Campground Ratings -

Thank you everyone for your feedback! At this time since the OP's concerns have been addressed we are closing this thread down. Take care!

Elizabeth
Marcus Rapid Response Team

wannavolunteerFT wrote:
I think the suggestion of a scorecard is critical to making the ratings mean anything.. For example, a park I know of would get probably get a 9 or so in the third category. But the thing is that 9 would make me think it is a pretty good place, and it is ... if you can get in and parked... I have been there previously in a popup, but am not near brave enough to try taking my TT that I travel alone with. The sites are really strangely arranged, and with lots of trees to dodge, I don't think I could park my trailer.. unless the park was empty, so I could ignore roads and cut across multiple sites to get situated. It is quiet, well maintained and fits all the check marks for a high rating in that category.. so if I didn't know from having been there, I would think it would be a great place... only 1 point deducted for the site layouts.. some type of report card/scorecard to tell me why the park got a 9 would be so helpful. This park does not have a GS rating, only a listing that it exists.

the same applies to all categories, when I am traveling, I don't necessarily need all the recreation activities. I may just want a place to park and sleep. for example, when visiting my DD, I stay somewhere that has NO activities, good hookups, sites clean and easy to get into, park itself is a challenge to find, sign is not very large or obvious. so it would get low ratings for a number of things.. and a zero for bath facilites (they have NONE), but if it were rated under Good Sam ratings, it would have terrible ratings.. the score card would allow me to realize, they are because of no recreation, not bad connections, sites or roads. Just went and looked... this place has a 6.5 for facility, and 8.5 for appeal, and a 10 with a star for RESTROOMS... How does it get a 10 when there are NO restrooms.

I am sure that if you edited the book to the parks there would be many of these mistakes...but it is a really good question that makes you wonder if anyone really went there to look.

I have been in several parks where the bathrooms are spotless and yet their rating for them is midway. It makes me wonder what personal standards are being applied in the rating process.

And like you I have been to many parks that were wonderful in lots of ways but lacked the so called "popular Amenities" and were rated lower on that basis. This automatically skews the rating system toward the huge parks. In the southwest give me SHADE TREES any day over shuffleboard, pot lucks and sing-alongs.

I think the suggestion of a scorecard is critical to making the ratings mean anything.. For example, a park I know of would get probably get a 9 or so in the third category. But the thing is that 9 would make me think it is a pretty good place, and it is ... if you can get in and parked... I have been there previously in a popup, but am not near brave enough to try taking my TT that I travel alone with. The sites are really strangely arranged, and with lots of trees to dodge, I don't think I could park my trailer.. unless the park was empty, so I could ignore roads and cut across multiple sites to get situated. It is quiet, well maintained and fits all the check marks for a high rating in that category.. so if I didn't know from having been there, I would think it would be a great place... only 1 point deducted for the site layouts.. some type of report card/scorecard to tell me why the park got a 9 would be so helpful. This park does not have a GS rating, only a listing that it exists.

the same applies to all categories, when I am traveling, I don't necessarily need all the recreation activities. I may just want a place to park and sleep. for example, when visiting my DD, I stay somewhere that has NO activities, good hookups, sites clean and easy to get into, park itself is a challenge to find, sign is not very large or obvious. so it would get low ratings for a number of things.. and a zero for bath facilites (they have NONE), but if it were rated under Good Sam ratings, it would have terrible ratings.. the score card would allow me to realize, they are because of no recreation, not bad connections, sites or roads. Just went and looked... this place has a 6.5 for facility, and 8.5 for appeal, and a 10 with a star for RESTROOMS... How does it get a 10 when there are NO restrooms.

montanarvparkowner wrote: "I would be opposed to any system that "changed on the fly". That would only enable those who want to falsely game the system. It sure would be easy for a hater to post a few "dirty, no longer has wifi, no longer has cable TV" posts to drive down a score. Conversely, a few glowing reviews by the owner and his family could drive the ratings of a dump up to the Ritz. There are already plenty of user driven review sites, I don't see the need for another. The Good Sam review is a different animal that does present some value when you understand how it works."

