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.

[NCWriter]

breeno wrote:


@NCWriter: we stayed at Tom Sawyer twice in Sept/Oct and didn't have any issues with no response. Bummer. It's a nifty little park, despite the dusty roads and crappy entrance road, we definitely enjoyed our time there (whilst covered in Off insect repellant!)

Thanks, good to know. I was disappointed because it sounded like fun to be camped beside the Mississippi. I'll try them again next time. (Sorry to post my response off the topic, everybody, but I did appreciate this info.)

[breeno]

We always check rvparkreviews.com first. Critical reading required, sure, but hey, that's true of everything in this connected universe we now live in, isn't it? I look for recent review count, trends and things that matter to me (playground, ease of access, neatness, etc) and go from there.

And I try to always review parks after I stay at them to give back. Great service.
I only had one review edited and that was because I mentioned a SP interpreter by name (in praise at that) -- which I suppose is some sort of no-no.

@NCWriter: we stayed at Tom Sawyer twice in Sept/Oct and didn't have any issues with no response. Bummer. It's a nifty little park, despite the dusty roads and crappy entrance road, we definitely enjoyed our time there (whilst covered in Off insect repellant!)

[JohnnyT]

Moved from class A forum

[et2]

We've posted honest reviews more than once on RV Review. All were honest either explaining the likes or dislikes. However as others said, I do believe there are a lot friends or family of the owners that try to change things to the good. If there is a lot of contradiction or few reviews then I move to another choice.

[Lantley]

I agree not to put too much faith in one review but focus on the reviews as a whole. Similar comments both positive and negative tend to have some validity.

I try to notice if most reviewers have a positive or negative experience and why.
If the CG is where I want to be, and there are no other options available, I may still take a gamble on a park with questionable reviews.

[docj]

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.

I agree with you, but anyone who is naive or foolish enough to believe the one review and ignore the others doesn't know how to use a review site and has only themselves to blame. We rely almost exclusively on RVParkReviews, but our usual approach is to throw out the best and worst reviews and take the average of what's left. Usually, that provides something approaching truth. IMHO one complaint about an employee or manager is irrelevant; multiple ones are worth considering. The same is true about other complaints; discount the isolated complaint and take seriously those that are repeated.

[Dave_From_AK]

I have posted over 200 reviews on RVParkReviews.com. I have never had a review rejected, and some were well south of favorable.

Remember, that site is not the Complaint Department for RVers. If you try to post a rant, or even a lengthy complaint about a single issue, they will send it back to you. I make sure my reviews provide information that other RVers care about: interior road conditions, site size and construction, whether sites are level, the quality of the power (especially under load in hot weather), the quality of the water, privacy, aesthetics, bathroom/shower cleanliness and appearance (even though we don't use them), helpfulness of staff, etc. If campground staff are rude or unhelpful, I sure include that in my review.

We haven't camped anywhere without checking that site first in years, although we have been the first to review a number of campgrounds.

[Trap]

Not sure I understand, I think it's a great site and has worked well for us so far. While maybe not perfect, it's better than anything else I've used. Take out the high and the low opinions, and usually you get a good idea of what the campground is really like.

[Dutch_12078]

dieharder wrote:

Dutch_12078 wrote:

ontheroad101 wrote:
Wow this post is really getting kicked around. One thing I don't believe was mentioned was being able to post photo's on RV Review. It would be good to post pictures of sites. But this could bring a whole lot more positive and negative discussion. It is said "that a picture is worth a thousand words".

I understood from some posts a while back on the RVParkReviews forum, that photos were being considered for future inclusion. I have no idea of the current status though.

Considering it's a completely free service, I can only imagine how much it would cost to start storing photos that people want to share of campsites on the website. A photo takes a hell of a lot more space than just plain text. I highly doubt that it's a likely change, unless it's packaged in with a bunch of money generating changes.

One possibility for minimizing needed resources, would be to only allow image links to photos stored elsewhere, the same as we have to do here. I don't know what capabilities or limitations their current site software has though.

[dieharder]

Dutch_12078 wrote:

ontheroad101 wrote:
Wow this post is really getting kicked around. One thing I don't believe was mentioned was being able to post photo's on RV Review. It would be good to post pictures of sites. But this could bring a whole lot more positive and negative discussion. It is said "that a picture is worth a thousand words".

I understood from some posts a while back on the RVParkReviews forum, that photos were being considered for future inclusion. I have no idea of the current status though.

Considering it's a completely free service, I can only imagine how much it would cost to start storing photos that people want to share of campsites on the website. A photo takes a hell of a lot more space than just plain text. I highly doubt that it's a likely change, unless it's packaged in with a bunch of money generating changes.

[NCWriter]

I use it regularly to choose the 30 or more campgrounds where we stay each year during three months of travel. I get a little uneasy when a place hasn't been reviewed in a year or two. The site is like Gas Buddy - it works when people participate.

Got burned recently on a campground with a lot of 10 reviews. It turned out to be a real dump, but not much else around and we just needed an overnight so we stayed. I went back and read the reviews and realized points mentioned were oddly consistent, written by people with just two or three reviews posted. Had to be the owners or their relatives. No one who actually travels by RV would consider it a 10.

But usually, RV Park Reviews works for me.

By the way...Someone mentioned recent issues with Tom Sawyer near Memphis. A few days ago, we left a message 24 hours ahead of our desired arrival. No call back. Emailed and called again next morning. Still no response. (So we skipped them and drove a couple more hours to a modest place where we stayed once before.) Must not have needed our business.

[Dutch_12078]

ontheroad101 wrote:
Wow this post is really getting kicked around. One thing I don't believe was mentioned was being able to post photo's on RV Review. It would be good to post pictures of sites. But this could bring a whole lot more positive and negative discussion. It is said "that a picture is worth a thousand words".

I understood from some posts a while back on the RVParkReviews forum, that photos were being considered for future inclusion. I have no idea of the current status though.

[ontheroad101]

Wow this post is really getting kicked around. One thing I don't believe was mentioned was being able to post photo's on RV Review. It would be good to post pictures of sites. But this could bring a whole lot more positive and negative discussion. It is said "that a picture is worth a thousand words".

[wny_pat1]

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)

I always have to look in my part of a event. And I assure you that I do have a part, and sometime that part can set off the other party!

And when looking at the whole of data on RV Park Reviews, it is not worthless. No more worthless than this discussion thread. When you look at the whole of this thread, one can determine that the majority do not consider RV Park Reviews to be worthless!

And why lie about something? The truth will set you free. Look at your side of the matter. You always have a part in it.