RV Park Reviews

[jerseyjim]

After going thru this site for info, laughs, whatever, I usually access RVParkReviews.com.

In a general sense, most of the complaints are about the Wi-Fi systems. The "camping" itself seems to take second or third place.
And...God forbid one has to turn the steering wheel because a corner is kinda tight.....

But what REALLY interests me is the different reviews of the same place....same month...maybe the same day. Reviewer # 1 says how lousy the place is....Reviewer # 2 says it's the next place to Heaven!

Just sayin'....FWIW.

[okgc]

super_camper wrote:

I agree. Individual reviews are worthless but if you look at the sum of all reviews available it can be very useful.

X2

We also use RV Park Reviews to show some of the gems not listed in TL type guides etc. We have found Class A & ownership type resorts on RV Reviews with great rates. If we can spend less and get more I am all for it.

[Dog_Folks]

westernrvparkowner wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:
The bottom line is, then, nothing posted can be verified. Therefore, the information is worthless.

If I have a bad time about a staff member, I can just lie about something that is a non-person. (Sarcasm key off)

That happens all the time. Just read the reviews. Once a person mentions they had a problem with a staff member there is often a string of complaints about the park that have not been mentioned in any of the other reviews. There will be 15 posts in a row about how clean the restrooms are and how well the utilities work and then the post that mentions the run in with an employee goes on to say the restrooms were filthy, the wifi worthless and the electricity nearly ruined their RV. Reviewers lie about non-person things all the time.

Proves my point.

[Finally]

Heads up on road condtions, low hanging limbs, and very difficult tight spaces.we also need good cell service.

[westernrvparkow]

Dog Folks wrote:
The bottom line is, then, nothing posted can be verified. Therefore, the information is worthless.

If I have a bad time about a staff member, I can just lie about something that is a non-person. (Sarcasm key off)

That happens all the time. Just read the reviews. Once a person mentions they had a problem with a staff member there is often a string of complaints about the park that have not been mentioned in any of the other reviews. There will be 15 posts in a row about how clean the restrooms are and how well the utilities work and then the post that mentions the run in with an employee goes on to say the restrooms were filthy, the wifi worthless and the electricity nearly ruined their RV. Reviewers lie about non-person things all the time.

[Dog_Folks]

The bottom line is, then, nothing posted can be verified. Therefore, the information is worthless.

If I have a bad time about a staff member, I can just lie about something that is a non-person. (Sarcasm key off)

[BB_TX]

Lantley wrote:
I think in the end I have a much more positive attitude than most.
I make a point not to let someone elses bad day become my bad day.
My positive attitude comes from within. I have experienced real sorrow and tragedy. With that in mind I don't sweat the small stuff like a rude greeting or a cranky attitude.
There are so many more important things to concern myself with that I just try not to get bogged down with trivial negativity.
I go camping to escape the rat race,have fun,relax and enjoy myself.
It will take more than a desk clerk,bad neighbor,angry owner,barking dog.......you name it to keep me from accomplishing my goal!

Amen, brother! Too bad there are not more people like that.

[Sully2]

I go by Trailer Life CG directory and never found it to be off in any way!

[super_camper]

prism wrote:
Heres my take on it.Look at say 6 reviews.If 4 of 6 complain about a certain thing then take that as most likely true.If one of 6 complain take that as that persons personal dislike.I find attitude from the Park managers/workers is in a direct relationship to the Campers attitude most all the time.There are as we say exceptions to all rule.

I agree. Individual reviews are worthless but if you look at the sum of all reviews available it can be very useful.

[westernrvparkow]

Dog Folks wrote:

westernrvparkowner wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:

camper_ron wrote:

dieharder wrote:
I have seen plenty of reviews that discussed rude interactions between campground personnel and clients. I'm tempted to believe that there might be more to the story about the rejected reviews.

******

I tend to be very specific, so when I mentioned some individuals by name and was informed of my egregious error. I edited out said names re-submitted and it was posted.

r0n.....:B

I mean no disrespect to you.

By removing the names the offending person that person is now cloaked and unknown. That is what I mean about selective censorship with this site.

If naming names in a vulgar, or possibly libelous way, then remove it. If not, the truth, and just the facts, are an absolute defense against libel.

For this site to be believable , and have any value, these names need to be allowed.

Absolutely not. No names, ever. That would just be allowing people to slander others anonymously, since there is no mechanism to verify any of the comments made on any review site.

Good point-- with no resolution other than the poster make up some other excuse/problem that is outrageous, slanderous or simply not true. A poster can post anything that meets your concerns about anything, not just people. There is no mechanism to check these claims either.

The site COULD allow the campground owner to respond.

It is a site of opinions and we all know how some opinions have no basis in fact. I don't trust the site, I will not post there, but then again, that is my opinion.

