Forum Discussion

2_Retired's avatar
2_Retired
Explorer
Aug 08, 2013

rvparkreviews.com

Hope this isn't a duplicate post! Wanted to thank all of you who take the time to review so many different campgrounds. It makes planning for a trip to a new area much easier for me and I'm sure many others. Greatly appreciate the effort and thanks again for sharing your experiences with us. Have used www.parkreviews.com many, many times and try to post reviews whenever we use a CG for the first, and sometimes, second time. My priorities for ranking a CG may differ from others, but it seems there are common threads that we all share that makes these reviews so useful. Your time and effort is appreciated.
  • Sorry LiitleMO Dissing a CG for a river flooding? That is what rivers do! The thicket was probably there to prevent erosion when the river is flooding. Did you ask for the site in the photo? Or just a river front site?
    That is not to say that I haven't been to plenty of parks that use their grand opening pics from 1978 in their brochures and online.
  • powderman426 wrote:
    rr2254545 wrote:
    2012Coleman wrote:
    rr2254545 wrote:
    Is this a paid advertisement - not so useful to me and as you can see by my signiture we travel plenty
    So now that you know about it, perhaps you will be inclined to use it. And knowing is half the battle.



    Same here. I tried to post a review once and had to provide lots of info only to find out you need to post three reviews at a minimum. Seems counterproductive to me.
    Already knew about it just do no like it


    The web site is trying to reduce the one time flame or advertisement type reviews...it's those kind of reviews that will water down the web sites good reputation.

    Mike
  • bertnspike wrote:
    Their main reason for requiring 3 reviews before posting is to make it more difficult to use them for a personal vendetta against any campground or personnel. It's far from perfect, but it IS FREE and run by volunteers. I for one am VERY grateful, use it all the time (but not to exclusion) and contribute. Every one of my reviews have been posted, good and bad, including the first 3.


    X2
  • I use rvparkreviews.com pretty extensively while planning my travels. I find the reviews pretty accurate most of the time. It's good to note the date of the last review(s) of a particular park. I've seen some outdated by 2 or 3 years. That being the case it's possible the RV park has changed substantially since the last review, making that review unreliable. Even so, rvparkreviews.com is a good general guide.

    Another guide you might try is:

    www.woodalls.com

    You may find some RV parks rated here that aren't mentioned at the other website (and vice versa).
  • pitch wrote:
    Sorry LiitleMO Dissing a CG for a river flooding? That is what rivers do! The thicket was probably there to prevent erosion when the river is flooding. Did you ask for the site in the photo? Or just a river front site?
    That is not to say that I haven't been to plenty of parks that use their grand opening pics from 1978 in their brochures and online.


    1. I don't know what "dissing" is but I didn't mention the name of the park here. I will review parks on here, though, and ask for reviews but I will do it on the Campground forum. I value the opinions I get on here. I am just responding to this post.

    2. I don't know where you got that the river was flooding. It wasn't even close to flooding. It was pouring down rain and had been all day, though. If there is a barrier to the river, it should have been on the map and it wasn't even mentioned that you have to walk 3/4 of a mile to even have access to river. Just think it would have been nice to know this. They also had spaces that were empty on higher ground where we could have moved but they had to be reserved 24 hrs in advance so we couldn't move. (They weren't reserved.) Still empty the next day when we decided to leave. Sorry if my "dissing" offends you but if you haven't been there don't assume you know what I am talking about.
  • Bounder Billy wrote:
    KFS: If you click on the link to the rv park, you will get lots of photos and visual information. Hope this reiterates the good, clarifies the bad and sorts it out!


    From the park. I like visitor photos. I want to see what visitors see :)

    Not that the de riguer photo of the laughing kids on a hay wagon isn't helpful ;)

    I visited one where the pool was as represented. What the campground didn't show on their website was the rusted door frames leading into it. I love that they have a gorgeous pool but lack of maintenance is an issue. You shouldn't have to worry about tetanus from bumping a doorframe in passing. The point being that when reviewers can share their own, non long-lens, generally non-pro shots of a CG you are liable to get a better idea of what to expect.

    It's all free so this isn't a complaint. Just trying to explain to OP why some may choose not to review.

    The same CG would also be unlikely to feature the seasonals straight off the set of "Hoarders" in their photos.m

    I have no issue with the 3 review requirement. It seems sound.
  • I use three sources, RVParkreviews, the book Next Exit, then after finding parks along my route I use google earth to get a look at the park area and to look at the route in and out of the parks area.

    Bill
  • RVPR is a first stop after planning a route. So far there have been few surprises. Most of the time I will post a review while in the CG if WIFI is available.

    Participation is important especially putting in up to date reviews on CGs along routes less traveled. Everyone knows what Disney is like. There is no need for 3 new reviews a week. How about that little CG in that tiny no stoplight town in the middle of Nebraska? You know, the ones which have not had an updated review in 3 years.
  • I just shared a review for state park. I found it very clean (which must have changed since many reviewers called it dirty in 2011). I agree up to date reviews are important.

    I did feel redundant in being yet another to say the sites were really tight. I suppose it helps cement the fact to someone thinking "well dozens of reviewers can't be wrong."