actual check date and a rationale connected to that material. Publication dates are included when known, never invented. Prefer at least two independent visitor platforms where available, especially for operations and cleanliness. Different pages, subdomains or country sites from one publisher do not become independent sources. Operator material is identified as official information, not relabeled as independent visitor evidence.
A category may use Published source facts, Reported visitor experience or an Editorial estimate. The last requires a public explanation of the cited basis and its limitations. Where relevant visitor evidence is narrow or absent, a reasoned estimate can use other relevant published information, but it must not imply observed conditions or a sampled visitor consensus. If no relevant basis exists, we leave it unassessed.
Operations and cleanliness are particularly variable. Look for recurring, relevant accounts and distinguish normal visits from exceptional events, weather disruption and seasonal conditions. Do not convert overall platform stars into a cleanliness measure or describe operator cleaning policies as proof of spotless facilities. A cleanliness estimate is not a hygiene inspection, safety certification or water-quality result.
Record sample dates and counts only for accounts actually examined; do not manufacture a sample to meet a threshold. A minimum of 20 accounts is no longer a publication requirement in version 1.1. Where actual sampling supports the assessment, keep its selection, date range, platform split, relevant/screened counts and exclusions privately. An overall source-page check does not invent a visit date. Small, incomplete or unavailable review coverage receives a visible limitation.
Make value useful
Value has the greatest weight. Consider the worthwhile included experience against a realistic day’s cost: admission, taxes and mandatory fees, parking where relevant, and practical food choices. Account for age/height rules, audience, visit timing and optional upgrades. Cheap alone is not good value; a promotional minimum is not a typical ticket price.
Comparable regional peers and dated adult/family weekday/weekend baskets strengthen a value assessment. A full five-peer comparison is preferred detailed support, not a version 1.1 publication gate. When unavailable, explain the narrower published basis and use a limited-confidence judgment. Do not imply completed baskets, verified current prices or peer research that did not occur. Link to official booking pages for volatile costs.
Visible evidence strength
Researched assessment identifies a source-supported judgment with the documented review/comparison coverage used by this rubric. Limited review evidence makes narrower support visible: it can reflect editorial estimates, low confidence, fewer independent visitor sources, incomplete sampling or a narrower value comparison. Each affected category also identifies its evidence basis and limitations. A limited label is not a negative visitor review or a claim that the park performed badly.
We publish category scores, weights, reasoning, source links and check dates, overall and criterion confidence, assessment date, editorial byline, audience, strengths, caveats and relevant disclosures. A byline may identify THMPRK as the publishing outlet. It does not assert a personal visit or any unstated research credential.
Publication, freshness and history
Publishing requires an intentional authenticated administrator action tied to the exact assessment data and methodology version. It confirms the cited basis, record identity, inferences and limitations were reviewed for publication. It does not convert a draft, an old approval or a source fetch into a fresh assessment. Changing data without a new publication action withdraws its approval; an unchanged assessment may retain its existing approval.
Value sources must be checked within 90 days; other category sources within 180 days. Assessment and approval must be within 90 days. Actually used recent sample/comparison evidence can shorten the validity window. Dates are not rolled forward automatically. Stale required evidence withdraws the composite until it is revisited. Refresh sooner after material pricing, operating or accessibility changes.
Disclose hosted visits, paid relationships, affiliate interests and other material conflicts. Unresolved conflicts prevent publication. A park cannot buy a score or edit its assessment. Corrections receive a dated decision trail. Version 1.0 records retain their original normalized data, approval fingerprint and stricter gates; converting them creates an explicit new revision and preserves the old record privately.
Keep brief research summaries, citations and limitations privately. Do not copy full reviews, reviewer identities or private account material. Use permitted access without bypassing login walls or access restrictions. Source references are not permission to reuse photographs.
How it appears on THMPRK
Use THMPRK Score — researched assessment, a clear “8.0 / 10” treatment and the applicable evidence-strength label. No visitor stars or fabricated review count accompanies it. The breakdown is readable without JavaScript, with text labels rather than color-only meaning. An unassessed park is not a bad park. Attendance-based popularity sorting is separate from this quality assessment.
HTML and Markdown expose the same approved public reasoning, basis, dates, sources and uncertainty. Private source notes, sample details, cost baskets, draft values, administrator identities and approval hashes stay private. These researched editorial judgments do not produce Review or AggregateRating schema. Resort overviews do not inherit an average of child scores; this rubric covers individual park venues.
Catalog rules accompanying this policy
Use official park names and capitalization. City, full region and country belong in location fields and subtitles, with postal codes confined to address data. Canonical paths use real known geography and an actual assigned resort, never “anywhere” placeholders. Preserve old paths as redirects. A theme park and distinct water park may share a source-backed THMPRK resort grouping, labeled as such when it is an editorial navigation group. Embedded water areas remain within their individual park.