RV Park Website lies rant

[bertnspike]

I'm halfway home from a trip from Florida to California and back. I have been quite surprised by how many RV parks tell outright lies on their websites. Calling themselves a "resort" when all they have is basic hookups. Calling themselves "pet friendly" when the only place to walk a dog is a foxtail and sandspur infested strip of rock hard dirt along the pavement. Advertising free cable when there is none, advertising free wifi that doesn't work. Saying it's quiet at night when they back up to a highway. Squeezing RVs together within inches of each other. Making no attempt to provide level sites.

I realize these are minor things to many people. For me, it's a problem. I base my travels on my next stop and seldom stay in a place for only one night. Usually I'll reserve for a minimum of 2 nights. Frequently I base those reservations on what I read at the RV Park Reviews website and the park website.

My 2 dogs are quite old and I like to provide them with a little off leash time whenever possible. It's also better for them if the potty area isn't too far away.

I'm pretty sedentary myself and spend a lot of time on the computer or reading or watching TV. I like to open up all the windows and sit with the dogs and just enjoy my surroundings.

It is darn disappointing to arrive at a park that I have already paid for 2 nights at only to find it's a run down place full of permanent residents and marginal (if any) amenities.

I'd say this applies to a good 30% of the parks I've been to. I suppose they get away with it because of the transience of anyone who might care. I wish people posting RV park reviews would give more details and note such discrepancies, as I do.

There. I'm done ranting now. Thank you.

[tnt4utvols]

deleted

[ngreen]

Everyone has there own idea of a great RV site! Currently we are in a wooded secluded rv park, but our friends would rather stay close to the interstate where they dont have to worry about the trees that intervere with thier satellite reception or the mud at their site -no paved parking lot on the highway for me!

[Gunship_Guy]

docj wrote:

As full-timers we have been to quite a few RV parks in the past couple of years. If your parks do not have long-term residents then you are in the minority. Almost every park we go to has at least some long-term customers, even KOA's which we normally would not consider locations for more than a few days or a week, at most.

You make it sound as if long term residents are the sort of people you'd rather not have at your CG and I'm sure you make your feelings known when they attempt to rent space. Personally, I've not had any issues with long term residents at any CG we've stayed at and, as long as people mind their own business and keep their sites neat, I don't think it's my business to inquire why they are living in an RV. As someone who voluntarily lives in less than 400 sq ft, I don't think I can be judgmental about anyone else who does.

Last year I stayed at a resort/cg for 3 months while in town on business. The place where I stayed had long term/year round residents. Most sites were pristine. The residents took great pride in maintaining the appearance of their sites. Almost like a yard-of-month competition. Planted or potted flowers. pavers, archways, etc. All at their own expense.

[bertnspike]

Now I have another rant about people who ASSUME they know where I go and how I go there. Who ASSUME they know what I'm going to say without reading the whole post. Who ASSUME I'm an idiot driving around out here without an idea or brain in my head....

I ASSUME they are they same people who write those pathetic reviews saying "nice park, would stay here again".

ugh. This is not a forum about brains or manners, so I'll quit now.

[SDcampowneroper]

klm wrote:
And where do the campgrounds get those photos they use on their websites? Maybe from long ago or photoshopped!!!

Campsite Photos.com photographer/ bloggist Greg is now working his way through Nebraska to Minnesota then So. Dakota, back to Ca.
Join me in supporting their effort to expand a third party pictoral review of camps.
Greg is an expert photographer with an eye and to show the experience in a given camp. contact
eric@cmjmedia.com
Max

[docj]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
If you think RV Parks are having a hard time and are letting things go downhill it is probably because you are staying at parks that cater to long term stays. Parks that have people staying 9 months and longer are not Recreational Vehicle Parks, they are mobile home parks or, if you prefer, trailer courts. They have given up on the recreational traveler and now are just another housing development.

As full-timers we have been to quite a few RV parks in the past couple of years. If your parks do not have long-term residents then you are in the minority. Almost every park we go to has at least some long-term customers, even KOA's which we normally would not consider locations for more than a few days or a week, at most.

You make it sound as if long term residents are the sort of people you'd rather not have at your CG and I'm sure you make your feelings known when they attempt to rent space. Personally, I've not had any issues with long term residents at any CG we've stayed at and, as long as people mind their own business and keep their sites neat, I don't think it's my business to inquire why they are living in an RV. As someone who voluntarily lives in less than 400 sq ft, I don't think I can be judgmental about anyone else who does.

[Eurocamper]

We live in a society that can't distinguish the difference between advertising and reporting - heaven help us.

