New RV Park Reviews website is now online

[docj]

The new and improved RV Park Reviews website has gone live. Spend some time exploring it. Additional features will be added over time. Please let us know of any bugs you encounter; we can guarantee there will be some! :B RV Park Reviews

[answerswillvary]

Since this thread has turned into a back and forth sniping contest between 2 members, it's time to close things down.

Sandi (Moderator)

[kcmoedoe]

docj wrote:

kcmoedoe wrote:

docj wrote:

kcmoedoe wrote:
A search by average ratings would be a dis-service to everyone since they apparently are not weighted by time. A park that is improving or going down hill will be improperly scored. And we all know that there are very few parks that don't change one way or the other over time. Especially impacted will be new owners who take on a run down park and build it up and parks where a change in ownership or management is running the place into the ground (think all the parks Morgan resorts bought).

I'm not sure why you assume you know all the answers about how the system is run. Weighting the average score so new reviews have more impact than others is definitely something that has been discussed and may be implemented in the future. I can't say for sure that it will happen or how it will be implemented if and when it is, but it was a fairly obvious issue which, most probably, will be addressed soon.

I may not know all the answers, but I sure got that one right, since you say it "MAY" be addressed in the future. It sure is arrogant to imply someone is wrong while admitting they were right. It that just you or is it the attitude the new ownership of the site is going to be taking on as their corporate identity?

The use of the word "may" is appropriate in common English usage when the speaker (me) doesn't have the authority to say that something will definitely happen. In this case there is a high probability that a change will be made but I'm not the decision-maker so I can't promise it with certitude.

It doesn't take much thought to realize that an average of all reviews from all years is rather deceptive for parks that are either improving or declining, although it may be quite acceptable for many others. What's much harder to figure out is how to "discount" older reviews. Should ones older than a certain age just not be counted? Should they be discounted using some mathematical formula? What about parks that don't have more than a couple of recent reviews? or maybe none at all? Should there be no average displayed for them at all?

When you give the issue some thought you realize that it is far more complicated than it appears and a solution that is appropriate for all parks and which can be automated is harder to arrive at than one might expect. It is easy to criticize something that is dislike than it is to come up with an effective solution.

I agree with you 100%, it is very difficult to come up with a formula that will accurately account for all the variables that any review site has. Things like some parks only get a review or two a year making a time weighted system virtually useless, some reviews are obviously either a fluff job by friends or management and other reviews are nothing but sour grapes by either disgruntled customers or competitors, skewing the scores. (as an aside is a gruntled customer a happy one?) In my opinion, maybe a mobile search that relies on any formulated average score might be a bad idea. There is way too much information that is gleamed by reading reviews that cannot ever be distilled into a single score for a park. A single score search will very likely do a dis-service to both the park and the potential customer. Maybe the site is trying to do something it really can't accomplish if they are trying to distill a park's score down to a single meaningful number.

[docj]

kcmoedoe wrote:

docj wrote:

kcmoedoe wrote:
A search by average ratings would be a dis-service to everyone since they apparently are not weighted by time. A park that is improving or going down hill will be improperly scored. And we all know that there are very few parks that don't change one way or the other over time. Especially impacted will be new owners who take on a run down park and build it up and parks where a change in ownership or management is running the place into the ground (think all the parks Morgan resorts bought).

I'm not sure why you assume you know all the answers about how the system is run. Weighting the average score so new reviews have more impact than others is definitely something that has been discussed and may be implemented in the future. I can't say for sure that it will happen or how it will be implemented if and when it is, but it was a fairly obvious issue which, most probably, will be addressed soon.

I may not know all the answers, but I sure got that one right, since you say it "MAY" be addressed in the future. It sure is arrogant to imply someone is wrong while admitting they were right. It that just you or is it the attitude the new ownership of the site is going to be taking on as their corporate identity?

The use of the word "may" is appropriate in common English usage when the speaker (me) doesn't have the authority to say that something will definitely happen. In this case there is a high probability that a change will be made but I'm not the decision-maker so I can't promise it with certitude.

It doesn't take much thought to realize that an average of all reviews from all years is rather deceptive for parks that are either improving or declining, although it may be quite acceptable for many others. What's much harder to figure out is how to "discount" older reviews. Should ones older than a certain age just not be counted? Should they be discounted using some mathematical formula? What about parks that don't have more than a couple of recent reviews? or maybe none at all? Should there be no average displayed for them at all?

When you give the issue some thought you realize that it is far more complicated than it appears and a solution that is appropriate for all parks and which can be automated is harder to arrive at than one might expect. It is easy to criticize something that is dislike than it is to come up with an effective solution.

[mdcamping]

vector wrote:
With the old format I could "magnify" an area of interest in a state and click on a town to bring up the CGs there. Then I could return to my "magnified" area map using the back button and search in a different nearby town. With the new format it seems that by using the back button I have to start all over with the entire state again and "re-magnify" to my area of interest. Am I missing something here with the new format?

