Good Sam campground guide

4X4Dodger wrote:

martipr wrote:

ETyson wrote:
Hello Shearwater,

I am sorry to read you were not satisfied with the Good Sam RV Travel Guide.

The listings you refer are complementary listings, and include public parks (state, national and provincial). These listings do have limited information, but all include a phone number and either an address if a private campground, or directions if a public park, and we offer the park the option to enhance their information in their listing. We always encourage users to call ahead to confirm amenities and if space is available before arriving.

Please note that ALL private campgrounds, whether Good Sam or not, are rated and inspected each year.

Your feedback is very much appreciated and we always take it seriously when we begin working on future editions of the Travel Guide.

Kind regards,

Ellen
Sr. Marketing and Product Manager
Good Sam Enterprises

I have heard this spin before and either you are lying about the campgrounds being inspected each year or the people you pay to inspect them are inspecting from their recliners while they watch TV and sip suds. Perhaps the owners are doing the inspecting and rating. I once stopped at a campground which the guide listed the size as 60' x 18'. My 29' TT and pickup overhung the site on both ends, my slide was over the hookups and I couldn't open the awning because it was too close to the next site. I no longer use the guide but often look at it to compare the ratings to the campground I am at. I admit they are often quite accurate but just as often the ratings are so far off that it is obvious that the campground was not actually inspected. I really like Good Sam and also Camping World but the guide is really sad.

I think the use of the term "lying" in your post is uncalled for and ill-mannered. Maybe "misinformed" might be a nicer way to put it??

A pig by any other name+++++. Call it what it is. If I say I am young and virle I am lying, not "misinformed".

Shearwater wrote:
This is getting out of hand. I started the thread and stated that the new GS book is not as useful as the old Woodalls and gave some examples (which, by the way, are still true regardless of what the GS PR person said.)

I DID NOT complain about the amount of advertising in the book or how GS raters should go about their business or anything else that RVers or RV park owners have been arguing about.

The new book is significantly less useful than the old one, period.

This is true shearwater but as so many threads do they grow and other peoples opinions get added and hopefully a different perspective is gained possibly some are provoked to thought.

But surely you agree these other opinions are just as valid as yours and they do add to the discussion and are on the topic.

I thank you for pointing that out.
My Woodalls is the 2012 edition. I had been thinking about getting a new one.
Now, I know I might just as well keep my old one.
I don't use it that often anyway, so there is no sense in spending the money on one that (apparently) isn't as good as the one I have!
Again, thank you.

This is getting out of hand. I started the thread and stated that the new GS book is not as useful as the old Woodalls and gave some examples (which, by the way, are still true regardless of what the GS PR person said.)

I DID NOT complain about the amount of advertising in the book or how GS raters should go about their business or anything else that RVers or RV park owners have been arguing about.

The new book is significantly less useful than the old one, period.

The two park owners make some interesting points. But the thing that is missing is the SUBJECTIVE; How shady is it? Does it have mature trees or is it one flat concrete or gravel pad that resembles the Space Shuttle landing strip? Is it in a scenic location or is it in the middle of Phoenix? Is the pool more akin to a blow up one in size or a decent swimming pool?

Are the spaces packed in like sardines or can you actually open your slides?

These are the SUBJECTIVE things that I think many people would like to see. And before you all jump, yes you can be OBJECTIVE in rating the SUBJECTIVE.

As for the size of the book. I would cut it in half and do a western and eastern version. Yes it's two to buy but my guess is many many people stick to one area of the country primarily. And two would not take up as much space as the one if so much of the needless fluff was discarded.

The public parks issue is kind of a Red Herring argument here. While it would be nice to have those included (rated or not) There are much better publications out there describing these campgrounds than the GS Guide. I think what people want is complete ratings on NON Good Sam Parks as well as the GS ones. If I am planning to stay in a Nat'l Park or a State Park or BLM land the GS guide would be the LAST source I would go to. People that are using the GS guide in my opinion are overwhelmingly looking for Commercial Parks/Campgrounds.

But again for the two park owners. There is obviously a significant amount of dissatisfaction with the GS Guide and it would seem obvious to me that resisting what your customer base is saying isnt smart business. The old saying is TRUE. For every customer that does complain 20, 50 or a 100 walk out your door with the same issue and never say anything.

What is my interest you may ask? I just hate to see something with so much potential go downhill and squander it's customers good will. Maybe I've been in business to long.

Pogoil wrote:
Anyone want some cheese with all that WHINE!

Been using the book for 25 years we like it. No it is not perfect, but is a good tool.

Colby, jack or swiss? Anyone?Pogoil.

X2 +

Redterpos3 wrote:

Bob Vaughn wrote:
I find it confusing to find a campground on the road that I am on.