[Eurocamper]

docj wrote:

rockhillmanor wrote:


I don't use rvparkreviews that site is a joke.

Found out you have to write X amount of reviews BEFORE they will post any of your reviews.

RVParkReviews requires that a total of three reviews be submitted and approved before any are posted on the site.

I have only written one review of a campground for rvparkreviews and it was published within a few days.

[docj]

rockhillmanor wrote:


I don't use rvparkreviews that site is a joke.

Found out you have to write X amount of reviews BEFORE they will post any of your reviews.

RVParkReviews requires that a total of three reviews be submitted and approved before any are posted on the site. The purpose of that rule is to try to weed out individuals who join solely for the purpose of submitting highly unfavorable or highly favorable reviews about a particular campground. Most RVers use their RVs often enough that submitting three reviews is not too great a burden particularly since the reviews do not have to be submitted within any specific time interval.

As for your comment that there are lots of campgrounds not included on the RVParkReviews website, there are, at present, over 180,000 posted reviews on the site. It may not have all campgrounds in the US, but I think it sure has a large percentage of them.

[Oaklevel]

rockhillmanor wrote:

lostmarbles wrote:
Alright! I'll be the first to admit. I actually go to any park that is open to try them out as I have an sedetary/boring lifestyle and need some excitement to get that heart rate up enough to feel like I have just exercised. Now. Who else wants to admit it?

I stay at the closest CG off the interstate when I start getting tired of driving. Some are nice and I might stay a day or two. Some are not so nice and then I just stay the night and hit the road in the morning. I use pull thru's for staying over night, don't rightly care what amenities they offer or the scenery.....I'm sleeping.:B

I don't use rvparkreviews that site is a joke. For every one CG that has a review in a certain area.....there are at least 4 'other' CG's in the same area without reviews. Use this site to determine where you will stay and you are missing out on MANY other CG's in the same area.

One particular CG I pulled off to stay at that I needed to stay a few days for mobile repairs was SO BAD I thought I would write a review to warn my fellow RV'ers not to waste their gas to pull off to this CG especially if they had their kids with them.

Found out you have to write X amount of reviews BEFORE they will post any of your reviews. Sorry I am not going to spend my time reviewing CG's for the next month for this sorry butt site so that the ONE I did write gets posted. That is WHY it is not correct info. I'm sure I am not the lone ranger that tried to post a review to find out it will NOT be posted until you turn into a full time reviewer for them. :R

?????? I have only posted 1-3 RV Reviews on their site & each one was posted right after I wrote it.............

[klm]

And where do the campgrounds get those photos they use on their websites? Maybe from long ago or photoshopped!!!

[Oaklevel]

Everyone has different definitions as to what a resort is or what pet friendly is.......

To us pet friendly means that they allow pets............We take our Boxers with us so we need a park that allows them.....

I have no idea what a dog park is as I have never seen one so I could only guess...... No dog parks are in our area but our dogs are fine at home & I would probably not take them to one.

[rockhillmanor]

lostmarbles wrote:
Alright! I'll be the first to admit. I actually go to any park that is open to try them out as I have an sedetary/boring lifestyle and need some excitement to get that heart rate up enough to feel like I have just exercised. Now. Who else wants to admit it?

I stay at the closest CG off the interstate when I start getting tired of driving. Some are nice and I might stay a day or two. Some are not so nice and then I just stay the night and hit the road in the morning. I use pull thru's for staying over night, don't rightly care what amenities they offer or the scenery.....I'm sleeping.:B

I don't use rvparkreviews that site is a joke. For every one CG that has a review in a certain area.....there are at least 4 'other' CG's in the same area without reviews. Use this site to determine where you will stay and you are missing out on MANY other CG's in the same area.

One particular CG I pulled off to stay at that I needed to stay a few days for mobile repairs was SO BAD I thought I would write a review to warn my fellow RV'ers not to waste their gas to pull off to this CG especially if they had their kids with them.

Found out you have to write X amount of reviews BEFORE they will post any of your reviews. Sorry I am not going to spend my time reviewing CG's for the next month for this sorry butt site so that the ONE I did write gets posted. That is WHY it is not correct info. I'm sure I am not the lone ranger that tried to post a review to find out it will NOT be posted until you turn into a full time reviewer for them. :R

[sher9570]

We use rvpark reviews for most all of our travels but if we have any questions I usually ask here from people that have actually been there.
One of our priorities is dog friendly. Not that they are just allowed but also has a hundred rules applied, which usually to me means they don't really want them. There needs to be rules but....
One reason we like KOA's is that many have enclosed dog parks, very few other places do. At the end of a long day we can work off their energy and have a happy dog camping with us.

Sher