Quality of Park Reviews

Veebyes wrote:
If only there was some consistency in the way people rated a CG.

There are those who will trash a place based on one negative item. For example how often have you seen a low score simply because a reservation was messed up & they did not get the site they wanted? Everything else was fine.

I suspect that many posters rate in a similar way. Start at a 10 rating & then deduct, giving the reasons for each point loss. For some WIFI is important & expected in a certain price range. For others not so much. For many the bathrooms are important. Some don't even use the CG bathrooms so, good or bad, no mention is made of them. I expect a table at every site regardless of price range. A fire ring is not expected at a CG that caters to one night transients & the lack of one at such a CG will not warrent a point deduction. The lack of one at a SP or a destination CG will get a point deduction.

Wading through different methods of rating is not that hard to do. The silly complaints are easy to spot.

And the no smoke people will add a point for no fire rings at a State Park or Destination campground. Surely you are not advocating having to change YOUR personal score based on someone else's criteria? I mean, should I have to deduct a point from my score because there isn't a picnic table I neither want or need if I pull into a perfectly good site for a quick overnight stay? There is no way to make ratings consistent from reviewer to reviewer. Good Sam tries to do it in their ratings, points for this, points for that, deductions for this, deductions for that, and you can search these forums and find numerous threads about how people believe the Good Sam ratings for a park are worthless.