Online!! After Lunch the DW whips out her ipad and begins searching 3-4 hours down the road. I've not had a valuable phone book for some time now. But now I don't have a home phone so it makes sense, but the way we are used to doing things is going to change! Being able to make that change will transform businesses and travelers.

OMG! I can relate to this one. Great ratings for some campgrounds (no name mentioned for obvious reasons). I pulled into one GS campground and while out walking, I had to use the bathroom (it happens). Almost sat down in a stall but after checking the interior of the toilet and the seat after looking around this place was filled with black widow spider nests. I got the heck out of there and am glad I wasn't bitten.

mowermech wrote:
Oh, good grief!
the way some people like to twist things!
FACTS are FACTS!
I was NOT describing how I would rate a park. For one thing, I would never bother rating any park. In fact, the worst park I ever stayed at was rather wonderful! It was a little RV park on I90 in Washington State, all grass, lousy electrical system, very old, poor facilities, but we were tired, needed a place to stay with hookups, and it was wonderful to park, plug in, fix dinner, and get to sleep. Would I have spent a week there? NO! Would I stop again for a quick overnighter (if it is still open)? sure why not.
I was merely addressing complaints about the new Good Sam book.
It was stated that site sizes are not always accurate. Sorry, but there is no room for error there. Either the site is 25 by 50 feet, or it is not. How could a reviewer make a mistake?
The same goes for all the other items I mentioned. either the reviewer got it right, or made a mistake. Since it is obvious to any body with decent vision, how could a reviewer get it wrong?
If 45 out of 47 sites have full (or partial) hookups, and the overflow parking is in a hay meadow, SAY SO!
It isn't brain surgery, for pete's sake! Just state the FACTS!
"weight the criteria"?? WHY? Again, just state the FACTS!
If there is a noisy waterfall, I would like to know about it. If there is a noisy freeway running right by the park, I want to know about it.
Again, FACTS!
"scores"?? Again, WHY? WHY assign a "score". Just tell the facts!
I really don't see why it should be so hard to understand!

,
Hi John, you got almost everything right in your post. The account representatives do not review, they rate.Big difference, thier rating interest is subjective, reviews are objective, a measure made by visitors.
They measure site W x l, then average those measurements, thus you see 'average site width ' in the guide.
I stand by my earlier post in this thread that all of the many rating teams we have had in our 14 years here from Woodalls, Trailer Life, and AAA have been professionals whose ratings of our camp according to their criteria cannot be influenced. Advertising is discussed after rating discussion.
Now that Woodalls unique directory is defunct, and that AAA copies TL rating with a woodalls heading in their regional guides, it even more behooves the account team to rate camps critically, in absence of other rating teams. Its in their best interest to err on the side of caution without regard to the properties position..
In my experience, ratings cannot be bought or influenced, reviews can.

Max


If you suspect a camp has a gs 10/10/10 scale Rating above what you experienced, and can verify that with your judgement when using the rating scale for yourselves, or were denied the discount upon presentation of a valid membership card at the time of registration, report it for correction.

Anyone want some cheese with all that WHINE!

Been using the book for 25 years we like it. No it is not perfect, but is a good tool.

Buy the way a park must meet a minimum rating of 5/5/5 I believe to even qualify to be a Good Sam park.

Colby, jack or swiss? Anyone?

Pogoil.

Oh, good grief!
the way some people like to twist things!
FACTS are FACTS!
I was NOT describing how I would rate a park. For one thing, I would never bother rating any park. In fact, the worst park I ever stayed at was rather wonderful! It was a little RV park on I90 in Washington State, all grass, lousy electrical system, very old, poor facilities, but we were tired, needed a place to stay with hookups, and it was wonderful to park, plug in, fix dinner, and get to sleep. Would I have spent a week there? NO! Would I stop again for a quick overnighter (if it is still open)? sure why not.
I was merely addressing complaints about the new Good Sam book.
It was stated that site sizes are not always accurate. Sorry, but there is no room for error there. Either the site is 25 by 50 feet, or it is not. How could a reviewer make a mistake?
The same goes for all the other items I mentioned. either the reviewer got it right, or made a mistake. Since it is obvious to any body with decent vision, how could a reviewer get it wrong?
If 45 out of 47 sites have full (or partial) hookups, and the overflow parking is in a hay meadow, SAY SO!
It isn't brain surgery, for pete's sake! Just state the FACTS!
"weight the criteria"?? WHY? Again, just state the FACTS!
If there is a noisy waterfall, I would like to know about it. If there is a noisy freeway running right by the park, I want to know about it.
Again, FACTS!
"scores"?? Again, WHY? WHY assign a "score". Just tell the facts!
I really don't see why it should be so hard to understand!