How do I report the worst campground ever

docj wrote:

fla-gypsy wrote:
I will not post to RV Park reviews either. Too easy for them to manipulate the reviews and posters are much too arbitrary in what they consider good/bad often without supporting information.

Do you have any actual evidence that reviews on RVParkReviews are manipulated? As one of the site admins I can attest to the fact that reviews are never altered except to remove personal information, correct spelling, etc. If a review is considered to need more substantial alteration it is returned to the person who submitted it.

Not sure about manipulated, but someone mentioned on here before that they were contacted by someone from RVparkreviews and said that they wanted them to talk to a campground owner. They said the campground owner was a nice person and blah blah blah. I sent an email to RV Park Reviews questioning it and got a reply saying they would look into it. But then never got an answer back to them checking into it. This was after a reviewer gave a negative review or something. Can't remember exactly as it was a while back. If that in fact did happen, then I think that would abuse on part of the website or those representing the website. By using the persons contact information and trying to sway the reviewers viewpoint. Obviously the person who sent the message had a relationship with the campground owner of some type.

The other issue that occurs, and this is not the fault of the site, is that often,I find reviews that are two years old or more, nothing current. Too many things could have changed in the meantime.

Old news is no news.

Executive wrote:
The only knock I have on the site is that there is no spot for cell phone service which I think is important in this day and age.........Dennis

Dennis:

As a result of its new ownership by Social Knowledge, the parent company for quite a few online communities, RVParkReviews is in the process of migrating to a new server that will give it the computing horsepower for improvements, many of which are long overdue. One of the improvements that is planned is a cell service "evaluation" box.

Of course, as you well know this is not a simple addition to make since there are several major US carriers all of which may have signals of different strength at a particular park. Furthermore, the quality of the voice signal is often different from that of the data signal, which may be 4G, 3G or even 1X. So obtaining accurate data from users and tabulating it in some usable form is key.

We expect that you will begin seeing the changes on RVPR in the next couple of months. We hope to also have a phone app available shortly thereafter.

Joel

So, there you have it....straight from the horse's mouth.....:B.

It takes all of a millisecond to offer three reviews..besides why wouldn't you want to submit reviews..:h..afterall, YOU looked at the site..more people that submit reviews, the more accurate the reviews become. That said, the review must be taken with a grain of salt...if someone submits a questionable review, I look at their other reviews for a pattern..maybe they're working out of their RV and need a strong wifi. If the park doesn't have one they give it a 2 or 3..not fair to the park but it is what it is. The only knock I have on the site is that there is no spot for cell phone service which I think is important in this day and age.........Dennis

rockhillmanor wrote:

bigdogger wrote:

rockhillmanor wrote:
geeze.
My 'opinion' is that the website should accept one review. Like each and every other internet website that accepts reviews.

I found that after filling out my review to find out that it would not be posted until I reviewed a certain number of additional reviews a useless and unnecessary requirement.

Yes I full time. Yes I stay at 'many' CG's in my travels.
Filling out CG reviews is not on my list as a daily function.:B

To the OP regarding your CG experience.
Since you are posting it here on the GS Club forum and the CG was a Good Sam CG. Post the name and why you feel it does not meet the ratings Good Sam gave it. Hopefully the Marcus team will revisit this CG and rate it appropriately!

So the rvparkreviews.com policy worked exactly as it was intended. It blocked someone who only wanted to post a rant yet doesn't want to actually add to the collective database of campground reviews.

And you know that for a FACT how?
Please post the link from rvparkreviews that states that.

If that were the case then they have also blocked a review about a CG that was SO fantastic, someone wanted to post how great a place it was.

I posted my opinion on the subject matter. You apparently on the other hand would rather spend more time bashing my opinion! Have a good day. :C

In a perfect world RV Park owners wouldn't write phony reviews about their own parks or those owned by friends or rivals. But they do and one of the most effective ways we have found to weed these out is to insist that they submit a few other reviews in order to get any of them published. It's not a perfect system but it does seem to keep some folks from abusing the system. We also maintain a database of owners email addresses and user IDs but obviously it is difficult to know them all. If you have an alternative suggestion as to how we can reduce the number of fake reviews we'd be glad to hear it.

I'm sorry if this requirement disturbs you; we didn't think that any serious RVer would find it that difficult to submit reviews for a couple of parks. We don't have minimum length requirements for reviews so the task of submitting them isn't all that onerous. Once you submit the required number every subsequent review submitted will be published.

fla-gypsy wrote:
I will not post to RV Park reviews either. Too easy for them to manipulate the reviews and posters are much too arbitrary in what they consider good/bad often without supporting information.

Do you have any actual evidence that reviews on RVParkReviews are manipulated? As one of the site admins I can attest to the fact that reviews are never altered except to remove personal information, correct spelling, etc. If a review is considered to need more substantial alteration it is returned to the person who submitted it.

I would like the name of this park,so i could review other postings of the secret campground on RVPARK reviews.Right now this sounds more like sour grapes. I have posted good and bad,it would have taken the same amount of time as posting here.

It says on the rvparkreviews.com website that you must enter 3 rules to enter the approval stage. Sounds loigcal to me as bigdogger mentioned. If notm then you would have Joe Schmoe who owns ABC RV park getting a lot of negative reviews from Jhon Doe down the street that owns XYZ RV park. What would stop him from going and posting many bad reviews of the other place with fake accounts? Still could be done, but with at least having to post 3 total, it makes it more of a pain to do it.

bigdogger wrote:

rockhillmanor wrote:
geeze.
My 'opinion' is that the website should accept one review. Like each and every other internet website that accepts reviews.

I found that after filling out my review to find out that it would not be posted until I reviewed a certain number of additional reviews a useless and unnecessary requirement.

Yes I full time. Yes I stay at 'many' CG's in my travels.
Filling out CG reviews is not on my list as a daily function.:B

To the OP regarding your CG experience.
Since you are posting it here on the GS Club forum and the CG was a Good Sam CG. Post the name and why you feel it does not meet the ratings Good Sam gave it. Hopefully the Marcus team will revisit this CG and rate it appropriately!

So the rvparkreviews.com policy worked exactly as it was intended. It blocked someone who only wanted to post a rant yet doesn't want to actually add to the collective database of campground reviews.

And you know that for a FACT how?
Please post the link from rvparkreviews that states that.

If that were the case then they have also blocked a review about a CG that was SO fantastic, someone wanted to post how great a place it was.

I posted my opinion on the subject matter. You apparently on the other hand would rather spend more time bashing my opinion! Have a good day. :C

rockhillmanor wrote:
geeze.
My 'opinion' is that the website should accept one review. Like each and every other internet website that accepts reviews.

I found that after filling out my review to find out that it would not be posted until I reviewed a certain number of additional reviews a useless and unnecessary requirement.

Yes I full time. Yes I stay at 'many' CG's in my travels.
Filling out CG reviews is not on my list as a daily function.:B

To the OP regarding your CG experience.
Since you are posting it here on the GS Club forum and the CG was a Good Sam CG. Post the name and why you feel it does not meet the ratings Good Sam gave it. Hopefully the Marcus team will revisit this CG and rate it appropriately!

So the rvparkreviews.com policy worked exactly as it was intended. It blocked someone who only wanted to post a rant yet doesn't want to actually add to the collective database of campground reviews.