Good Sam campground guide

[Shearwater]

We just took our first trip using the new Good Sam campground guide instead of our old Woodall's. What a disappointment! Only the Good Sam campgrounds are rated and they are not necessarily any better than non GS. A lot of campgrounds, including KOA's have only an address, no phone number or directions. Worthwhile info such as distances between sites etc. has been omitted. I am now sorry that we threw away our last Woodall's it was far better even being out of date.

[martipr]

4X4Dodger wrote:

martipr wrote:

ETyson wrote:
Hello Shearwater,

I am sorry to read you were not satisfied with the Good Sam RV Travel Guide.

The listings you refer are complementary listings, and include public parks (state, national and provincial). These listings do have limited information, but all include a phone number and either an address if a private campground, or directions if a public park, and we offer the park the option to enhance their information in their listing. We always encourage users to call ahead to confirm amenities and if space is available before arriving.

Please note that ALL private campgrounds, whether Good Sam or not, are rated and inspected each year.

Your feedback is very much appreciated and we always take it seriously when we begin working on future editions of the Travel Guide.

Kind regards,

Ellen
Sr. Marketing and Product Manager
Good Sam Enterprises

I have heard this spin before and either you are lying about the campgrounds being inspected each year or the people you pay to inspect them are inspecting from their recliners while they watch TV and sip suds. Perhaps the owners are doing the inspecting and rating. I once stopped at a campground which the guide listed the size as 60' x 18'. My 29' TT and pickup overhung the site on both ends, my slide was over the hookups and I couldn't open the awning because it was too close to the next site. I no longer use the guide but often look at it to compare the ratings to the campground I am at. I admit they are often quite accurate but just as often the ratings are so far off that it is obvious that the campground was not actually inspected. I really like Good Sam and also Camping World but the guide is really sad.

I think the use of the term "lying" in your post is uncalled for and ill-mannered. Maybe "misinformed" might be a nicer way to put it??

A pig by any other name+++++. Call it what it is. If I say I am young and virle I am lying, not "misinformed".

[4X4Dodger]

Shearwater wrote:
This is getting out of hand. I started the thread and stated that the new GS book is not as useful as the old Woodalls and gave some examples (which, by the way, are still true regardless of what the GS PR person said.)

I DID NOT complain about the amount of advertising in the book or how GS raters should go about their business or anything else that RVers or RV park owners have been arguing about.

The new book is significantly less useful than the old one, period.

This is true shearwater but as so many threads do they grow and other peoples opinions get added and hopefully a different perspective is gained possibly some are provoked to thought.

But surely you agree these other opinions are just as valid as yours and they do add to the discussion and are on the topic.

[mowermech]

I thank you for pointing that out.
My Woodalls is the 2012 edition. I had been thinking about getting a new one.
Now, I know I might just as well keep my old one.
I don't use it that often anyway, so there is no sense in spending the money on one that (apparently) isn't as good as the one I have!
Again, thank you.

[Shearwater]

This is getting out of hand. I started the thread and stated that the new GS book is not as useful as the old Woodalls and gave some examples (which, by the way, are still true regardless of what the GS PR person said.)

I DID NOT complain about the amount of advertising in the book or how GS raters should go about their business or anything else that RVers or RV park owners have been arguing about.

The new book is significantly less useful than the old one, period.

[4X4Dodger]

The two park owners make some interesting points. But the thing that is missing is the SUBJECTIVE; How shady is it? Does it have mature trees or is it one flat concrete or gravel pad that resembles the Space Shuttle landing strip? Is it in a scenic location or is it in the middle of Phoenix? Is the pool more akin to a blow up one in size or a decent swimming pool?

Are the spaces packed in like sardines or can you actually open your slides?

These are the SUBJECTIVE things that I think many people would like to see. And before you all jump, yes you can be OBJECTIVE in rating the SUBJECTIVE.

As for the size of the book. I would cut it in half and do a western and eastern version. Yes it's two to buy but my guess is many many people stick to one area of the country primarily. And two would not take up as much space as the one if so much of the needless fluff was discarded.

The public parks issue is kind of a Red Herring argument here. While it would be nice to have those included (rated or not) There are much better publications out there describing these campgrounds than the GS Guide. I think what people want is complete ratings on NON Good Sam Parks as well as the GS ones. If I am planning to stay in a Nat'l Park or a State Park or BLM land the GS guide would be the LAST source I would go to. People that are using the GS guide in my opinion are overwhelmingly looking for Commercial Parks/Campgrounds.

