Quality of Park Reviews

[philh]

Looking to make our first multi state longer trip with 2-3 day stays at multiple parks. As I'm beginning to plan out our trip, I'm overwhelmed with discrepant reviews. One reviewer said the showers are filthy with bugs and worms crawling on the walls, while another states it's one of the cleanest parks they have ever been in. Friendliness of personnel, quality of park sites, list goes on and on. It's even worse when there's only 2 or three reviews, don't people review parks on a regular basis?

How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?

[GMandJM]

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

[Kaz]

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

[SuperiorBound]

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.

[Skid_Row_Joe]

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!

[docj]

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.

[westernrvparkow]

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.

[mdcamping]

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

[GMandJM]

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

[2012Coleman]

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.

[Lauren]

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.

[westernrvparkow]

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.

Gauging by the amount of commercial advertising on RVPR and IRV2, it would be presumable that AndyR and Censored Knowledge are making money hand-over fist through ad revenue. I'm glad to know he's spending a bit of it on something that might make things easier for you and perhaps make the reviewing more consistent.

I have no illusion that the stranglehold on content will go away, though.

Anyway, thanks for your explanation (and for trying to keep it brief). I guess the only other question I might have is why RV.net allows you to advertise and promote RVPR on their forums.

(Rhetorical question, of course....no reply requested. :B)

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. Saying that the staff was rude is most likely acceptable. Saying that the manager is a Pedophile and you them sexually abuse the young children in the park would be actionable in my opinion. I am confident that the administrators of RVparkreviews could fill a book with the ridiculous comments upset people have made about parks and their employees over the years. As I have repeatedly pointed out, upset people don't just stop at the truth when posting their reviews. For some, their only mission is to hurt the park and there are no boundaries they won't cross to accomplish that task.

[2012Coleman]

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.

Gauging by the amount of commercial advertising on RVPR and IRV2, it would be presumable that AndyR and Censored Knowledge are making money hand-over fist through ad revenue. I'm glad to know he's spending a bit of it on something that might make things easier for you and perhaps make the reviewing more consistent.

I have no illusion that the stranglehold on content will go away, though.

Anyway, thanks for your explanation (and for trying to keep it brief). I guess the only other question I might have is why RV.net allows you to advertise and promote RVPR on their forums.

(Rhetorical question, of course....no reply requested. :B)

Excellent post. This was my take as well. Give us your input, but we will format it for you to our liking - or force you to. I can see this to the point they make of not allowing competing CG's give a bad rating, but there are too many instances where it has been stated that the post will be edited.

[the_happiestcam]

One man's 10 is another man's 1 - and vice versa. To get an accurate representation of someone's review, you should read their other reviews. There was one who gave only 10's and 1's - solely based on wi-fi.

[Lauren]

I would not trust Good Sam ratings at all. Think there is a lot going on there.

We were at a GS park who announced as I walked in the door that they were one of only two GS 10-10-10 parks in the state. The guy taking me to the site said the same thing.

The site slanted way forward and he told me to park near the front as it is more level front to back. True. But two blocks under left wheels. I drop the 5er and am setting up. E & W there but where is the sewer - at least 35-40 feet at the back of the site. There was no way to connect so we did without for the 5 days there and used their showers.

Our neighbor's water connection was a pipe out of the next to the trailer side of OUR picnic table. And, of course, his sewer was all the way at the back.

All the sites were a mess like that. And G S gives them 3 10's!

Like twogypsies I brought this to their attention and got "Form Letter A" back; doubt they even read my email - just send him the standard email back.