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.

[dodge_guy]

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.

[JaxDad]

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.

When the review is based on purely the physical attribute the possibility of an owner getting blind-sided are severely curtailed.

That's why there's numerous RV c/g review sites, not everyone thinks alike.

I know a little about what drives a "free" site because I was an admin. of sorts on a large, probably THE largest 'sell your stuff' group of sites. The OFFICIAL word came down from on high, leave the scammers and spammers alone, DO NOT DELETE them.

When this new policy was questioned the reply was shockingly simple. Spammers and scammers put up ads so attractive lots of folks view them. We don't care if they only look, curse or laugh, and leave it.

They generate HITS for the banner ads!! AKA, cha-ching!

[Roy_Lynne]

But if the campground doesn't honor reservations, to me that is a BIG problem and I want to know about it before hand.

[JaxDad]

There's another issue at play too.

The site isn't free, at least it's not free to the advertisers that is.

It works like this, Google places banner ads on the page, but the ads themselves are tailored to each computer that loads them based on browser history and a bunch of other stuff. Then, park management wanting to promote their park direct people to the site to show prospective campers how great the place is, based on third party opinions. For that to continue, controversy and anything potentially litigious is not allowed.

So, the bottom line is, more 'happy campers' online equals more hits, more hits equals more traffic, more traffic and less controversy equals higher Google rankings, higher rankings equals more advertising revenue.

The almighty buck.........

[dodge_guy]

I believe RVPR has a bunch of different people reviewing at different times. each one has their own interpretation of what should be posted, just like the mods here! LOL 😉 but on a website that is used for planning week and month long trips to make it as enjoyable as possible, there needs to be a guideline that is followed. I believe at one time they had that guideline, but has recently been looked over and now it has become a place where there is no real input to be seen, just a couple of sentences of good and bad, but no real facts.

If it keeps up I will no longer be using it!

[crappie_fisherm]

Oldtymeflyr wrote:

Maybe Westernrvparkowner is right that RVPR wants to know more about the physical plant, if so, its much less useful.

People do make the difference and I want to know what they are like especially if outside of the good and the ordinary. It makes a difference when I visit a restaurant I want to know about the people, service is extremely important in the hospitality business.

I am some what surprised to find that it is run by RV park owners. I will keep that in mind.

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...

[crappie_fisherm]

Lantley wrote:

By the way it's good to hear from you. Glad to hear your still enjoying RV life. That is when you can get and maintain a reservation!

Lantley,

Good to hear from you too!...yes we're still enjoying this lifestyle...I'm taking the bus to the barn this morning to tuck her into winters sleep...all lines are blown clear and pink stuff added where needed...if I can only keep the dang mice out I'll be doing good...I'm like Bill Murray in Caddy Shack with the gopher...minus the C4...LOL

On RVParkReviews...I see you got it based on the other thread...THANKS for getting it...and I get what you are saying here...I do understand...but by admin blocking certain information...he is not allowing TRENDS to form...and THAT waters down his sites value...he cannot possibly keep a database of what he's blocking over time and he is watering down that TREND power that is so important for the individual camper to see for him/herself...

If a CG did that to someone what they did to me PRIOR...I had no idea because admin over there is apparently protecting the CG's more than the campers...IMO based on what I've learned from this very interesting thread...I had no idea it would take this turn on data output...but I'm glad it did.

Joe.

[crappie_fisherm]

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.

Interesting information here...although I'm not sure what was edited out by the mod...I'm pretty sure I've got enough of the story to understand...The person blocking MY posting on RVParkReviews is the same person here that got my original thread on this particular CG locked down with his bickering and arguing here...now I know why he was so persistent in his confrontational posts.

I appreciate that someone is a "volunteer"...but I sense a trend here also that TWO park owners are defending both the RVParkReviews procedures of protecting the parks as well as defending this particular parks loose reservation policy (and I use the term "reservation" very lightly)...interesting stuff for sure...

[crappie_fisherm]

Parrothead Mike wrote:
I've posted on RV Park Reviews.com several times over the past few years and all have been accepted except one. In fact, the one not posted was for a park I gave a 9 rating to and very positive comments. My mistake was that I posted the name of the owner (first name only). I later realized my error and then didn't repost since nearly everybody that camps there loves the place and I was more or less repeating what they said. Check it out - Jessie Lea RV Park in Big Stone Gap, VA.

I think that RVPR really wants to cut out the rants. I like the site and use it quite often. I look for trends in the ratings. Reviews that are generally 7-10 is a good sign in my mind even if there is a 4 tossed in by someone that's not happy. You can tell when there is problem at a CG, most of the reviews mention similar experiences.

Another good aspect of RVPR is that you have the CGs website and map/satellite view along with the comments and ratings. The site is not perfect, but in my opinion there aren't many similar sites where you can get that kind of info all in one place. And it's free! You don't have to buy some thick book like Woodall's with all that advertising.