But again for the two park owners. There is obviously a significant amount of dissatisfaction with the GS Guide and it would seem obvious to me that resisting what your customer base is saying isnt smart business. The old saying is TRUE. For every customer that does complain 20, 50 or a 100 walk out your door with the same issue and never say anything.

What is my interest you may ask? I just hate to see something with so much potential go downhill and squander it's customers good will. Maybe I've been in business to long.

[rockhillmanor]

Pogoil wrote:
Anyone want some cheese with all that WHINE!

Been using the book for 25 years we like it. No it is not perfect, but is a good tool.

Colby, jack or swiss? Anyone?Pogoil.

X2 +

[mikensallyt]

Redterpos3 wrote:

Bob Vaughn wrote:
I find it confusing to find a campground on the road that I am on.

Online!! After Lunch the DW whips out her ipad and begins searching 3-4 hours down the road. I've not had a valuable phone book for some time now. But now I don't have a home phone so it makes sense, but the way we are used to doing things is going to change! Being able to make that change will transform businesses and travelers.

OMG! I can relate to this one. Great ratings for some campgrounds (no name mentioned for obvious reasons). I pulled into one GS campground and while out walking, I had to use the bathroom (it happens). Almost sat down in a stall but after checking the interior of the toilet and the seat after looking around this place was filled with black widow spider nests. I got the heck out of there and am glad I wasn't bitten.

[SDcampowneroper]

mowermech wrote:
Oh, good grief!
the way some people like to twist things!
FACTS are FACTS!
I was NOT describing how I would rate a park. For one thing, I would never bother rating any park. In fact, the worst park I ever stayed at was rather wonderful! It was a little RV park on I90 in Washington State, all grass, lousy electrical system, very old, poor facilities, but we were tired, needed a place to stay with hookups, and it was wonderful to park, plug in, fix dinner, and get to sleep. Would I have spent a week there? NO! Would I stop again for a quick overnighter (if it is still open)? sure why not.
I was merely addressing complaints about the new Good Sam book.
It was stated that site sizes are not always accurate. Sorry, but there is no room for error there. Either the site is 25 by 50 feet, or it is not. How could a reviewer make a mistake?
The same goes for all the other items I mentioned. either the reviewer got it right, or made a mistake. Since it is obvious to any body with decent vision, how could a reviewer get it wrong?
If 45 out of 47 sites have full (or partial) hookups, and the overflow parking is in a hay meadow, SAY SO!
It isn't brain surgery, for pete's sake! Just state the FACTS!
"weight the criteria"?? WHY? Again, just state the FACTS!
If there is a noisy waterfall, I would like to know about it. If there is a noisy freeway running right by the park, I want to know about it.
Again, FACTS!
"scores"?? Again, WHY? WHY assign a "score". Just tell the facts!
I really don't see why it should be so hard to understand!

,
Hi John, you got almost everything right in your post. The account representatives do not review, they rate.Big difference, thier rating interest is subjective, reviews are objective, a measure made by visitors.
They measure site W x l, then average those measurements, thus you see 'average site width ' in the guide.
I stand by my earlier post in this thread that all of the many rating teams we have had in our 14 years here from Woodalls, Trailer Life, and AAA have been professionals whose ratings of our camp according to their criteria cannot be influenced. Advertising is discussed after rating discussion.
Now that Woodalls unique directory is defunct, and that AAA copies TL rating with a woodalls heading in their regional guides, it even more behooves the account team to rate camps critically, in absence of other rating teams. Its in their best interest to err on the side of caution without regard to the properties position..
In my experience, ratings cannot be bought or influenced, reviews can.

Max


If you suspect a camp has a gs 10/10/10 scale Rating above what you experienced, and can verify that with your judgement when using the rating scale for yourselves, or were denied the discount upon presentation of a valid membership card at the time of registration, report it for correction.

[Pogoil]

Anyone want some cheese with all that WHINE!

Been using the book for 25 years we like it. No it is not perfect, but is a good tool.

Buy the way a park must meet a minimum rating of 5/5/5 I believe to even qualify to be a Good Sam park.

Colby, jack or swiss? Anyone?

Pogoil.

