Urgent request to campground owners

Jim Shoe wrote:

SDcampowneroperator wrote:
I would like to reply. Forum rules prohibit owners response.
PM me please.
Max

As far as I can remember, you are part of a very small number of members on here that actually own and operate a CG. Maybe you can answer. I'm guessing that most owner/operators don't build their own web sites or take the pictures for it. They're built by folks that make a living doing that and have the time and talent to do it. Everybody think back to the last wedding you attended. The pix taken by the guests seem to always have somebody with their eyes closed or somebody bent over when facing away from the camera, which often requires a wide angle lens. :)

Jim, my regards to you and wbwood. I enjoy Brians site.
I do not know of any camp that builds or hosts their own website.
Like mentioned in a previous post, campsite photos provided by the operator are presumed staged, suspect by many. In this scenario Individual site ground view photos can only be 'real ' when taken and hosted by an unpaid 3rd party.
use campsitephotos.com, encourage Eric & Greg to visit more private camps, encourage private camp operators to invite them in to photo. . everyone wins.

suprz wrote:
Please have pictures of your actual campsites, facilities, scenic views, etc under the "photos" tab on your website! I am so tired of clicking on that tab only to see pictures of kids with face paint, parade pictures, haloween pictures, etc.... If I'm interested in coming to your campground, it is not because there are pictures of kids, parades, bingo, etc.

Why do owners do this??!

Good for you!

valhalla360 wrote:

Back to the originial subject: I think some of the issue is independent campground owners tend to be more focused on being outdoors in a physical environment. I can't count the number of times, the kid at the desk points to the owner who is out on the tractor moving picknic tables or hauling firewood. Setting up a website is just not that high on thier list. Probably not the best buisness approach but it's what I've seen.

And that is why he/she either has a relative or friend design and use the photos from their Brownie Hawkeye to create a "amatuer" website that you and others won't go to because it is a "crummy campground"

It's not just their photos that are an issue. So are the misleading write-ups they do about their CGs. We have membership in Coast-Coast and a few others and have a stack of their booklets.

You read things like "next to the ocean" and find out it's a mile or more away. You read that "the historic downtown is close by" only to find it's a 1/2 hour drive or more to get there. They'll say it's "a lovely treed site" only to find that it's next to railroad tracks, a freeway or industrial plant. There simply can be a whole lot of detracting features that are so bad you'd never go there even if they paid you....

We had a CG booked 2 years ago on a long trip. The write-up said it was a lovely CG and in the heart of a fishing community next to the ocean. Holy crap, it was a terrible dive and just disgusting complete with ramshackle buildings and derelict trailers. We just couldn't bring ourselves to stay there and drove up the road to a really nice Thousand Trails. But the write-up and pics made it seem pretty nice!

We stayed in CG last year for a week that said it was on the ocean. Sounded waaay cool. We imagined sitting on the beach in our recliners for hours. Turns out the beach was around like 1/4 mile away (at high tide too) because the gov't owns a wide strip of land along the coast. The wind was blowing like a gale pretty much non-stop. It was really foggy and cold even in Aug. The non-stop wind was so loud you could barely talk outside. Just another CG that had a nice write-up, pffft. Come to think of it, no pics of the beach itself or description of it. Another disappointing CG for us. Card games in the clubhouse every night were fun though!

Sometimes a CG can be absolutely fabulous and you'd never know by their lame write-up and pics.

Really, the only way to know if a CG is nice is to go online and read reviews of it. To heck with pictures or words. These pics are at a terrific CG (Good Sam) on the west side of Puget Sound in Washington that we stayed at last year. Online reviews said it was one of the best in Wa. and they were right.

bigdogger wrote:
Does anyone really believe that photos of the sites would actually convey valuable information anyway? I just spent the last two months shopping for a winter home in the Palm Spings, CA area. I probably looked at 500 homes at various real estate websites. The homes I went and personally toured looked nothing like the photos. Mansions on line quickly became slumlord qualified in person. It's not just real estate it's virtually any advertised product. When was the last time your Quarter Pounder with Cheese or Subway Sandwich looked anything like the ones shown on the TV ads?
Even if they did show some representative photos, what is to assure you that you get that site and not the less desirable one a few sites down? If you are attempting to choose a park based on their website, you are already a couple of strikes down in the count. Use the review sites instead.

