Who reviews Good Sam rated campgrounds

I wish I'd read this forum before our annual grand adventure. Last year, we stayed almost exclusively at KOAs. This year, we've stayed at Good Sam recommended parks twice, both times were terrible. I wish I'd known not to trust their reviews. :(

Anyway, lesson learned. I'll stick with what I know from now on.

bigdogger wrote:

PastorCharlie wrote:
I would think any person could tell if a lot was two feet out of level, even a blind person. I think that issue would be covered in the GS ratings.

HOW GOOD SAM PARKS ARE RATED


HOW TO READ GOOD SAM RATINGS

This one list "appearance of grounds, sites and entrance area." as one of the categories addresses in rating a park.

Visual Appeal and Environmental Quality
10 / 10 / 10

This category addresses the park's setting and site layout, function and identification of signage, overall exterior building maintenance, noise, trash disposal, litter and debris around the grounds and sites, and appearance of grounds, sites and entrance area.

While I don't see "level" as a criteria in that category, I would think that if all the sites were vertical instead of horizontal, there would be a deduction. However, I think that the "two feet out of level" is probably either a little poetic license or potentially a one off situation. Maybe the vast majority of the sites are level and a couple are a bit askew due to the terrain. Should the entire park be rated on worst site in the park?
I have seen many sites where the actual parking area is reasonably level and then the site slopes quite abruptly. If you were to either have a rig too long for the flat section or chose to not park on the level area, it would indeed appear the site had excessive slope. Sites that work and are level for a 20 footer aren't always appropriate for a 40 footer.
But you have hit on the one improvement I would make, which is post the actual scorecard for the park. If that park scored an "eight" on the visual appeal portion of the rating, they may have, in fact, gotten no points for the site quality, but there is no way to know where they lost the two points from the potential ten. I agree wholeheartedly that a park that scores 9 points but lost that one point for having poorly constructed sites is less desirable than a park scored 9 points and lost that one point because the entryway is not landscaped and lacked a sign.

Well said, bigdogger and pastor charlie. Its like 'average site width'. The account representatives for sadly defunct Woodalls measured sites according to their criteria, which was 'usable space'.
GS travel guide also uses this as a guide. Remember, it is an average.
That is, measured from site post to site post, or from site post to reasonably usable width space. Defined by our past Woodalls rep's, the Carlsons, as 'Comfortably usable without obstruction, not necessarily flat.'
For front to rear 'usable space' as an average is perhaps something GS should amend to the already existing 'average width' rule in an W x L average in the same way, as a listing of facility.
Thanks Again, Ken, for making me think.
I'll take those thoughts to the GS Advisory Council
Max

Pogoil wrote:
Heads up, Just because a campground has a particular sign does not mean it is a member campground.

Pogoil.

The CG I was referring to was listed in the GS Camp Ground Directory as a Good Sam Park.

Heads up, Just because a campground has a particular sign does not mean it is a member campground.

Pogoil.

A few years ago we went to a GS campground, no one was at the office so we drove around some of the sites. They were terrible, holes in the sites, trees down, completely unusable IMHO. We drove down the road and stayed at a very nice community CG.

I wrote to GS and gave them my opinion. The following year the CG was still a GS CG. The next year the CG had been dropped.

Justice had been served, but, it took some time.

PastorCharlie wrote:
I would think any person could tell if a lot was two feet out of level, even a blind person. I think that issue would be covered in the GS ratings.

HOW GOOD SAM PARKS ARE RATED


HOW TO READ GOOD SAM RATINGS

This one list "appearance of grounds, sites and entrance area." as one of the categories addresses in rating a park.

Visual Appeal and Environmental Quality
10 / 10 / 10

This category addresses the park's setting and site layout, function and identification of signage, overall exterior building maintenance, noise, trash disposal, litter and debris around the grounds and sites, and appearance of grounds, sites and entrance area.

While I don't see "level" as a criteria in that category, I would think that if all the sites were vertical instead of horizontal, there would be a deduction. However, I think that the "two feet out of level" is probably either a little poetic license or potentially a one off situation. Maybe the vast majority of the sites are level and a couple are a bit askew due to the terrain. Should the entire park be rated on worst site in the park?
I have seen many sites where the actual parking area is reasonably level and then the site slopes quite abruptly. If you were to either have a rig too long for the flat section or chose to not park on the level area, it would indeed appear the site had excessive slope. Sites that work and are level for a 20 footer aren't always appropriate for a 40 footer.
But you have hit on the one improvement I would make, which is post the actual scorecard for the park. If that park scored an "eight" on the visual appeal portion of the rating, they may have, in fact, gotten no points for the site quality, but there is no way to know where they lost the two points from the potential ten. I agree wholeheartedly that a park that scores 9 points but lost that one point for having poorly constructed sites is less desirable than a park scored 9 points and lost that one point because the entryway is not landscaped and lacked a sign.

