Why no rating for a campground

Ummm...I would guess because nobody has rated it yet. Perhaps it's just not a popular campground with God Sam travel planner users who are apt to rate things.

Because nobody willing to review it has stayed there. Maybe because it’s a terrible place? Maybe because it’s just not on “the beaten path?” Perhaps “the camping gods” are trying to get YOU to stay there and write that review?

Someone has to be the first to submit a rating, why not you?
To me, the ratings do not mean a whole lot.
My idea and your idea of something good or bad may be the same or miles apart.

Since the CG has no ratings, it may mean it is average with nothing to complain about either way.
If it's on your route, try it. Even a bad CG is (usually) better than a Walmart or highway rest stop.
If it's bad, submit a rating.

A wise camper wouldn't rate his favorite nice quiet not crowded campground in any publication.

JIMNLIN wrote:
A wise camper wouldn't rate his favorite nice quiet not crowded campground in any publication.

^^^ Agree.... plus, will never tell you the best spots to go either,or else the next time he wants to go, it will be occupied.

JIMNLIN wrote:
A wise camper wouldn't rate his favorite nice quiet not crowded campground in any publication.

Yes, the old "ladder up" theory. I'm in the lifeboat, pull that ladder up.

I've considered this, but then I realized that what I like in a campground will probably only apply to a small group of RVers.

I use RVParkReviews almost exclusively to figure out where I want to stay. I'm happy to say that for the most part the reviews are fair and accurate. The greater the number of reviews, the more comfortable I am the the rating. I've seen parks with 2 reviews; one good, one bad. The goos is probably from the campground owner, the bad is most likely from his nearest competitor.

jplante4 wrote:
I've seen parks with 2 reviews; one good, one bad. The goos is probably from the campground owner, the bad is most likely from his nearest competitor.

That's why the ratings don't mean a whole lot to me..

I said "rating" not reviews

There are certain requirements for a park to be rated. And the owner has the right to just refuse to allow the inspector to view and rate the park. I know there are many park owners that don't agree with the rating criteria. I take exception to several of them myself.
It isn't a big leap to just say "NO" to the entire Good Sam rating system if the park in question doesn't fit into what Good Sam feels should be in a highly rated park. For example, a very nice park in the woods, without any recreation, laundry, wifi, fencing, lighted sign, or pool. That only has gravel roads and gravel pads and has a bath house with drywall, exposed piping and concrete flooring could very well have a rating something like 5/7*/5. On a one to ten scale, Those would be failing marks in school. It isn't hard to see where an owner might feel he would be better off unrated in such a circumstance.

westernrvparkowner wrote:
There are certain requirements for a park to be rated. And the owner has the right to just refuse to allow the inspector to view and rate the park. I know there are many park owners that don't agree with the rating criteria. I take exception to several of them myself.
It isn't a big leap to just say "NO" to the entire Good Sam rating system if the park in question doesn't fit into what Good Sam feels should be in a highly rated park. For example, a very nice park in the woods, without any recreation, laundry, wifi, fencing, lighted sign, or pool. That only has gravel roads and gravel pads and has a bath house with drywall, exposed piping and concrete flooring could very well have a rating something like 5/7*/5. On a one to ten scale, Those would be failing marks in school. It isn't hard to see where an owner might feel he would be better off unrated in such a circumstance.

Thanks for your reply