[mowermech]

Oh, good grief!
the way some people like to twist things!
FACTS are FACTS!
I was NOT describing how I would rate a park. For one thing, I would never bother rating any park. In fact, the worst park I ever stayed at was rather wonderful! It was a little RV park on I90 in Washington State, all grass, lousy electrical system, very old, poor facilities, but we were tired, needed a place to stay with hookups, and it was wonderful to park, plug in, fix dinner, and get to sleep. Would I have spent a week there? NO! Would I stop again for a quick overnighter (if it is still open)? sure why not.
I was merely addressing complaints about the new Good Sam book.
It was stated that site sizes are not always accurate. Sorry, but there is no room for error there. Either the site is 25 by 50 feet, or it is not. How could a reviewer make a mistake?
The same goes for all the other items I mentioned. either the reviewer got it right, or made a mistake. Since it is obvious to any body with decent vision, how could a reviewer get it wrong?
If 45 out of 47 sites have full (or partial) hookups, and the overflow parking is in a hay meadow, SAY SO!
It isn't brain surgery, for pete's sake! Just state the FACTS!
"weight the criteria"?? WHY? Again, just state the FACTS!
If there is a noisy waterfall, I would like to know about it. If there is a noisy freeway running right by the park, I want to know about it.
Again, FACTS!
"scores"?? Again, WHY? WHY assign a "score". Just tell the facts!
I really don't see why it should be so hard to understand!

[rockhillmanor]

OMG.
A CG is a CG is a CG.
We are not looking to perform brain surgery on the grounds of a CG! :B

If it is not what you like and/or expected?
Put your darn RV in drive and find another one down the road.

Life is too short to manic over something as trivial as a bathroom rated with 4 stars and someone thinks it's only a 2 star bathroom. :R

[westernrvparkow]

mowermech wrote:
My old Woodalls is the 2012 edition. I find it completely adequate for commercial parks, military parks, and some USFS campgrounds.
For detailed information about USFS campgrounds, I use this site:

http://www.forestcamping.com/dow/list/nflist.htm

Fred and Suzi Dow put a lot of effort into that site, and I have found their descriptions to be pretty much exactly the way it is!

For commercial parks, I rely more on the old Mark 1 Eyeball than any description in a book. What I see is what there really is. For a quick overnight I'm not very picky. If I plan to stay for a week or so, then I get VERY picky! I often find I do not agree with reviewers, whether it be a review of a movie, a motel, a campground, a restaurant, or wine (I once read a review praising a winery on Flathead Lake, in NW Montana. I bought some of their recommended wines, and found them rather disgusting! Most definitely not to MY taste!)
Of course, paid advertising is often unbelievable; it is geared to make the payer look as good as possible. Reality has nothing to do with it.

As for rating criteria, some things are the same no matter where (or what) the park is.
either the site measurements are accurate, or they are not.
either the number of sites is accurate, or it isn't.
either there are full hookups at each site, or there are not.
either the toilets and showers (if any) are clean or they are not.
the roads are either gravel, paved, or dirt (mud when wet).
the sites are either gravel, paved, or dirt (mud when wet).
either there is a firepit and table, or there isn't.
either there is stream or lake access or there isn't.
either the reviewer tells it like it is, or he/she doesn't.
etc.
It is NOT a "judgement call", it is either/or.

So you would "rate", meaning give a score as to whether or not the site lengths are accurate? What in your criteria constitutes accurate? Down to the foot? The inch? From where to where? Only the gravel or paved pad or do you give some length to the area behind the pad if a rig can overhang it? Does a longer site give the park a better score? If so, why would a 100' long pad be any better than a 50 foot pad for most rigs?
Are you saying you are going to score a park higher that says accurately it has 25 sites than you would a park that said it had 40, but in reality, could accommodate a couple of more rigs if necessary?
Does a park with a paved road or paved site automatically score higher than a park with gravel?
Does a park in the desert automatically score less since it does not have waterside access?
What if 45 out of the 47 sites have full hookups? Does that park score less than a park with 10 sites, all full hookup? If not, does a park with one site full hookup and the rest partial hookups get points for full hookups? Where are you going to draw the line?
Restrooms can be clean today, and filthy tomorrow. How would your reviewer know? What if your reviewer stepped into the restrooms unannounced 1 minute after Cub Scout Troop #1 30 scouts finished their showers after a 5 day hike. Is that park destined to have bad scores for dirty bathrooms?
Does a park with accurate counts of sites and accurate site lengths get a score equal to a park with dirty restrooms no full hookups? If not, how are you going to weight your criteria?
And finally, how is anyone looking at your book going to know if the reviewer is telling it like it is or not? And What if their version of telling like it is doesn't fit your version. It would be entirely possible and accurate to say a park is extremely noisy because it is at the base of a waterfall. Would it be doing a potential guest a service or disservice to have a note saying "this park is extremely noisy"? And you are from Montana, so you know that any description of a park is going to be heavily dependent upon when it was visited. What is green, lush and has a raging river running through it in June can be brown, dead with an empty streambed in August. Telling it like it is isn't always the answer either.