I would think any person could tell if a lot was two feet out of level, even a blind person. I think that issue would be covered in the GS ratings.

HOW GOOD SAM PARKS ARE RATED


HOW TO READ GOOD SAM RATINGS

This one list "appearance of grounds, sites and entrance area." as one of the categories addresses in rating a park.

Visual Appeal and Environmental Quality
10 / 10 / 10

This category addresses the park's setting and site layout, function and identification of signage, overall exterior building maintenance, noise, trash disposal, litter and debris around the grounds and sites, and appearance of grounds, sites and entrance area.

SDcampowneroperator wrote:
I thank the OP for his response to my pm. His main concern was with the site not level, an issue that cannot not be addressed in GS ratings. It is recognized that 'level' is in the eye of the beholder, different for each class of rig. Flat sites are muddy when it rains. Certainly a site should be within a couple of inches in each direction for ease of leveling, drainage.
I can sympathize with the camp hes in in Seattle for not having flat sites. It is known to rain there.
Enjoy your trip to Alaska!

Max

There were actually three issues:

1. They quoted us $127.00 for three nights yet when we checked in they refused to honor that and charged us $150.00. Told us at 5:00PM we could go and find another campground.

2. The "Gentleman" was extremely rude.

3. The actual site has a two foot slope. It is impossible to level the rig.

On a good note, they said they would allow us to leave a day early and refund us that day. I will hope they honor that as we are going to leave for 100 Mile House in the morning.

Ken

2gypsies wrote:

bigdogger wrote:

2gypsies wrote:
For many years I've tried to contact Good Sam to notify them of obvious flaws in their rating of certain campgrounds. I've never received a reply from Good Sam and in future years the rating has stayed the same. Sometimes I think the reviewers become buddies with the campgrounds over the years. I hold more faith in multiple various reviewers of RVParksReviews. However, for both of them, I know they're not 100%. It's just a general idea. I don't even try to contact Good Sam anymore. I do post reviews on RVParkReviews. Good luck!

It seems to me they use the system they do precisely to avoid the conflicts you mention. Pretty hard to give a park a point if it doesn't have the requisite amenity. A subjective scoring, where condition and other judgmental attributes were an issue would lead to a situation where relationships could greatly influence scores. I am curious what you would have them add or remove from the scoring system if you were in charge?

The last RV park I tried to notify Good Sam about was Klamath, CA Camper Corral. It has a 8.5/10*/10 rating. The bathrooms were covered with those little shower plastic squares, including the toilet areas. They were full of toilet paper, hair and mud (I hope it was mud) They were not cleaned in the 3 days we were there. The laundry was equally dirty, including inside the washers. Trash cans were overflowing with fish guts. Worker's dog were tied up outside and barking. It was one of the most awful parks we've been. Public campgrounds are better.

While that is surely a reason for a park to not have the bathroom rating it did (10*) the rating would be a failure of the rater, not the rating system. Some of those problems, however, could not be determined by a rater. They have no idea whose dogs are tethered outside. The dogs (and the workers attached to them)might very well have not been there the year before when those ratings were done. It is also possible that when the raters were there, the bathrooms were clean. Do to publication lead times, the books are published in January with reviews done the previous year. It is not a perfect system, but I can't think of one that would be. You said in another post you had suggestions to make their rating system better. I am still curious what change in the systems and ratings procedures you would suggest that would eliminate the problems you encountered? BTW, I checked that park's reviews on rvparkreviews.com and they have around 50 reviews and only one (apparently yours) mentioned barking dogs and/or unclean facilities. Many actually raved about how clean the park was.

bigdogger wrote:

2gypsies wrote:
For many years I've tried to contact Good Sam to notify them of obvious flaws in their rating of certain campgrounds. I've never received a reply from Good Sam and in future years the rating has stayed the same. Sometimes I think the reviewers become buddies with the campgrounds over the years. I hold more faith in multiple various reviewers of RVParksReviews. However, for both of them, I know they're not 100%. It's just a general idea. I don't even try to contact Good Sam anymore. I do post reviews on RVParkReviews. Good luck!

It seems to me they use the system they do precisely to avoid the conflicts you mention. Pretty hard to give a park a point if it doesn't have the requisite amenity. A subjective scoring, where condition and other judgmental attributes were an issue would lead to a situation where relationships could greatly influence scores. I am curious what you would have them add or remove from the scoring system if you were in charge?

The last RV park I tried to notify Good Sam about was Klamath, CA Camper Corral. It has a 8.5/10*/10 rating. The bathrooms were covered with those little shower plastic squares, including the toilet areas. They were full of toilet paper, hair and mud (I hope it was mud) They were not cleaned in the 3 days we were there. The laundry was equally dirty, including inside the washers. Trash cans were overflowing with fish guts. Worker's dog were tied up outside and barking. It was one of the most awful parks we've been. Public campgrounds are better.