Hi vector

Try state map magnify and invert magnify, seems to work where you can hop back to different areas on a state map.

Mike

[Us_out_West]

You still can...only easier.

Try and do some more 'looking' as it is a great improvement over the previous.

[vector]

With the old format I could "magnify" an area of interest in a state and click on a town to bring up the CGs there. Then I could return to my "magnified" area map using the back button and search in a different nearby town. With the new format it seems that by using the back button I have to start all over with the entire state again and "re-magnify" to my area of interest. Am I missing something here with the new format?

[docj]

kcmoedoe wrote:
A search by average ratings would be a dis-service to everyone since they apparently are not weighted by time. A park that is improving or going down hill will be improperly scored. And we all know that there are very few parks that don't change one way or the other over time. Especially impacted will be new owners who take on a run down park and build it up and parks where a change in ownership or management is running the place into the ground (think all the parks Morgan resorts bought).

I'm not sure why you assume you know all the answers about how the system is run. Weighting the average score so new reviews have more impact than others is definitely something that has been discussed and may be implemented in the future. I can't say for sure that it will happen or how it will be implemented if and when it is, but it was a fairly obvious issue which, most probably, will be addressed soon.

[docj]

kcmoedoe wrote:

docj wrote:

mikhen wrote:
Kind of like both the old and new sites. I like the fact you can see most reviewed and highest rated on the new site. I hate the fact that I can't login into my username, though. I emailed for help. Will wait and see. Worst case.....I set a new user name and update a review or 2. Great job for a free site. 😛

Try using the email address that is on file instead of your username. Use the same password as before.

That doesn't work for me since I used a very simple 4 character password in the previous incarnation and the new site requires a minimum of 5 characters. I tried to just create a new username and password, but the system rejected it because my inoperative username and password combination is tagged to my email address. I didn't want to go through the hassle of creating a new email address just so I could post comments and reviews, so I took the next easiest step and decided the site really doesn't need my input and reviews anymore. It was fun while it lasted.

Had you sent the Help Desk an inquiry they would have been glad to assist you. They could have set a temporary password so you could enter one of your own. We're sorry to see you go, but we'd be happy to work with you if you change your mind.

[kcmoedoe]

docj wrote:

Major Dad wrote:
We have started traveling with smartphone (Android) and leaving the laptop at home. Yes, we are trying to make it into the 21st Century. I appreciate that the new website is mobile device friendly; it makes it much easier to use on the go. Also, it loads much more quickly. I say this even though I really liked the old website, and don't enjoy learning to navigate new websites in general.

My understanding is that the phone app that is under development will provide at least the ability to access the park database and probably the average ratings offline without a network connection. Reading reviews would necessitate being online.

A search by average ratings would be a dis-service to everyone since they apparently are not weighted by time. A park that is improving or going down hill will be improperly scored. And we all know that there are very few parks that don't change one way or the other over time. Especially impacted will be new owners who take on a run down park and build it up and parks where a change in ownership or management is running the place into the ground (think all the parks Morgan resorts bought).

[kcmoedoe]

docj wrote:

mikhen wrote:
Kind of like both the old and new sites. I like the fact you can see most reviewed and highest rated on the new site. I hate the fact that I can't login into my username, though. I emailed for help. Will wait and see. Worst case.....I set a new user name and update a review or 2. Great job for a free site. 😛

Try using the email address that is on file instead of your username. Use the same password as before.

That doesn't work for me since I used a very simple 4 character password in the previous incarnation and the new site requires a minimum of 5 characters. I tried to just create a new username and password, but the system rejected it because my inoperative username and password combination is tagged to my email address. I didn't want to go through the hassle of creating a new email address just so I could post comments and reviews, so I took the next easiest step and decided the site really doesn't need my input and reviews anymore. It was fun while it lasted.

[docj]

Pirate wrote:
I won't complain too much since it is free, but I already mentioned that I would like the window of recent reviews to hold more reviews. I tend to watch that for new campgrounds and bad reviews. Hard to say how many reviews I miss now.

Your suggestion has been put on the list of improvements. However, this week has been spent fixing bugs that require immediate attention. Improvements come a ways behind bug fixes. Your patience is appreciated.

[docj]

mikhen wrote:
Kind of like both the old and new sites. I like the fact you can see most reviewed and highest rated on the new site. I hate the fact that I can't login into my username, though. I emailed for help. Will wait and see. Worst case.....I set a new user name and update a review or 2. Great job for a free site. 😛

Try using the email address that is on file instead of your username. Use the same password as before.

[hermy]

We have been using your site for years and have turned many fellow travelers on to it. We have found it to be very trustworthy. The new site looks great- seems intuitive and easy to use. It will continue to be our "go to" website so keep up the great work!

[mikhen]

Kind of like both the old and new sites. I like the fact you can see most reviewed and highest rated on the new site. I hate the fact that I can't login into my username, though. I emailed for help. Will wait and see. Worst case.....I set a new user name and update a review or 2. Great job for a free site. 😛