I understand how you feel. For more than 7 years I owned a Resort Boutique Hotel in SE Asia, Upscale family oriented. I fully understand the effect that the odd customer with a grudge or nasty competition can have on you when they post to sites like Trip Advisor gaming the system.

However I found that in talkinng to the vast majority of my customers they discounted most of the reviews that came across as too nasty or semed odd. And similarly they discounted the Gushing praise filled everything is perfect posts too. As bad as they are...and none are worse than Trip Advisor in my book. They are a reality of todays world and businesses need to find ways to deal with them and strategize how to make them work for you. (easier said than done admittedly)

When I use the Good Sam Book I find it difficult (or at least irritating) on several levels.

One is what we've been discussing..the reviews and their lack of real perspective and overall fairness..especially to the smaller parks.

But other things stick out to me that make that huge tome difficult.

One is the city name listings. They need a new font and scale to better stand out. I actually find myself skimming the reviews and paying closer attention to the ads. The tight paragraph of the reviews are so dense reading them is not fun.

There are many changes that could be made to make it much better and easier to use and more accessible. But I just dont think they have the will to undertake such a project.

It must be fair to the parks...but first and foremost it must serve it's customer base.

4X4Dodger wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:

4X4Dodger wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:

Charolaisbreeders wrote:
This forum is supposed to be to allow us to let the head man know what is wrong. The rating system is NOT RIGHT and now I have received two pacifying answers from an underling that has done nothing but make me angry. Now I will take this to certified mail direct with Mr. Marcus Lemonis, he needs to know how bad this situation is and not have the setting up of a proper feedback on campground sites pushed to the side as it has been for several years. I believe many parks do not want it. I doubt if Valterra, Camco, etc. look forward to all feedback on the Camping World site but if they use it constructively they find their problems and can improve their products.

Sorry to the other posters but this last answer just does not sit with me, hope the other GS members understand.

Maybe you don't like the rating system, but I sure haven't seen any suggestions that would make it better. If you open it up to having people post their opinions, that would just make it a carbon copy of RVparkreviews.com which has it's own challenges.
I see where you apparently breed Charolais cattle. What rating system would work for all cows? Charolais would be a fine choice for stock if you were looking to start a beef operation in the Midwest, might not be such a good option if you were looking to run free range cattle in Montana and would be a downright bad option if you were starting a dairy farm in Wisconsin. So no ranking system could or would rate all cows. Same with RV Parks. What is attractive to one guest is basically repulsive to another. Some want paved roads, paved pads, manicured grounds. Others want nature. Some people want activities, some people want peace and quiet. Some people want and use restrooms, showers, pools, spas etc., some people resent knowing their site fees include access to a bunch of stuff they never use.
You are right, many parks do not want the rating system opened up to the public. That is because a small fraction of the public will go out of their way to attempt to hurt a park due to some perceived slight they feel they experienced. Some people will give an incredibly bad score to a park simply because it wasn't what THEY wanted it to be, not because there was something wrong with the park. Then there is the problem of a single guest's experience is often not indicative of the entire park. It surely wouldn't be fair to say all Charolais are disease prone if I bought one and it got sick and died, and neither is it fair the say the entire RV park is bad because a site I got was unlevel. It may be true, but it may be just bad luck. Ratings should somehow reflect the truth, not luck, and that is what the rating system Good Sam uses attempts to provide.

And you should also know that Good Sam derives a good bit of revenue off the parks. We pay a fee to be a Good Sam Park. We buy advertising from Good Sam. We provide them with a membership benefit for their members. Without member parks, Good Sam would be pretty much SOL.
So I guess you should go fire off your so last century certified letter. I am sure it will get the attention it deserves.

Montanrvparkowner, one question...do you truly feel the current Good Sam rating system rates your park accurately?

The argument to invent a rating system of ones own to suggest is a straw-man argument. It just is not feasible. All parties involved need to be included in a re-work of the rating system so it reflects the concerns and insights and as many ideas and experiences of as many players as possible. INCLUDING USERS.

