Quality of Park Reviews

2012Coleman wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:
I would think that even review sites have to be careful to not allow reviews to become posts that open them up Liable and Slander lawsuits.

That's what the Communications Decency Act is for. hopefully, they are familiar with their rights under this act as when a website owner edits contents or filters the material or postings that are published, they may be liable under certain circumstances.

As a webmaster of several sites, I have some experience in this area.

Exactly!

230's primary interpretation is that an entity has immunity if they are just showing something someone else has written.

Tertiary (or further down the line) interpretation is that once the entity edits or revises or requires the author to edit or revise, then the immunity stops as that entity is now considered a publisher, open to libel and slander issues.

That stranglehold on content would seem to put a site/entity at a disadvantage.

Anyroad...please keep in mind that the link to 230 is a plain-vanilla, easily digestible (okay, dumbed down) Wiki and not the actual text. There's a kick-butt Amicus and tons of research on line (some of which I had the pleasure of contributing to).

And, of course, I am not your paid legal counsel nor your research monkey. If you have questions, go pay someone for advice. :B

Us out West wrote:
From what I know Good Sam's ratings are done from people paid by Good Sam's to visit Parks and do a review...not by the general public RVers.

Agreed, but I just got an e-mail yesterday from Good Sam announcing the addition of user reviews to the campground rating pages, something like "RVerparkreviews," which seems perilously close to rvparkreviews.com, but that's a different issue. I checked out a couple campgrounds on the Good Sam website and so far most of them had no reviews at all, and the others only had one or two. I'm not sure I'll ever use it, and it may or may not ever have enough of a sample size to make it a valid resource, but I pass it along for what it's worth.
Skip

Working in hotels and reading our trip advisor reviews I learned to take them with a bit of caution. One reviewer loved our pool, best hotel pool she had used. The problem? We DIDN'T HAVE A POOL . then there was the one who said there were no restaurants within walking distance which must have been a surprise to the one we are connected to and the one across the street. They can be helpful not always accurate.

docj wrote:
And this is one of the reasons why RVPR asks reviewers to revise and resubmit their reviews, rather than having its administrators edit them. We may correct a misspelled word but will not make editorial changes or deletions. For those we return the review to the person who submitted it and provide guidance as to the changes we think it needs. Our new software platform makes it easy for our administrators to write a personal note explaining what changes we think are needed.

Although rvparkreviews wasn't the original subject of this thread, Joel, you've done a masterful, class act above and beyond explaining rvparkreviews substance and standards. A pure class act!

2012Coleman wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:
I would think that even review sites have to be careful to not allow reviews to become posts that open them up Liable and Slander lawsuits.

That's what the Communications Decency Act is for. hopefully, they are familiar with their rights under this act as when a website owner edits contents or filters the material or postings that are published, they may be liable under certain circumstances.

And this is one of the reasons why RVPR asks reviewers to revise and resubmit their reviews, rather than having its administrators edit them. We may correct a misspelled word but will not make editorial changes or deletions. For those we return the review to the person who submitted it and provide guidance as to the changes we think it needs. Our new software platform makes it easy for our administrators to write a personal note explaining what changes we think are needed.

GMandJM wrote:
Courtesy link to Section 230 / Communications Decency Act in case anyone is interested.

It does appear from the reading of some of the case law cited that site such as RVparkreviews.com would have a legal obligation to turn over the records of the posters to aid in an investigation into liable conduct to allow the defamed to sue the person or persons who created the actual content that they were claiming was liable. In other words, write a review that falsely defames a business and that business can sue you, and they can legally require the website to provide information that will identify you, such as name, address, IP addresses, Mac Addresses and the like.

GMandJM wrote:

docj wrote:
...
However, if your comment results from observing the owners smoking a joint on their property then we would probably ask that the statement be removed since it doesn't describe the park itself and the actions of residents and employees aren't suitable material for a review unless they affect your stay there...

That is precisely the kind of stuff that I (and others) have taken issue with. Things such as questionable behaviors of owners and staff most definitely have an impact on my decision of whether to stay somewhere or pass it by.

And because we know that things like that get "sanitized" out, it makes RVPR a less-reliable, less honest, less valued resource.

If someone finds something is important enough to put in their review, there are likely others who would find it important enough know.

When you decline their review or require a someone to change what they've written, it probably makes the person submitting the review feel like the time they've taken and effort they've made to write a decent and honest review has been wasted and is unappreciated.

People have expressed their frustration and, FWIW, I had this same conversation with AndyR quite awhile back.

For some of same reasons why I choose RVPR is why I look for campgrounds/Rv parks that enforce their own policies. More often than not those same establishments will be run at a higher level of excellence.

IMO, points can be made in a review without using certain language, people know how to read between the lines.

Mike

Courtesy link to Section 230 / Communications Decency Act in case anyone is interested.

westernrvparkowner wrote:
I would think that even review sites have to be careful to not allow reviews to become posts that open them up Liable and Slander lawsuits.

That's what the Communications Decency Act is for. hopefully, they are familiar with their rights under this act as when a website owner edits contents or filters the material or postings that are published, they may be liable under certain circumstances.

As a webmaster of several sites, I have some experience in this area.

wrpo, you are right. My only ever one that they asked me to review I did call the Manager basically a liar (confirmed by the computer server who said he has also been so in the past)- that was my basic issue. No bad language but strong; and it kinda spilled over and got quite long in detail (which was RVPR real issue). They were right; I was wrong. And my resubmittal was just fine...I eased up and shortened up.