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?

[Parrothead_Mike]

Have used RV Park Reviews.com for several years and have been pleased with the info. I've used the site to select campgrounds in the Rockies, Bar Harbor Maine, Florida, Alabama, Kentucky, New York, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Wyoming, and Canada. You have to read through the one unhappy camper, but the averages have been very accurate in my opinion. I'll keep using it to plan trips.

[2gypsies1]

....and that's why I'm convinced that the reviews from Good Sam are biased.

[Us_out_West]

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.

[2gypsies1]

We would go by the RV Parks Reviews site over Good Sam. We have found so many inconsistencies with Good Sam in their ratings. I've tried to bring this to their attention of blatant errors and nothing was ever done.

Go RVPARKREVIEWS.COM!!!

[Lauren]

Making it very clear, I was the one in error when they asked me to re-write it.

Also, when I rate a park I certainly take staff into account; they can make or break your establishment. Even phone conversation.

When I call to make a reservation for example and they tell me they are busy at the counter can they call me back they can pretty much be guaranteed I will do business with them (assuming I get the call back). Why? Two reasons. I hate it when I dealing with any business face to face and they give priority to a phone call. I have been known to walk out. Secondly, neither I nor the person at the counter is getting the attention a customer deserves.

Also, I do not rate based on the number of amenities; I rate based on how well things are as they say they have.

I love those who complain there was no pool, for example, when they never said they had one in the first place!

I don't always agree with wpo but I sure wish I knew where his parks were as I could go out of my way to stay there.

[GMandJM]

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)

[westernrvparkow]

Veebyes wrote:
If only there was some consistency in the way people rated a CG.

There are those who will trash a place based on one negative item. For example how often have you seen a low score simply because a reservation was messed up & they did not get the site they wanted? Everything else was fine.

I suspect that many posters rate in a similar way. Start at a 10 rating & then deduct, giving the reasons for each point loss. For some WIFI is important & expected in a certain price range. For others not so much. For many the bathrooms are important. Some don't even use the CG bathrooms so, good or bad, no mention is made of them. I expect a table at every site regardless of price range. A fire ring is not expected at a CG that caters to one night transients & the lack of one at such a CG will not warrent a point deduction. The lack of one at a SP or a destination CG will get a point deduction.

Wading through different methods of rating is not that hard to do. The silly complaints are easy to spot.

And the no smoke people will add a point for no fire rings at a State Park or Destination campground. Surely you are not advocating having to change YOUR personal score based on someone else's criteria? I mean, should I have to deduct a point from my score because there isn't a picnic table I neither want or need if I pull into a perfectly good site for a quick overnight stay? There is no way to make ratings consistent from reviewer to reviewer. Good Sam tries to do it in their ratings, points for this, points for that, deductions for this, deductions for that, and you can search these forums and find numerous threads about how people believe the Good Sam ratings for a park are worthless.

[Lauren]

As has been said before in other posting on here, I use RV Park Reviews as my solid base for information. I find it extremely well done and controlled; they do great job.

As I have also said, I do not look back more than two years and I throw out the top and bottom ones. I tend to lean toward the top ones as I positive is always good.

(On Edit) I generally discount any review where they are complaining about the actions of people who were there - that, to me, has nothing to do with the rating of the park. Unless it is a flagrant abuse of rules that they park should be enforcing. (End of edit)

We have been to 178 different RV parks over our 17 years part time rv'ing. I have done 132 reviews on RV Park Reviews. Only once have I had a review turned down; and rightfully so. I wrote it in the intense heat of frustration! Oh, my language was ok but it was strong. They asked, very nicely, that I re-write it -- and I did a couple days later and it was posted. Only two have I maintained in here and other places to never go to - it was ethics issues. I don't being lied to and I don't like being cheated financially or morally.

That all being said, if I ever have further questions about a place or something I come to this Forum. I love this Forum and know fully well those whose info I can trust, those whose I cannot trust and many others in the middle that I do not know well but am giving the benefit of the doubt.

Do I always agree with everyone? Of course not. Nor do they with me. We can agree to disagree.

My hat is off and my sincere thanks go to RV Park Reviews. They do an excellent job with all kinds of input!

Thank you.