They chose not to allow any responses. And even if responses were allowed, names would surely be verboten. If there was an incident, you could bet that the park would know the guest involved. What would stop the park from responding with untrue statements about that guest. Pretty simple to say "Yes there was a confrontation, but only after John Q. Public repeatedly violated park rules by allowing his dogs to defecate on other peoples' sites and when confronted Mr. Public responded with a string of profanities. It appeared Mr. Public was either drunk or high on drugs." While RVparkreviews.com is a relatively small and obscure website such a post would haunt Mr. Public whenever a Google or similar search was run. Names would cross a very big line.

[Dog_Folks]

westernrvparkowner wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:

camper_ron wrote:

dieharder wrote:
I have seen plenty of reviews that discussed rude interactions between campground personnel and clients. I'm tempted to believe that there might be more to the story about the rejected reviews.

******

I tend to be very specific, so when I mentioned some individuals by name and was informed of my egregious error. I edited out said names re-submitted and it was posted.

r0n.....:B

I mean no disrespect to you.

By removing the names the offending person that person is now cloaked and unknown. That is what I mean about selective censorship with this site.

If naming names in a vulgar, or possibly libelous way, then remove it. If not, the truth, and just the facts, are an absolute defense against libel.

For this site to be believable , and have any value, these names need to be allowed.

Absolutely not. No names, ever. That would just be allowing people to slander others anonymously, since there is no mechanism to verify any of the comments made on any review site.

Good point-- with no resolution other than the poster make up some other excuse/problem that is outrageous, slanderous or simply not true. A poster can post anything that meets your concerns about anything, not just people. There is no mechanism to check these claims either.

The site COULD allow the campground owner to respond.

It is a site of opinions and we all know how some opinions have no basis in fact. I don't trust the site, I will not post there, but then again, that is my opinion.

[westernrvparkow]

Dog Folks wrote:

camper_ron wrote:

dieharder wrote:
I have seen plenty of reviews that discussed rude interactions between campground personnel and clients. I'm tempted to believe that there might be more to the story about the rejected reviews.

******

I tend to be very specific, so when I mentioned some individuals by name and was informed of my egregious error. I edited out said names re-submitted and it was posted.

r0n.....:B

I mean no disrespect to you.

By removing the names the offending person that person is now cloaked and unknown. That is what I mean about selective censorship with this site.

If naming names in a vulgar, or possibly libelous way, then remove it. If not, the truth, and just the facts, are an absolute defense against libel.

For this site to be believable , and have any value, these names need to be allowed.

Absolutely not. No names, ever. That would just be allowing people to slander others anonymously, since there is no mechanism to verify any of the comments made on any review site.

[prism]

Heres my take on it.Look at say 6 reviews.If 4 of 6 complain about a certain thing then take that as most likely true.If one of 6 complain take that as that persons personal dislike.I find attitude from the Park managers/workers is in a direct relationship to the Campers attitude most all the time.There are as we say exceptions to all rule.

[Dog_Folks]

camper_ron wrote:

dieharder wrote:
I have seen plenty of reviews that discussed rude interactions between campground personnel and clients. I'm tempted to believe that there might be more to the story about the rejected reviews.

******

I tend to be very specific, so when I mentioned some individuals by name and was informed of my egregious error. I edited out said names re-submitted and it was posted.

r0n.....:B

I mean no disrespect to you.

By removing the names the offending person that person is now cloaked and unknown. That is what I mean about selective censorship with this site.

If naming names in a vulgar, or possibly libelous way, then remove it. If not, the truth, and just the facts, are an absolute defense against libel.

For this site to be believable , and have any value, these names need to be allowed.

[camper_ron]

dieharder wrote:
I have seen plenty of reviews that discussed rude interactions between campground personnel and clients. I'm tempted to believe that there might be more to the story about the rejected reviews.

******

I tend to be very specific, so when I mentioned some individuals by name and was informed of my egregious error. I edited out said names re-submitted and it was posted.

r0n.....:B

[VinCee]

I believe interactions with the owner's of a CG can give you a good or bad impression of the overall park management. Every year DW and I go to the same CG near Sodus Bay, NY. The owner's handle reservations, check in, the CG store and just about everything else. They drive around constantly in John Deere carts keeping an eye on things while delivering fire wood. On the other hand, a CG we have visited near Ithaca, NY on several occasions no longer gets our business. Last time there after an enjoyable three night stay we went to dump the tanks. Dump station had a lock on it so I went up to the office, it was pouring rain, and the owner was sitting on the porch with one of his workers. I asked why the dump was locked and was told that it'll cost me $10 to dump in a condescending voice. I asked why wasn't I told when I made reservations that they charge to dump, it is a hidden cost. He could care less what I thought and told me all parks will start charging to dump. I suggested to him that if his costs where that high he should raise his prices to cover the investment he made into a new dump station. We already paid $44 a night, non holiday weekend. Drove down the road to a state park and dumped there, supported by my tax dollars.