RVParkReviews.com???

[crappie_fisherm]

Okay...wanted to see if others have had a similar experience with RVParkReviews.com when trying to post a negative review of a park...maybe my situation is unique?

Anyway...I tried to post a review about a park that did not honor my incoming reservation because they chose to allow existing campers to extend theirs and thus not having room for me (a first BTW after many many CG reservations and visits).

I tried to review the park and state my issue and what happened so others would/could be prepared that a reservation really doesn't mean a reservation in my experience and this place should really operate as a first come/first served place.

My initial response from admin over there was to remove the owners name from my review and focus on the situation in not so much detail...so I modified my review and resubmitted.

Then I get a response from the RVParkReviews.com admin and it stated they are looking for things about the park, like utilities placement, pad levelness (is that a word?...LOL), pad condition, restroom cleanliness, laundry facilities, etc.

I tried to explain to the admin that if he read my review he would understand that I was never given the chance to actually stay at the park to know about all those things since the CG chose not to honor the reservation I had and had me scrambling looking for another CG at almost 6pm in the evening! I further went on to ask if they only wanted good type reviews or real world camper experiences with every facet of the campground experience from those of us that have had to deal with the CG and their staff. I have never heard back.

So my question is...is it common that RVParkReviews.com is essentially censoring or not allowing/posting all threads that are submitted from campers that have had experiences with CG's?

If my experience with submitting that review is not uncommon...how many other reviews have been posted over there that are similar in nature describing the reservation experience that we never get to hear?...

I realize forum sites need to "review" posts before they are posted (like trip advisor, etc)...but...I know that if I was looking to stay at a CG...I would want to know about every facet of the CG and how they treat their campers...not just how clean the bathrooms are...so I was somewhat surprised 1) by the lack of last response by admin over there and 2) the stuff he/she said they wanted in their posts about a CG...kind of worried me that perhaps using that as a source for CG info may not be as reliable as I had thought...and I use it all the time when looking at a new area...

Thoughts?

Joe.

[crappie_fisherm]

BurbMan wrote:

Anyone know who the admin is over at RVPR?

Burbman...I think there is a "clue" here...this was posted on 10/25 back on page 3 I believe. It was edited by the mod/admin to I believe take out the name that SDcamp posted...but I have no confirmation of what he wrote...just supposition based on what was left and the context with which it was written with the posts around it...so it must be taken in context...but here's the post...

Note too that the RV.netter that seemed to take most exception to my thread is pretty obvious.

SDcampowneroperator wrote:
If you read through all of the OPs postings on this subject, you will get the drift. Administrators for the rvpr.com site obviously saw the review did not meet criteria.
The admin's of the site are rvers like you and me.
Thanks, to ( ) an rvpr.com volunteer admin., a member here, on the ops original thread, for the education on what you voluntarily do.

I feel this thread has truly opened up many peoples eyes as to WHO and WHAT and WHY is being done over at RVParkReviews...

I want a site that gives me ALL the information for ME to make my OWN opinion even if it means weeding thru the "BS" and non-value-added rants/raves...I think most people are pretty smart and can get the drift about a CG or business based on ALL The reviews...if one has a personal agenda/attack...it should stand out as being ALONE and you can weed that out...but the practice of RVParkReviews keeps "trends" secret or muffled...so those of us thinking we can form our own opinions are only getting what RVParkReviews chooses to allow us to see...if 3 people have the SAME complaint as I did about reservations...we'll NEVER KNOW based on how they are choosing to apply their rules/philosophy or whatever they call it.

How is having a poor reservation policy NOT pertinent information for incoming campers and just as pertinent as how clean the rest rooms are or how close the utilities are or whatever other criteria I was asked to "add" to the review???

But...as I said...this has been an eye opening thread...none-the-less...at least for me...I now know what I will be getting if I choose to use RVParkReviews and wanted to share that information with others so they can form their OWN opinions on the value of that site...I for one can form my OWN opinion and now know the value (or lack of) the information on RVParkReviews since someone is obviously deciding what he/she feels should be there...and that's cool...they volunteer over there and it is their sandbox...sadly though their policy/opinion could have cost me much more than it did with the inconvienence of that park's loosey goosey reservation policy.

Did this park offer me a site...sure they did...was it acceptable for a 40' motor home?...NO...there is no way to safely level a rig that long on a site with an ~20 degree slope front to back...the front wheels would have been so far off the ground over that long of a distance with that much slope. The "mgr" KNEW IT when I pulled in and he KNEW what he had "LEFT" or he wouldn't have said "let me show you what I have left and YOU decide"...he KNEW they had an issue and was hoping I'd simply take the site. By him then going on to "share" with me that the other group "extended"...just told me WHY I was in this position at that particular moment...why they didn't force the existing group to MOVE to that unlevel site is beyond me...but it is what it is.