Other than that I agree with most of what you write above. So called "Mob" sites of self raters have their own problems. However you must realize that you are being rated online anyway with or without RV.Net having a place for it. I think the best thing to do is to try to get ahead of it and have a voice in how it's done and ensure a fair system for removing fake and "revenge" reviews.

Actually, if I was to rate my parks using the Good Sam system, I would get about the same scores. My ongoing suggestion for changing the current system is for Good Sam to post the scorecard for each park online. Then someone could see the reasons why park A scored 9/10*/8 versus Park B that scored 7/10*/8. Maybe Park A had a pool and playground and would have scored a 10 on the first rating but lost a point for noise. While Park B didn't have those amenities but didn't lose a point for noise. Someone who wanted a quiet park and didn't care about pools and playgrounds might choose Park B over A. Posting each park's scorecard would at least end some of the questions why one park's score differed from another and would give some more insight into each park.

You are right. The ratings as they are currently and the way they are presented do not allow one to understand why one park got one score and another park a different score.

The other advantage to having the system online would be that it could be updated much faster to better reflect changes (good or bad) at individual parks. This is the Lonely Planet approach on the web with their guidebooks. It would also (hopefully) have a space for user comments which may (or may not) be valluable in a decision where to stay.

In the end I think GSE must come to terms with what is essentially a faulty system that is clunky, ends up being out of date by the time the book is published in some cases and doesnt really reflect a given parks "true" nature or Ambiance.

I would be opposed to any system that "changed on the fly". That would only enable those who want to falsely game the system. It sure would be easy for a hater to post a few "dirty, no longer has wifi, no longer has cable TV" posts to drive down a score. Conversely, a few glowing reviews by the owner and his family could drive the ratings of a dump up to the Ritz. There are already plenty of user driven review sites, I don't see the need for another. The Good Sam review is a different animal that does present some value when you understand how it works.

westernrvparkowner wrote:

4X4Dodger wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:

Charolaisbreeders wrote:
This forum is supposed to be to allow us to let the head man know what is wrong. The rating system is NOT RIGHT and now I have received two pacifying answers from an underling that has done nothing but make me angry. Now I will take this to certified mail direct with Mr. Marcus Lemonis, he needs to know how bad this situation is and not have the setting up of a proper feedback on campground sites pushed to the side as it has been for several years. I believe many parks do not want it. I doubt if Valterra, Camco, etc. look forward to all feedback on the Camping World site but if they use it constructively they find their problems and can improve their products.

Sorry to the other posters but this last answer just does not sit with me, hope the other GS members understand.

Maybe you don't like the rating system, but I sure haven't seen any suggestions that would make it better. If you open it up to having people post their opinions, that would just make it a carbon copy of RVparkreviews.com which has it's own challenges.
I see where you apparently breed Charolais cattle. What rating system would work for all cows? Charolais would be a fine choice for stock if you were looking to start a beef operation in the Midwest, might not be such a good option if you were looking to run free range cattle in Montana and would be a downright bad option if you were starting a dairy farm in Wisconsin. So no ranking system could or would rate all cows. Same with RV Parks. What is attractive to one guest is basically repulsive to another. Some want paved roads, paved pads, manicured grounds. Others want nature. Some people want activities, some people want peace and quiet. Some people want and use restrooms, showers, pools, spas etc., some people resent knowing their site fees include access to a bunch of stuff they never use.
You are right, many parks do not want the rating system opened up to the public. That is because a small fraction of the public will go out of their way to attempt to hurt a park due to some perceived slight they feel they experienced. Some people will give an incredibly bad score to a park simply because it wasn't what THEY wanted it to be, not because there was something wrong with the park. Then there is the problem of a single guest's experience is often not indicative of the entire park. It surely wouldn't be fair to say all Charolais are disease prone if I bought one and it got sick and died, and neither is it fair the say the entire RV park is bad because a site I got was unlevel. It may be true, but it may be just bad luck. Ratings should somehow reflect the truth, not luck, and that is what the rating system Good Sam uses attempts to provide.