Very true about stock photos, but the reviews I've read online have been just as worthless as any website photo, even worse in most cases. at least in the photos you can maybe catch a glimpse to see if it's gravel or paved, hilly or flat, etc...
Reviews should be broke down into to camping styles. A retired couple traveling across the country visiting family only needing a late night stopover with a level spot close to the interstate would rate a campground completely differently than I would.

I've asked on these forums for suggestions on campgrounds that have large spaces with lots of trees and a "tent camping vibe" with seclusion and privacy and have had several recomendations based upon that request, for campgrounds that barely have a shrub let alone a tree or woods or seclusion and privacy.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is but a lot of folks take it personal if something that suits their needs doesn't suit yours (mine), so apparently regardless of what your request is they recommend what THEY like and pay no attention to the actual request.
Thats the mentality I've found on the reviews around the web. Pay no mind that the restrooms had man eating sized roaches crawling out of the toilet, only comment on what you like.
Don't get me wrong, I've received loads of very valuable reviews and info here, but I still have to use good judgement and form the best decision for my family.

I'm learning more and more to just rely on satelite imagery and asking a load of questions when I call. If theres ANY hesitation when I ask "are there many long term campers" or "are the spaces cramped" I move on.

winnietrey wrote:
Roundtwo and Valhalla:


Then there is the search engine optomization thing. You could design your own great website, but if it does not contain the correct key words, There you are on page 14 of google. No one will ever find you

Search engine optimization is a different (all be it related) subject from website design. My experience is googling campgrounds rarely comes up with decent results even if they have a professionally built site that has been optimized but if I know the name of the campground it comes up just fine regardless of the optimization.

A basic website is not that complicated to set up. There are internet sites that provide simple templates anyone can fill in. Shouldn't take more than an afternoon if you have the pictures on hand already.

Back to the originial subject: I think some of the issue is independent campground owners tend to be more focused on being outdoors in a physical environment. I can't count the number of times, the kid at the desk points to the owner who is out on the tractor moving picknic tables or hauling firewood. Setting up a website is just not that high on thier list. Probably not the best buisness approach but it's what I've seen.

I just kinda kid around when asked about this ........... I generally tell people I am semi-pro.

The difference between pro photographer and amateur is very subjective. It's what anyone wishes to call themselves. I've spent thousands and thousands of dollars on professional camera and professional lighting equipment. I've shot models, semi pro football cheerleaders and even had some shots (non human) published in a magazine a couple of times. I've been paid for everything excpet the models. Do I consider myself pro? No. I've seen work by many that state themselves as pro, that I would not consider their work pro. I've seen a lot of work by people who are way better than I am and yet they don't call themselves pro.

When looking at a website for a campground, no one cares about who took the picture or whether the person was paid or not. It's not art and it's not hanging in an art museum somewhere. As SDcampgroundowner mentioned, people can make things appear as if they aren't in photographs. I've removed things from photos and enhanced some as well in my time. No pro photographer is needed. No high dollar web designer is needed. As long as you can convey the necessary information and supply some pictorial references to the park, thats all what mostly campers care about. Yes, I do like online reservations. But it's not for every campground. If I'm going to be paying $50/night +, then I would expect there to be online reservations available. But it's not a deal breaker for me. I know many prefer not to even use online reservations. They want to call and talk to the people. Normally, it's the older crowd and what they are more used to or feel comfortable with. Then you have the security concious group who are afraid of their CC# being grabbed somewhere in la la land.

OK, some of you know this. I am MALE; nearly 74 years old. I take no responsibility for the spelling of my name! You don't have time for the veryh complicated story on this but I was born Dale and then changed to Lauren at 6 months of age.

I am told it was the old time male spelling of the name. Maybe that was parent justification...

It is one of two of my middle names. First name is Eric. Sure would have loved to been called that! That was my mother's brother's name and I was born on his birthday. But she hated his guts.

The story then gets involved and I will drop it here. But just from what I have said you can imagine it to be a good story!

I am only 0.3% of the name Lauren in the U S that are male.

That, and about $2, will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Enjoy the day, folks! :-)

As an after though I thought Lauren's website was great. 1000x better than I could do.
But as he states, he has a passion and talent for it. But I would bet he has many many hours into it.

I have had three websites, first one I did myself, it was horrible. Second one I hired a guy on the cheap, no business from it. Third one I spent money on, and got a pro. Guess what it works, and people call.

That is my experience, and what I am thinking