If park owners on here are protecting that practice...I certainly have no intention of patronizing their CG either given their attitude towards campers (i.e. CUSTOMERS).

BTW...my complaint about the reservation system is very likely NOT the first one about this CG...and I didn't know about it because of the RVParkReview policy/philsophy and sadly people AFTER ME will NEVER know about mine...and as Lantley and the others point out...my issue is PERTINENT to the overall CG experience...rating...but it will never be seen.

Joe.

[BurbMan]

Lantley wrote:
The unfortunate part of Crappie Fisherman's reservation issue is that it may have happened to a prior camper that tried to warn everyone via RV parks review but also had their post censored.
It may also happen again because Crappies post was censored.
At some point RV parks review is doing us all a disservice by protecting poorly performing CG's.
If I drove 600-800 miles to KY only to find out my reservations did not exist I'd be highly upset. Avoiding conflicts maybe OK but deliberately concealing the truth and deceiving the camping public is a bit over the top.

Good point Lantley....as I posted earlier, it is SO common for lodging merchants (hotels, inns, CGs, etc) taking reservations to guarantee the reservation through a deposit that you don't really expect a reservation to NOT be guaranteed. The public deserves to know if a CG does NOT use a guaranteed reservations program...to me that's like posting that a CG has no pool, or no dump station, etc.

Anyone know who the admin is over at RVPR?

[Us_out_West]

This is all so easy!

If one does not like the way a website runs 'their' website don't use it and go some place else, in this case, for RV Campground information. :S

Personally I have no intention of NOT using RV Park Reviews as I find good, and yes bad, information on places we plan on visiting and to me that is the purpose of websites like RPR's. They are just one source we use...one...none are perfect and I take all with a grain of salt.

Safe travels and Happy Camping.

[crappie_fisherm]

magnusfide wrote:

Dog Folks wrote:

Lantley wrote:
The unfortunate part of Crappie Fisherman's reservation issue is that it may have happened to a prior camper that tried to warn everyone via RV parks review but also had their post censored.
It may also happen again because Crappies post was censored.
At some point RV parks review is doing us all a disservice by protecting poorly performing CG's.
If I drove 600-800 miles to KY only to find out my reservations did not exist I'd be highly upset. Avoiding conflicts maybe OK but deliberately concealing the truth and deceiving the camping public is a bit over the top.

X2 Well said.

Triple ditto.

You guys GET IT...unlike some others...THANKS for understanding...if only businesses got it rather than try and blame the customers...oh well...THANKS AGAIN for the support and for actually READING what I wrote versus skimming and assuming the situation is something else.

Sandi...THANK YOU TOO for being understanding and not locking this thread due to one member trying to stir up the pot...THANKS...the rest of us are trying to stay on topic/task here...but I think we are poking the RVParkReview ADMIN square in the eyes and he doesn't like it hence the attempt to get this thread LOCKED too!!

[wbwood]

A while back someone had posted that the site wanted them to call the manager of a park and that the manager was a real nice person and etc. I think the negative posting was deleted as well. I contacted the site myself to ask about it and they said they didn't know what I was talking about and would look into it. I referred them to the thread here on the forum and not a word back. I haven't posted on there since and am seriously thinking about removing their up-to-date feed on my site.

[4runnerguy]

This whole discussion just goes to point out why I use RV.net as a primary source when I'm looking for information. I find the guidance I've received here to be invaluable when I'm travelling to far away places.

Hooray for RV.net.

[BurbMan]

I can appreciate the RVPR position, they don't want to get involved in personalities and such. Many times a sentence that starts with "The CG owner was a jerk..." could be finished with "...because he yelled at us for dumping gray water at the site." You could see that coming just from who posts what here on this forum LOL.

HOWEVER, I would consider Reservation Policy to be a physical attribute of the CG just like site width and power quality. If the reservation was not guaranteed because no deposit was taken, then the park should have advised as such when the reservation was made. Then you as the guest can make that decision whether to keep that reservation or make alternate plans.

There is a slight difference in perception between "The owner didn't honor my reservation" and "Be advised that this CGs policy does not provide for guaranteed reservations." You could probably take that last sentence and add something about the park being clean, quiet and convenient and get that review posted.

After a career spent in the credit card business, I can tell you that this policy is the exception not the rule. Back in the 70's it was fairly common to arrive at your hotel late at night and find them sold out...because the no show rate at hotels was very high. People would never take the time to cancel reservations if they couldn't arrive or plans changed. So the hotel is faced with the choice of either selling the room to the guy standing at the desk with cash in his hand or holding it for a guy that may or may not show up.