And you should also know that Good Sam derives a good bit of revenue off the parks. We pay a fee to be a Good Sam Park. We buy advertising from Good Sam. We provide them with a membership benefit for their members. Without member parks, Good Sam would be pretty much SOL.
So I guess you should go fire off your so last century certified letter. I am sure it will get the attention it deserves.

Montanrvparkowner, one question...do you truly feel the current Good Sam rating system rates your park accurately?

The argument to invent a rating system of ones own to suggest is a straw-man argument. It just is not feasible. All parties involved need to be included in a re-work of the rating system so it reflects the concerns and insights and as many ideas and experiences of as many players as possible. INCLUDING USERS.

Other than that I agree with most of what you write above. So called "Mob" sites of self raters have their own problems. However you must realize that you are being rated online anyway with or without RV.Net having a place for it. I think the best thing to do is to try to get ahead of it and have a voice in how it's done and ensure a fair system for removing fake and "revenge" reviews.

Actually, if I was to rate my parks using the Good Sam system, I would get about the same scores. My ongoing suggestion for changing the current system is for Good Sam to post the scorecard for each park online. Then someone could see the reasons why park A scored 9/10*/8 versus Park B that scored 7/10*/8. Maybe Park A had a pool and playground and would have scored a 10 on the first rating but lost a point for noise. While Park B didn't have those amenities but didn't lose a point for noise. Someone who wanted a quiet park and didn't care about pools and playgrounds might choose Park B over A. Posting each park's scorecard would at least end some of the questions why one park's score differed from another and would give some more insight into each park.

You are right. The ratings as they are currently and the way they are presented do not allow one to understand why one park got one score and another park a different score.

The other advantage to having the system online would be that it could be updated much faster to better reflect changes (good or bad) at individual parks. This is the Lonely Planet approach on the web with their guidebooks. It would also (hopefully) have a space for user comments which may (or may not) be valluable in a decision where to stay.

In the end I think GSE must come to terms with what is essentially a faulty system that is clunky, ends up being out of date by the time the book is published in some cases and doesnt really reflect a given parks "true" nature or Ambiance.

4X4Dodger wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:

Charolaisbreeders wrote:
This forum is supposed to be to allow us to let the head man know what is wrong. The rating system is NOT RIGHT and now I have received two pacifying answers from an underling that has done nothing but make me angry. Now I will take this to certified mail direct with Mr. Marcus Lemonis, he needs to know how bad this situation is and not have the setting up of a proper feedback on campground sites pushed to the side as it has been for several years. I believe many parks do not want it. I doubt if Valterra, Camco, etc. look forward to all feedback on the Camping World site but if they use it constructively they find their problems and can improve their products.

Sorry to the other posters but this last answer just does not sit with me, hope the other GS members understand.

Maybe you don't like the rating system, but I sure haven't seen any suggestions that would make it better. If you open it up to having people post their opinions, that would just make it a carbon copy of RVparkreviews.com which has it's own challenges.
I see where you apparently breed Charolais cattle. What rating system would work for all cows? Charolais would be a fine choice for stock if you were looking to start a beef operation in the Midwest, might not be such a good option if you were looking to run free range cattle in Montana and would be a downright bad option if you were starting a dairy farm in Wisconsin. So no ranking system could or would rate all cows. Same with RV Parks. What is attractive to one guest is basically repulsive to another. Some want paved roads, paved pads, manicured grounds. Others want nature. Some people want activities, some people want peace and quiet. Some people want and use restrooms, showers, pools, spas etc., some people resent knowing their site fees include access to a bunch of stuff they never use.
You are right, many parks do not want the rating system opened up to the public. That is because a small fraction of the public will go out of their way to attempt to hurt a park due to some perceived slight they feel they experienced. Some people will give an incredibly bad score to a park simply because it wasn't what THEY wanted it to be, not because there was something wrong with the park. Then there is the problem of a single guest's experience is often not indicative of the entire park. It surely wouldn't be fair to say all Charolais are disease prone if I bought one and it got sick and died, and neither is it fair the say the entire RV park is bad because a site I got was unlevel. It may be true, but it may be just bad luck. Ratings should somehow reflect the truth, not luck, and that is what the rating system Good Sam uses attempts to provide.

