Writing those reviews.

I have found most cg on trip advisor under alternate lodging. Tripadvisor works well and better than rv reviews as most I find are old. Between ta and rv.net we find enough info.

martipr wrote:

KFS wrote:
I signed up and posted a few but the site seems kind of old and slow. My go-to is TripAdvisor and RV's insistence on not allowing photographs is puzzling.

A picture speaks a thousand words and their rationale for not allowing them reads like it's thought up by some not-so-net-savvy admins.

Great idea though.

Maybe I an ignorant but I didn't see RV Parks on TripAdviser.

TripAdvisor puts the rather limited number of RV Park reviews it has in with hotels. Although we use TA a lot for "things to see" and local restaurants, our experience is that its RV Park review are rather limited especially in smaller towns.

For example, in the Montana town we are staying at tomorrow (near Glacier NP) the CG we have reservations at has 4 reviews on TA compared with 40 on RVParkReviews (over a period of 9 years). Of the 4 TA reviews one is the type we would not publish on RVParkReviews because it deals entirely with the reviewer's dislike for the owner of the CG. When we receive reviews like that we send them back to the reviewer with specific direction that they be re-written. TA does not police its reviews; as long as they aren't filled with profanity they get approved.

IMHO no single review site can "do it all". TA, Yelp, RVParkReviews all have things they do best.

hitchup wrote:
My only gripe is the RV Park I'm researching either isn't mentioned or the link to their website isn't accurate. Which isn't always the fault of the contributor. Otherwise, I add our comments when I can and use it all the time.

RVParkReview administrators are supposed to verify the website link every time they approve a review. However, if a park hasn't been reviewed in a long time it's possible that it has changed or even discontinued its website and there would be no way for the review site to know that.

KFS wrote:
I signed up and posted a few but the site seems kind of old and slow. My go-to is TripAdvisor and RV's insistence on not allowing photographs is puzzling.

A picture speaks a thousand words and their rationale for not allowing them reads like it's thought up by some not-so-net-savvy admins.

Great idea though.

Maybe I an ignorant but I didn't see RV Parks on TripAdviser.

I signed up and posted a few but the site seems kind of old and slow. My go-to is TripAdvisor and RV's insistence on not allowing photographs is puzzling.

A picture speaks a thousand words and their rationale for not allowing them reads like it's thought up by some not-so-net-savvy admins.

Great idea though.

Heres what you do in the absense of reviews - Google the CG name. There is usually reviews on Google. Also, and this is important - click the images link at the top so you can at least see some pictures. We almost went to a CG that had good reviews on RVParkReviews and saw that the sites were stacked on top of each other, and that the "lake" so beautifully described, was a mud pit.

My only gripe is the RV Park I'm researching either isn't mentioned or the link to their website isn't accurate. Which isn't always the fault of the contributor. Otherwise, I add our comments when I can and use it all the time.

Like BBTX, I try to review most parks we stay at. I am particularly fond of rvparkreviews and depend on it when going to a new or unfamiliar area. I have found other campers' opinions about campgrounds, in general, to be very helpful. When a CG gets generally the same numbers and comments from those who have stayed there, I basically know what to expect. The difference between a 5 or 6 or a 7 or 8 is usually minimal, but throw a 2 or 3 in there and that's a review I definitely read. Often it's based on a very personal set of circumstances. Also, when I see a review that seems "out of the loop" to others', I check that reviewer's history. Generally there is a pattern to that reviewer's complaints -Not dog friendly, nasty staff, bad neighbors no one did anything about, etc.- that runs through all other reviews. That one I often decide to ignore! Thanks to everyone who takes the time to share their experiences with the rest of us. It really is helpful and very much appreciated.

I am probably guilty of not posting enough. But I feel little need to repeat what has been said or be nit picky just to get a new post. I don't view old posts a as negative. What I would like to see more of is reviews of previously unreported parks. We have discovered some real gems and one or two duds. Reporting a new park is quite a chore and to be done properly requires time and effort. Many smaller parks do not have websites and if not previously reported at rvparkreviews, finding even basic info is nearly impossible. So take a chance, explore and test a new park once in awhile and tell us what you found.

Seems even the larger RV parks only get a limited number of reviews each year even though you know there are hundreds of units pass thru them. Many people do not know about the site, but most I am sure simply do not take the time.
I try to submit a review for each park I visit each year.