We solved that in the 80's with Advance Deposit using a credit card...the hotel promises that they will hold that room for you no matter what and in exchange you agree to pay for that first night whether you show up or not.

This has worked so well that the policy is universal at hotels and inns, and common in CGs, boarding kennels, almost anywhere that takes reservations (except restaurants). So to run into an establishment where reservations are NOT guaranteed is both unusual and worth noting as a review point, and is just as valid as part of a physical description as how level or wooded it was.

Nobody wants to travel a long distance only to find there is no place to stay...if the CG wants to maintain this old-fashioned "not guaranteed" policy, then they need to inform folks as such when the reservation is made.

[magnusfide]

crappie_fisherman wrote:


It is interesting as well to find that the RVParkReviews is RUN BY PARK OWNERS...interesting info for sure...

I feel the current thinking about RVParkReviews policy on what they want and WILL ALLOW to be posted about parks now makes that site much less useful for me...Interesting information has been revealed in this thread...I had no idea before...now I do...and it all makes sense...

Indeed, I see the same trend in that park owners are defending the censorship of reviews: it reaffirms my decision to depend upon Tripadvisor and this forum that much more.

Dog Folks wrote:

Lantley wrote:
The unfortunate part of Crappie Fisherman's reservation issue is that it may have happened to a prior camper that tried to warn everyone via RV parks review but also had their post censored.
It may also happen again because Crappies post was censored.
At some point RV parks review is doing us all a disservice by protecting poorly performing CG's.
If I drove 600-800 miles to KY only to find out my reservations did not exist I'd be highly upset. Avoiding conflicts maybe OK but deliberately concealing the truth and deceiving the camping public is a bit over the top.

X2 Well said.

Triple ditto.

[the_happiestcam]

chris3403 wrote:
I forgot this fact: Back in August of this year we were staying in Auburn CA for a week. On the last day there my wife broke her foot so I went to the Office and told them she broke her foot and we needed to extend our stay another 2 days and they said sorry we are booked solid and you have to move. They did offer to let me dry camp but since it was over 100 each day and with no generator that wasn't going to be possible. Luckily for us we had good friends in the area who let us park in their driveway and furnished us with electric and water.

I don't understand what message you are trying to convey here - are you saying that should make for a negative review?

[JaxDad]

dodge guy wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
The problem is, from the website's point of view, that a single employee who says "no" could result in a negative report. Meanwhile the owner couldn't have known, prevented it, or (after you're gone) done anything about it.

That is why there are numerous reviews! if there are no other complaints after that one, then it can be assumed the problem is resolved. there is a campground we went to once that had complaints of awful employees with bad attitudes. we went and got the same attitude. the reviews went on for almost 2 more years, and now I don`t see those complaints anymore. it is up to us to weed through them.

I've seen many, many park reviews where the most recent comment was well over a year old. Does that mean nobody has been there in more than a year? Of course not. It means nobody cared to post a review, good, bad or otherwise.

So if the last review is well over a year old is it really even still relative?

[Dog_Folks]

Lantley wrote:
The unfortunate part of Crappie Fisherman's reservation issue is that it may have happened to a prior camper that tried to warn everyone via RV parks review but also had their post censored.
It may also happen again because Crappies post was censored.
At some point RV parks review is doing us all a disservice by protecting poorly performing CG's.
If I drove 600-800 miles to KY only to find out my reservations did not exist I'd be highly upset. Avoiding conflicts maybe OK but deliberately concealing the truth and deceiving the camping public is a bit over the top.

X2 Well said.

[bucky]

I gave up on them years ago, impossible to work with. Too many hoops.

[soos]

Positive or Negative, I've never had a review rejected or edited in any substsntial way.
Not all parks are reviewed on a frequent basis, so one negative post that complains about one worker's attitude could stand alone for quite some time. Employees come and go, so basing most of the review on one persons attitude could do damage when it shouldn't. So a policy is in place that ensures the reviews also talk about other things that would be important to someone wanting to stay at the park. Is the way its handled perfect? Maybe not, but policies and guidelines need to be in place so there will be consistency.

I for one will continue to use the site, and to contribute to it. Like most people, I sift through the information provided and ulitmately make my own decision, but I do like having the input from RVPR.com

Sue

[Lantley]

The unfortunate part of Crappie Fisherman's reservation issue is that it may have happened to a prior camper that tried to warn everyone via RV parks review but also had their post censored.
It may also happen again because Crappies post was censored.
At some point RV parks review is doing us all a disservice by protecting poorly performing CG's.
If I drove 600-800 miles to KY only to find out my reservations did not exist I'd be highly upset. Avoiding conflicts maybe OK but deliberately concealing the truth and deceiving the camping public is a bit over the top.