And you should also know that Good Sam derives a good bit of revenue off the parks. We pay a fee to be a Good Sam Park. We buy advertising from Good Sam. We provide them with a membership benefit for their members. Without member parks, Good Sam would be pretty much SOL.
So I guess you should go fire off your so last century certified letter. I am sure it will get the attention it deserves.

Montanrvparkowner, one question...do you truly feel the current Good Sam rating system rates your park accurately?

The argument to invent a rating system of ones own to suggest is a straw-man argument. It just is not feasible. All parties involved need to be included in a re-work of the rating system so it reflects the concerns and insights and as many ideas and experiences of as many players as possible. INCLUDING USERS.

Other than that I agree with most of what you write above. So called "Mob" sites of self raters have their own problems. However you must realize that you are being rated online anyway with or without RV.Net having a place for it. I think the best thing to do is to try to get ahead of it and have a voice in how it's done and ensure a fair system for removing fake and "revenge" reviews.

Actually, if I was to rate my parks using the Good Sam system, I would get about the same scores. My ongoing suggestion for changing the current system is for Good Sam to post the scorecard for each park online. Then someone could see the reasons why park A scored 9/10*/8 versus Park B that scored 7/10*/8. Maybe Park A had a pool and playground and would have scored a 10 on the first rating but lost a point for noise. While Park B didn't have those amenities but didn't lose a point for noise. Someone who wanted a quiet park and didn't care about pools and playgrounds might choose Park B over A. Posting each park's scorecard would at least end some of the questions why one park's score differed from another and would give some more insight into each park.

westernrvparkowner wrote:

Charolaisbreeders wrote:
This forum is supposed to be to allow us to let the head man know what is wrong. The rating system is NOT RIGHT and now I have received two pacifying answers from an underling that has done nothing but make me angry. Now I will take this to certified mail direct with Mr. Marcus Lemonis, he needs to know how bad this situation is and not have the setting up of a proper feedback on campground sites pushed to the side as it has been for several years. I believe many parks do not want it. I doubt if Valterra, Camco, etc. look forward to all feedback on the Camping World site but if they use it constructively they find their problems and can improve their products.

Sorry to the other posters but this last answer just does not sit with me, hope the other GS members understand.

Maybe you don't like the rating system, but I sure haven't seen any suggestions that would make it better. If you open it up to having people post their opinions, that would just make it a carbon copy of RVparkreviews.com which has it's own challenges.
I see where you apparently breed Charolais cattle. What rating system would work for all cows? Charolais would be a fine choice for stock if you were looking to start a beef operation in the Midwest, might not be such a good option if you were looking to run free range cattle in Montana and would be a downright bad option if you were starting a dairy farm in Wisconsin. So no ranking system could or would rate all cows. Same with RV Parks. What is attractive to one guest is basically repulsive to another. Some want paved roads, paved pads, manicured grounds. Others want nature. Some people want activities, some people want peace and quiet. Some people want and use restrooms, showers, pools, spas etc., some people resent knowing their site fees include access to a bunch of stuff they never use.
You are right, many parks do not want the rating system opened up to the public. That is because a small fraction of the public will go out of their way to attempt to hurt a park due to some perceived slight they feel they experienced. Some people will give an incredibly bad score to a park simply because it wasn't what THEY wanted it to be, not because there was something wrong with the park. Then there is the problem of a single guest's experience is often not indicative of the entire park. It surely wouldn't be fair to say all Charolais are disease prone if I bought one and it got sick and died, and neither is it fair the say the entire RV park is bad because a site I got was unlevel. It may be true, but it may be just bad luck. Ratings should somehow reflect the truth, not luck, and that is what the rating system Good Sam uses attempts to provide.

And you should also know that Good Sam derives a good bit of revenue off the parks. We pay a fee to be a Good Sam Park. We buy advertising from Good Sam. We provide them with a membership benefit for their members. Without member parks, Good Sam would be pretty much SOL.
So I guess you should go fire off your so last century certified letter. I am sure it will get the attention it deserves.