Lauren

[mdcamping]

Skid Row Joe wrote:

Us out West wrote:
We like RVParkReviews more than the others for what they offer...the good and the not so good.

I'm very glad that Joel, of rvparkreviews is answering many questions here, as well as dispelling any nonsensical rumors that some are positing.

I, like the poster I'm quoting here, rely on rvparkreviews more than any other source when travelling by RV. rvparkreviews isn't trying to sell you this and that, nor do they have a hidden agenda. I genuinely appreciate rvparkreviews as my only source for finding popular, AND the out-of-the-way gems of RV parks and CampGrounds, that I would have never been able to find on my own without them.

rvparkreviews straightforward, RV parks/CG listings are extremely valuable to this RVer!



Once again, thank you, Joel!:)

X3

Mike

[Skid_Row_Joe]

Us out West wrote:
We like RVParkReviews more than the others for what they offer...the good and the not so good.

I'm very glad that Joel, of rvparkreviews is answering many questions here, as well as dispelling any nonsensical rumors that some are positing.

I, like the poster I'm quoting here, rely on rvparkreviews more than any other source when travelling by RV. rvparkreviews isn't trying to sell you this and that, nor do they have a hidden agenda. I genuinely appreciate rvparkreviews as my only source for finding popular, AND the out-of-the-way gems of RV parks and CampGrounds, that I would have never been able to find on my own without them.

rvparkreviews straightforward, RV parks/CG listings are extremely valuable to this RVer!

Once again, thank you, Joel!:)

[Veebyes]

If only there was some consistency in the way people rated a CG.

There are those who will trash a place based on one negative item. For example how often have you seen a low score simply because a reservation was messed up & they did not get the site they wanted? Everything else was fine.

I suspect that many posters rate in a similar way. Start at a 10 rating & then deduct, giving the reasons for each point loss. For some WIFI is important & expected in a certain price range. For others not so much. For many the bathrooms are important. Some don't even use the CG bathrooms so, good or bad, no mention is made of them. I expect a table at every site regardless of price range. A fire ring is not expected at a CG that caters to one night transients & the lack of one at such a CG will not warrent a point deduction. The lack of one at a SP or a destination CG will get a point deduction.

Wading through different methods of rating is not that hard to do. The silly complaints are easy to spot.

[docj]

GMandJM wrote:
Does that mean that as long as a review isn't a rant, people can now say that a park is "owned by a nice young couple" or "marijuana enthusiasts" the review won't be rejected/declined/edited?

As far as I know a review never would have been edited for saying that a park was "owned by a nice young couple." I've used those words in my own reviews. However, our policy doesn't permit the use of names, so if you wrote "the park is owned by Sue and Bob, a nice young couple" it would be edited to remove the names.

As for writing that a park is owned by marijuana enthusiasts, it would depend on how you determined that fact to be true. If, for example, the park is in Colorado or Washington State and the park owners operate a pot store in conjunction with it, then there would be nothing preventing you from making that observation.

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.

If, OTOH, your statement is based on the fact that the owners and some of the residents had a loud, raucous pot party going that lasted well past midnight and disturbed your sleep then there would be no problem writing that, but we might ask that you delete the pot reference unless you knew for sure that it was true. Loud parties that affect other campers are an issue worth noting regardless of whether or not they are fueled by alcohol or pot.

I hope this answers your questions. Some questions don't have "black or white" answers and we, the site admins, spend a lot of time discussing reviews that contain such topics. Our new software enables us to have group discussions of specific reviews which helps to ensure that there is consistency in how we deal with the more controversial ones.

Joel

[Oaklevel]

Everyone has an opinion.......... a bathroom can be spotless & the next person in trashes it..... have seen bad reviews that gave the campground a low score because the weather was bad and / or there was a water puddle after a rain. A common one is the WiFi is bad.... & give the campground a poor review because of it, but we could care less if it even has WiFi.

Bottom line is take any review with a grain of salt & read between the lines...... 🙂

[2gypsies1]

Trip Advisor includes a lot of 'glorified' posts by owners and friends. We'd never use them.

[Us_out_West]

We like RVParkReviews more than the others for what they offer...the good and the not so good.

Trip Advisor is more about selling you hotels, airline tickets and the list goes on.