[mowermech]

My old Woodalls is the 2012 edition. I find it completely adequate for commercial parks, military parks, and some USFS campgrounds.
For detailed information about USFS campgrounds, I use this site:

http://www.forestcamping.com/dow/list/nflist.htm

Fred and Suzi Dow put a lot of effort into that site, and I have found their descriptions to be pretty much exactly the way it is!

For commercial parks, I rely more on the old Mark 1 Eyeball than any description in a book. What I see is what there really is. For a quick overnight I'm not very picky. If I plan to stay for a week or so, then I get VERY picky! I often find I do not agree with reviewers, whether it be a review of a movie, a motel, a campground, a restaurant, or wine (I once read a review praising a winery on Flathead Lake, in NW Montana. I bought some of their recommended wines, and found them rather disgusting! Most definitely not to MY taste!)
Of course, paid advertising is often unbelievable; it is geared to make the payer look as good as possible. Reality has nothing to do with it.

As for rating criteria, some things are the same no matter where (or what) the park is.
either the site measurements are accurate, or they are not.
either the number of sites is accurate, or it isn't.
either there are full hookups at each site, or there are not.
either the toilets and showers (if any) are clean or they are not.
the roads are either gravel, paved, or dirt (mud when wet).
the sites are either gravel, paved, or dirt (mud when wet).
either there is a firepit and table, or there isn't.
either there is stream or lake access or there isn't.
either the reviewer tells it like it is, or he/she doesn't.
etc.
It is NOT a "judgement call", it is either/or.

[westernrvparkow]

4X4Dodger wrote:

SDcampowneroperator wrote:
Hello All,
The 40 inspection teams who visit and rate every private park listed in the guide are contractors, without agenda influenced by rating or advertising.
They inspect and rate first, not review , then discuss listing with the camp. Their rating cannot be influenced by the listing or advertising. In my experience, they are above reproach.
The travel guide lists public camps at no cost, free,

with their provided information as a public service and that is what you pay for when purchasing the guide.
Max

While I am willing to agree that MOST of the contractor raters are honest folks just making a living and doing the best they can I find it incredibly naive to describe them as "above reproach" and "without agenda". Not even the Pope is above reproach and everyone has an agenda hidden or otherwise.

Are you really willing to contend that no rater has accepted gifts, free stays or other considerations for their reviews?

As, apparently from your name, you are an RV Park owner I find it astonishing that you don't seem to recognize that making the guide better, easier to use and more fair to all parks by correcting the rating flaws is in YOUR BEST INTEREST. Further if you are Paying for this listing in the guide it would make even more sense to make sure the book is as good as it can be...and it is surely not at this point.

Your almost blind defense of everything GSE puzzles me especially when you can read the comments of people who are your customer base telling you there are problems....???

I am still curious as to what the great flaw is in the guidebook, and what is the solution. You make the point yourself that it is impossible to have a reviewer that is completely free of any bias. People complain that it is big and awkward, yet apparently you want even more stuff in it. It rates the private parks and lists many local, state and federal parks. Obviously, parks will fall through the cracks, and some can and do refuse to be listed at all.
If you have multiple reviewing criteria, that would make the guide even more confusing. It would be very easy to devise a guidebook the rated a service or industry that should be identical wherever you go. Rating McDonalds wouldn't be hard and it would be pretty easy to come up with a rating structure. RV parks, state parks, national parks, forest service campgrounds, Corp or Engineer parks and the like not so easy. They are different by design. A park in Toledo Ohio is going to be very different from a park next to the Grand Canyon. A forest service park in the Sequoia National forest would need to be scored differently than a BLM park in the Senora Desert.
Some of the complaints about the book are legit, but often still lack an easy solution. The way the parks' locations are listing is an example already discussed in this thread. a true issue, but no easy repair.
Too many people forget Good Sam is a for profit entity. They are going to spend their money, effort and time on reviewing, rating and yes, selling advertising, to private parks. There is no upside to them spending thousands of additional man-hours collecting more data on publicly owned parks. That information would not allow them to materially raise the price of the book. It wouldn't sell them more advertising. And it might very well cause some advertisers to re-direct their advertising dollars away from Good Sam. I know I wouldn't want my listing and ad to be buried in a sea of reviews and listings for the public parks in my areas. I have already decreased my advertising in the guidebook because I feel print advertising is a dying quail and I have redirected those funds to internet and mobile platforms. I assume Good Sam also has a handle on the changing world of advertising and has already made the decision that putting more resources into any paper product is not a good business decision.