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.

[The_Fatman]

I have A simple soloution for you KOA Pet Friendly ,means A fenced in area for pets to Go. Large Camp sights and staff that will go out of their way to accomidate you Just a thought

[lostmarbles]

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?

[n7bsn]

I can agree with the OP, many are OK, there are a some with "gentle lies", and with out-right whoppers.

I thinking of two (both places I have been). One show a photo of a large outdoor pool complex. The pool complex is at a DIFFERENT park, owned by the same people.
Another park has a photo of a lake. While the park itself borders on farm-land and a business park. The closest lake it miles away.

[docj]

Komfort 23TS wrote:
Rvparkreviews are not always correct, I had my evaluations rewritten by RV park reviews staff before they were posted.

Reviews can be edited to improve clarity or to correct grammar and spelling. They are not edited for content; negative reviews are never turned into positive ones or vice versa.

[RoyB]

I always use google map search and zoom in on the camp sites I have not been too before to get a birds eye view of what to expect. Most camp grounds gives you a good aerial view unless it is totally under tree cover.

Roy Ken

[skipnchar]

"resort" and "pet friendly" are not definitive terms. They both are only opinions and opinions are a dime a dozen. When it matters to you it's best to Gget your information from DETAILS not generalities.
Good luck / Skip

[MPond]

westernrvparkowner wrote:
...Advertising is not a substitute for research.

That's the truth. Research makes a big difference. There are plenty of tools available, but you have to use them.

I start with the park's website, assuming they're trying to show only the best photos of their park.

Then I check RVParkRviews, with an understanding that other reviewers (both positive & negative) don't necessarily value the same things I do.

If I'm still interested in the park, I'll then to a search here on the forums to see what others have commented about it. If I'm still unsure, I'll then ask here.

[docj]

joeprinter wrote:
I had this same experience from NC to CA 2 years ago, 7200 mile road trip. 5 Star rating, well that needs to be taken in account that at one time maybe.

Without wanting to hijack this thread, if you are referring to a 5-Diamond rating from Woodalls or the equivalent from Good Sam, are you aware that most of these are not actually ratings assigned by someone who has visited the CG? It is my understanding that parks are visited infrequently and that most are simply sent a questionnaire to complete. The "rating" is an evaluation solely of the presence or absence of the things on the list. So the existence of a laundry room with a single washer/dryer would count the same as a large room filled with lots of them.

That's why we don't use those other guides in deciding where to stay. I'm not at all claiming that the reviews in RVParkReviews.com are perfect, far from it, but at least they are written by people who have at least visited the parks.

[joeprinter]

I had this same experience from NC to CA 2 years ago, 7200 mile road trip. 5 Star rating, well that needs to be taken in account that at one time maybe. But I did find, any place was do-able for a night or two. I did make sure though that our long term parking,hookup needs were resort affirmed when I was staying more than 2 weeks at a time. I utilized the Internet a lot for this aspect. However after the trip, it was a blessing to get back to our home park (were full timers) which IS a 5 star resort, makes you really realize how wonderful our park is in Jackson Springs NC.

[westernrvparkow]

Komfort 23TS wrote:
Rvparkreviews are not always correct, I had my evaluations rewritten by RV park reviews staff before they were posted. A lot of campers write a review after staying only one night, things at the campground may look good, but one night really not enough to base an evaluation on. We stayed in a park for 9 months and found bulling, heavy drinking and a lot of clicks. I think RV parks a having a hard time and are letting go down..

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. Of course people develop cliques and if someone needs to live in less than 400 square feet while punching a clock, some are going to turn to drinking. Most of those type of parks are catering to the lowest end of the economic ladder, basically migrant workers who are not migrating. Expecting anything else is unreasonable. For the vast amount of travelers and recreational RVers a one or two night stay is the norm and that is the impression they need communicated to them. They really don't care what happens if you decide to make the place your permanent home.

[westernrvparkow]

Contact your congressman, perhaps they will set the definitive rules for when a park can call themselves a resort, when it is acceptable say you are pet friendly. Maybe they could set the standards by which wifi is to be judged and perhaps the courts could review each photo and decide whether or not it represents the park.
Or, maybe they should just outlaw advertising altogether. Today I had a bowl of Cambell's Chunky soup, and I didn't think it was that chunky. Tonight, I might watch a TV Drama, and sometimes I figure them out in advance, so where exactly is the Drama?
Advertising is not a substitute for research.

[2112]

dahkota wrote:

TexasShadow wrote:
some of them are in the city park, others are right in the middle of town. interesting places. Marysville, KS comes to mind, a nice park. Great Bend, KS is another and Moberly, MO has a nice one. Some of these have a bathroom, most just have elec hookups and water. some have a dump station.

thanks for these! I will add them to my list. City parks are so hard to find.

To the OP, I tend to avoid private parks specifically for the reasons you listed (I have only stayed at one and regretted it). State Parks and COE parks are great places to be able to spread out. I think I have only been disappointed once out of the 100 or so I have stayed at all over the country.

I have found a nice city park campground in the small town of Yoakum Tx. Backs up to the golf course, clean and quiet, $15/nt. I was actually impressed.

[Gunship_Guy]

As for rvparkreviews.com, I've never had a review edited, denied, or deleted after posting. I've been pretty happy with the running of that site. The reviews from others sometimes need to be thought through. I take into consideration what they're complaining about and how that might effect me if I camp there.

I view campground websites with a skeptical eye. I've been to many when, upon arrival, I wondered if I was at the wrong place. Looked nothing like their pictures.

[Tvov]

Between reading the RVParkreviews site and asking questions here on OpenRoads forums, I've had excellent "luck" in finding good campgrounds. I have written some reviews for RVParkreviews, and agree that it is important to try to write about everything at the campground, good and bad.

I've gotten to the point where I virtually ignore park descriptions on a campground's own website. The pictures especially can be hilarious when you get to a campground and see what angle they needed to contort themselves into to get nice pictures.

Any review website works best when more people contribute to it!

[Komfort_23TS]

Rvparkreviews are not always correct, I had my evaluations rewritten by RV park reviews staff before they were posted. A lot of campers write a review after staying only one night, things at the campground may look good, but one night really not enough to base an evaluation on. We stayed in a park for 9 months and found bulling, heavy drinking and a lot of clicks. I think RV parks a having a hard time and are letting go down..