RV Park Review deferred

alnal326 wrote:
So I posted a review of my recent experience to RV park review about the park I didn't receive my assigned site in and they deferred it saying that it was too much personal information included about my experience and I needed to rewrite it and sum down my bad experience. The good part I wrote about the park they liked. Now how do you sum down an experience and still get across what you are saying? Is it even worth it? Why write it if you can't tell the whole truth.

Honestly, I totally agree with you. The NGIC (new guy in charge) at RVPR says he's somewhat willing to entertain the ever-so-remote possibility that there may be issues with censoring reviews and he has asked that anyone who has had reviews "deferred" unreasonably contact him.

Here's what he wrote in reply when I said there had been complaints: "Once again, I look forward to you providing some clear examples that you have heard from RV.net, private messages and emails. It sounds like there should be plenty of example for us to investigate."

(He made it sound like he's never heard that there have been complaints and that they were figments of my imagination, eh?)

Anyway, here's a clicky to the thread. It also outlines a bunch of changes that are going to be made to RVPR.

If you can spare the time, please give this guy some insight.

B.O. Plenty wrote:
I wrote one once in which I stated the main activity there seemed to be drinking and their extended time for happy hour...They rejected it. I don't need them they need me..

B.O.

Where is that park? Sounds like fun!

GMandJM wrote:

docj wrote:
And the marijuana situation can easily be handled by something like: "The management permits open use of marijuana in the park." The issue of who owns the park is irrelevant IMHO, only how they manage it.

I now understand the frustration of those people who've complained about RVPR accepting only "sanitized" reviews.

Ugh!

THIS is why my review of a certain RV park in Michigan wasn't posted - kept coming back to me with odd reasons that it couldn't be posted. I wanted to warn folks that the park in question had been purchased by a Medical Marijuana support group. While the staff was certainly friendly and laid-back :-) campers were now being treated to live concerts Friday night, and all day Saturday until about 1 AM. (We enjoyed it, actually) I took an ice-cold shower because the new water heater "hadn't been installed yet". In MY mind, this is critical information. A former place that catered to church groups was now NOT-family-friendly? And because they also have a canoe/kayak livery and weren't maintaining the river, someone could get hurt?

Posted By: bigdogger on 04/18/14 11:36am

I'm just wondering where in the post it said open use of pot was allowed? I would want to know if the quiet time policy had changed; can comprehend the water heater not being installed particularly if I was warned at check-in. Not everyone is qualified to set it up in all locales. Not sure what river maintenance is though.

docj wrote:
And the marijuana situation can easily be handled by something like: "The management permits open use of marijuana in the park." The issue of who owns the park is irrelevant IMHO, only how they manage it.

I now understand the frustration of those people who've complained about RVPR accepting only "sanitized" reviews.

Ugh!

docj wrote:

mudhound wrote:
It’s all about respect. If one say’s “Those blank Holy Rollers will not all BEER”.
It would be better to say “this park has rules against alcohol”.
Or, The low life owner would not allow this or that”.
Vs: The owner (s) has rules that hinder this or that”.

Agreed. And the marijuana situation can easily be handled by something like: "The management permits open use of marijuana in the park." The issue of who owns the park is irrelevant IMHO, only how they manage it.

Ding ding ding! The above makes sense to me.
My eyes tend to glaze over when reading reviews that simply reflect the mindset of the reviewer.conversely the ones that say"Great place!I'll be back."leave me with many unanswered questions so I ignore them as well.

mudhound wrote:
It’s all about respect. If one say’s “Those blank Holy Rollers will not all BEER”.
It would be better to say “this park has rules against alcohol”.
Or, The low life owner would not allow this or that”.
Vs: The owner (s) has rules that hinder this or that”.

Agreed. And the marijuana situation can easily be handled by something like: "The management permits open use of marijuana in the park." The issue of who owns the park is irrelevant IMHO, only how they manage it.

It’s all about respect. If one say’s “Those blank Holy Rollers will not all BEER”.
It would be better to say “this park has rules against alcohol”.
Or, The low life owner would not allow this or that”.
Vs: The owner (s) has rules that hinder this or that”.

docj wrote:

That way we don't get into a gray area by commenting on the kinds of people who own a park. I doubt you would consider it appropriate to comment if a particular church owned an RV park, unless that church's practices affected your enjoyment of it. The same thing is true of the marijuana folks. They might own it and you'd never know it if they simply ran it as a business. It's only when they cross the line and their "beliefs" affect customers that it is appropriate to comment on in a review.

Joel

I respectfully disagree.

If a reviewer knows who/what entity owns a campground, that is useful information. For example, this week we visited a campground owned by a local gun club. There are weekly shooting matches during some months of the year. This would be useful for people who have an opinion (either pro or con) on the subject of guns.

Also, we were recently invited to a wedding which will be held at what we were told was a "campground". Great! Load up the RV, right? Wrong. It's actually owned by an eco-consciousness group that would not likely appreciate our diesel pusher.

In our travels we have sought out American-owned businesses, Amish- and Mennonite- owned lodgings and the like. We like to stay at family-owned campgrounds. Are we supposed to leave that stuff out of reviews because religion is a "gray area" and it might be "too personal"?

And as for that campground owned by the Marijuana Group: Some people will be looking for just such a place now that personal use is legal in Colorado and others are going to want to avoid it if 'partaking' is not their lifestyle choice. Either way, it's useful information.

-jhalf

docj wrote:

GMandJM wrote:

For the record though, count me amongst those who DO want to know if a park has recently been purchased by a Medical Marijuana Support Group. If posts are deferred for that, please reconsider.

It's probably better for everyone if posts discuss objective observations. Therefore, if ownership of a park by a particular group results in what you consider objectionable behaviors then those should be noted (for example, distributing free "product samples").

That way we don't get into a gray area by commenting on the kinds of people who own a park. I doubt you would consider it appropriate to comment if a particular church owned an RV park, unless that church's practices affected your enjoyment of it. The same thing is true of the marijuana folks. They might own it and you'd never know it if they simply ran it as a business. It's only when they cross the line and their "beliefs" affect customers that it is appropriate to comment on in a review.

Joel

Interesting... I'm at a campground right now where the owner runs a church service every Sunday out of his camp rec hall. Once a year for the last 5 yrs we have camped here. NEVER have I had a problem or conflict with his service effecting our enjoyment at the campground.

Just my 2 cents the owner understands you need a seperation between beliefs and good business practices.

Mike

GMandJM wrote:

For the record though, count me amongst those who DO want to know if a park has recently been purchased by a Medical Marijuana Support Group. If posts are deferred for that, please reconsider.

It's probably better for everyone if posts discuss objective observations. Therefore, if ownership of a park by a particular group results in what you consider objectionable behaviors then those should be noted (for example, distributing free "product samples").

That way we don't get into a gray area by commenting on the kinds of people who own a park. I doubt you would consider it appropriate to comment if a particular church owned an RV park, unless that church's practices affected your enjoyment of it. The same thing is true of the marijuana folks. They might own it and you'd never know it if they simply ran it as a business. It's only when they cross the line and their "beliefs" affect customers that it is appropriate to comment on in a review.

Joel