Montanrvparkowner, one question...do you truly feel the current Good Sam rating system rates your park accurately?

The argument to invent a rating system of ones own to suggest is a straw-man argument. It just is not feasible. All parties involved need to be included in a re-work of the rating system so it reflects the concerns and insights and as many ideas and experiences of as many players as possible. INCLUDING USERS.

Other than that I agree with most of what you write above. So called "Mob" sites of self raters have their own problems. However you must realize that you are being rated online anyway with or without RV.Net having a place for it. I think the best thing to do is to try to get ahead of it and have a voice in how it's done and ensure a fair system for removing fake and "revenge" reviews.

Charolaisbreeders wrote:
This forum is supposed to be to allow us to let the head man know what is wrong. The rating system is NOT RIGHT and now I have received two pacifying answers from an underling that has done nothing but make me angry. Now I will take this to certified mail direct with Mr. Marcus Lemonis, he needs to know how bad this situation is and not have the setting up of a proper feedback on campground sites pushed to the side as it has been for several years. I believe many parks do not want it. I doubt if Valterra, Camco, etc. look forward to all feedback on the Camping World site but if they use it constructively they find their problems and can improve their products.

Sorry to the other posters but this last answer just does not sit with me, hope the other GS members understand.

Maybe you don't like the rating system, but I sure haven't seen any suggestions that would make it better. If you open it up to having people post their opinions, that would just make it a carbon copy of RVparkreviews.com which has it's own challenges.
I see where you apparently breed Charolais cattle. What rating system would work for all cows? Charolais would be a fine choice for stock if you were looking to start a beef operation in the Midwest, might not be such a good option if you were looking to run free range cattle in Montana and would be a downright bad option if you were starting a dairy farm in Wisconsin. So no ranking system could or would rate all cows. Same with RV Parks. What is attractive to one guest is basically repulsive to another. Some want paved roads, paved pads, manicured grounds. Others want nature. Some people want activities, some people want peace and quiet. Some people want and use restrooms, showers, pools, spas etc., some people resent knowing their site fees include access to a bunch of stuff they never use.
You are right, many parks do not want the rating system opened up to the public. That is because a small fraction of the public will go out of their way to attempt to hurt a park due to some perceived slight they feel they experienced. Some people will give an incredibly bad score to a park simply because it wasn't what THEY wanted it to be, not because there was something wrong with the park. Then there is the problem of a single guest's experience is often not indicative of the entire park. It surely wouldn't be fair to say all Charolais are disease prone if I bought one and it got sick and died, and neither is it fair the say the entire RV park is bad because a site I got was unlevel. It may be true, but it may be just bad luck. Ratings should somehow reflect the truth, not luck, and that is what the rating system Good Sam uses attempts to provide.

And you should also know that Good Sam derives a good bit of revenue off the parks. We pay a fee to be a Good Sam Park. We buy advertising from Good Sam. We provide them with a membership benefit for their members. Without member parks, Good Sam would be pretty much SOL.
So I guess you should go fire off your so last century certified letter. I am sure it will get the attention it deserves.

Charolaisbreeders wrote:
This forum is supposed to be to allow us to let the head man know what is wrong. The rating system is NOT RIGHT and now I have received two pacifying answers from an underling that has done nothing but make me angry. Now I will take this to certified mail direct with Mr. Marcus Lemonis, he needs to know how bad this situation is and not have the setting up of a proper feedback on campground sites pushed to the side as it has been for several years. I believe many parks do not want it. I doubt if Valterra, Camco, etc. look forward to all feedback on the Camping World site but if they use it constructively they find their problems and can improve their products.

Sorry to the other posters but this last answer just does not sit with me, hope the other GS members understand.

I agree that the answer was a non-answer as so many here can be at times. But I think before you contact the home office it might be a good idea to have some concrete suggestions to hand about specific ways to change the rating system to make it better.

And that brings me to my question: What would you change about the rating system if you could that would even the playing field and take into account for some of the things that have been mentioned here?