Campground Ratings -

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.