Parrothead,

I agree...really I do and like you I too look for "trends".

BUT...and a big but for a reason...if RVParkReviews doesn't feel that having a certain feature (i.e. like loose reservation policies) is "pertinent" to the "appearance" of the campground or "accessibility" of the utilities, or whatever...those "trends" will be censored and NOT POSTED FOR YOU OR I TO SEE THAT TREND...THAT is the point.

My issue with this CG is that they take a reservation but their policy is to NOT take a CC number or deposit or send you anything formal as a confirmation. So you as a camper may be traveling hundreds of miles and may actually show up after dark THINKING you have a reservation like you would normally expect when you call and MAKE A RESERVATION. I've showed up at KOA's and other CG's well after dark after traveling 600 miles that day...what I'm greeted with is a note/confirmation with my site posted at the office door...I get that along with the map provided by the CG and drive to my site...in the morning I go to the office to "officially" check in.

What would have happened to me had I showed up after dark at this place...would they have had ANYTHING formally telling me I was out of luck?...Would they even know I was showing up???...THAT is the issue I was trying to relay on RVParkReviews...but admin over there chose to determine in his/her opinion that it wasn't relevant...although I think I have more to the story as to why...read next post...

[noe-place]

All this is totally new to me. I read rvparkreviews almost nightly looking for new places to take the family. I am distressed to hear they are failing to report what reviewers are writing so I can decide for myself. What appears most objectionable to me in this is it reminds one of being given the rules at the start of the game then the governing body changes the rules in the middle of the contest. I don't play games when one side doesn't play fair. I will now look for other sources to review camping sites and resorts. Thanks to the OP for the heads up.

[Lantley]

There have been a couple of recent post concerning RV parks review censorship.
As others have mentioned the site now seems to be focused more physical features and characteristics of the park vs. management and staff issues.

There logic is staff attitude is way more subjective. Who determines staff is rude? Is it possible for the camper to have been rude?
Is there more to the story concerning your reservations?
Is the camper always right? These are all questions RV parks reviews are trying to avoid.
Unless they investigate or follow up on a staff complaint they really don't know if the review or claim is valid or not. I don't think RVP Reviews want to be in the mediation business. They obviously do not want to be the BBB of CG's.
They appear to be rejecting reviews that may require them to play mediator.
I imagine the CG's have push back at RVP reviews over erroneous or bogus claims.

Joe don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing your story at all. I believe it to be 100% credible. I understand you were mistreated and inconvenienced and you want to inform fellow campers.
However Rv park reviews apparently does not want to be involved in disputes or claims against staff and management.
Rather than verify or investigate issues RV park simply chooses not to get involved or post reviews that refer to staff or personnel.

While I don't necessarily agree with the policy, I can understand why they have decided to take the high road and not post reviews that involve staff.
In the end this policy still allows for people to rate a park on its physical merits but avoids passing judgement on CG's staff and policies.

By the way it's good to hear from you. Glad to hear your still enjoying RV life. That is when you can get and maintain a reservation!

[SDcampowneroper]

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.

[Parrothead_Mike]

I've posted on RV Park Reviews.com several times over the past few years and all have been accepted except one. In fact, the one not posted was for a park I gave a 9 rating to and very positive comments. My mistake was that I posted the name of the owner (first name only). I later realized my error and then didn't repost since nearly everybody that camps there loves the place and I was more or less repeating what they said. Check it out - Jessie Lea RV Park in Big Stone Gap, VA.

I think that RVPR really wants to cut out the rants. I like the site and use it quite often. I look for trends in the ratings. Reviews that are generally 7-10 is a good sign in my mind even if there is a 4 tossed in by someone that's not happy. You can tell when there is problem at a CG, most of the reviews mention similar experiences.

Another good aspect of RVPR is that you have the CGs website and map/satellite view along with the comments and ratings. The site is not perfect, but in my opinion there aren't many similar sites where you can get that kind of info all in one place. And it's free! You don't have to buy some thick book like Woodall's with all that advertising.

[Us_out_West]

Review or a Rant?

Negative reviews are fine as long as they are done in good taste and follow any rules & guidelines in place. There are a lot of negative reviews on that site.

Rants are more for message boards or forums like this one.

RV Parks Reviews has a separate set of forums...maybe try those.

[1775]

I have had the same experience of a negative review being rejected by RVparkreviews. I told the story that happened to us at a campground involving the staff and management and this review would not be accepted, but I was informed that if I reworded the review as more descriptive of the campground, I could include negatives that we encountered. The re-written review was accepted but it did not have the impact that the original review that I submitted had and lacks the warning that this can happen to you.

So bottom line is negatives are OK but how they are worded can result in a rejected review. I agree that this waters down the value that many feel the site has (or had) in choosing campgrounds.