Campground Ratings -

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.