Trip Advisor

[stetwood]

Cautionary article about Trip Advisor

When doing my research looking for places to stay, eat, or visit, I have relied heavily on Trip Advisors, but with a grain of salt. I only looked at those with a large number of reviews, but if the negative reviews are being axed, then maybe Trip Advisor needs axing.

What are your favorite (reliable) places to check for reviews?

[SpeakEasy]

drsteve wrote:

SpeakEasy wrote:
Read the Article.

Then, put yourself in TripAdvisor's (or any online review publisher's) shoes. If you publish something that is libelous you could be sued. If you publish allegations that damage a business, and those allegations turn out to be untrue, you could be sued.

I'm not necessarily defending TripAdvisor's business practices, because, as the article said, they aren't disclosing much about those business practices. But I am pointing out that a business like TripAdvisor HAS TO protect itself somehow from publishing stuff that is untrue and that could damage a business.

Not that any internet user ever puts anything untrue out there. No.

-Speak

Well, according to the article...

A federal law passed in 1996 called the Communications Decency Act provided a broad shield of immunity to online companies that republish content from elsewhere. TripAdvisor is protected under section 230 of the act when reviewers say negative things about hotels and establishments, according to Krishnamurthy.

So no, they don't have to worry about lawsuits.

Good catch. I did miss that paragraph.

-Speak

[drsteve]

SpeakEasy wrote:
Read the Article.

Then, put yourself in TripAdvisor's (or any online review publisher's) shoes. If you publish something that is libelous you could be sued. If you publish allegations that damage a business, and those allegations turn out to be untrue, you could be sued.

I'm not necessarily defending TripAdvisor's business practices, because, as the article said, they aren't disclosing much about those business practices. But I am pointing out that a business like TripAdvisor HAS TO protect itself somehow from publishing stuff that is untrue and that could damage a business.

Not that any internet user ever puts anything untrue out there. No.

-Speak

Well, according to the article...

A federal law passed in 1996 called the Communications Decency Act provided a broad shield of immunity to online companies that republish content from elsewhere. TripAdvisor is protected under section 230 of the act when reviewers say negative things about hotels and establishments, according to Krishnamurthy.

So no, they don't have to worry about lawsuits.

[RDMueller]

I saw one campground review on TripAdvisor that said, "The weather was cold and rainy the entire week." They gave it one star but mentioned they would have given it 4 stars if the weather had been nice!

[mdcamping]

Veebyes wrote:
The complainer who has only made a few & each one not happy about the CG, is not worth paying much attention to.

Agreed, but there are reviewers that have a long history which are "consistent" with either posting low or always high and there is value in those type of reviews.

Mike

[rk911]

SDcampowneroperator wrote:

rk911 wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
Or just wing it. That's what people used to do, believe it or not. And they rarely died. Surprise can be good.

or not. pulled into the White's City Motel and RV Park outside of Carlsbad Caverns, NM 30-yrs ago around 9pm. while checking in and searching thru the 'things to do' pamphlets I discovered a pile of mimeographed sheets *under* a pile of those chamber of commerce magazines intended for tourists. each sheet had a large WARNING across printed across the top. it warned users of the RV park not to use the fresh water hookups due to a massive e-coli bacterial infection and was issued by the NM Dept of Public Health. the desk clerk never said a word about this and when I asked she dismissed it as an over reaction.

we parked for the night but did not hook up water. the next morning I discovered the reason for the warning. horses were allowed to roam freely thru the campground and had collectively done their business everywhere...literally everywhere. several were roaming that morning. there was dung on picnic table benches, patios, truck bumpers and water spigot hookups. we checked out and never looked back. I was lucky not to encounter any of these surprises while hooking up electric the night before. this was the filthiest campground we had...and have to this day...encountered. we've stayed at several camps that permit horses and all of them have either stalls or a corral for the horses. none allowed the horses to roam free.

nope, didn't like that surprise which, if we had hooked up to the water, could've sickened or killed us.

As do the birds, the bees, other mammals, insects. Their e coli issue likely had little to do with horses. Much more likely a failing sewer field ( human waste) migrating into the wells.
All private campgrounds in the nation today on private potable water sources are governed by the EPA Revised Ground Water Rules ( RGWR) to provide clean safe tap water to the point of delivery and post clearly any issues. that must be resolved within 30 days.
Now if a bird does its business on that hose bib or you use a dirty hose, its up to you. The issue you had with that camp 30 some years ago? is irrelevant

Of note, public camps, operated by any entity of government are exempt from water quality RGWR rules and testing. By complaint only may the state or EPA get involved.
How do you like that?

my comment was in response to the 'surprises can be good things' post. and piles and piles of horse dung is hardly the same as bird, bee or butterfly waste. regardless of the source of the e-coli the camp people failed to make us aware thus endangering our health and safety. that was a most unpleasant and unwelcome surprise.

[SDcampowneroper]

rk911 wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
Or just wing it. That's what people used to do, believe it or not. And they rarely died. Surprise can be good.

or not. pulled into the White's City Motel and RV Park outside of Carlsbad Caverns, NM 30-yrs ago around 9pm. while checking in and searching thru the 'things to do' pamphlets I discovered a pile of mimeographed sheets *under* a pile of those chamber of commerce magazines intended for tourists. each sheet had a large WARNING across printed across the top. it warned users of the RV park not to use the fresh water hookups due to a massive e-coli bacterial infection and was issued by the NM Dept of Public Health. the desk clerk never said a word about this and when I asked she dismissed it as an over reaction.

we parked for the night but did not hook up water. the next morning I discovered the reason for the warning. horses were allowed to roam freely thru the campground and had collectively done their business everywhere...literally everywhere. several were roaming that morning. there was dung on picnic table benches, patios, truck bumpers and water spigot hookups. we checked out and never looked back. I was lucky not to encounter any of these surprises while hooking up electric the night before. this was the filthiest campground we had...and have to this day...encountered. we've stayed at several camps that permit horses and all of them have either stalls or a corral for the horses. none allowed the horses to roam free.

nope, didn't like that surprise which, if we had hooked up to the water, could've sickened or killed us.

As do the birds, the bees, other mammals, insects. Their e coli issue likely had little to do with horses. Much more likely a failing sewer field ( human waste) migrating into the wells.
All private campgrounds in the nation today on private potable water sources are governed by the EPA Revised Ground Water Rules ( RGWR) to provide clean safe tap water to the point of delivery and post clearly any issues. that must be resolved within 30 days.
Now if a bird does its business on that hose bib or you use a dirty hose, its up to you. The issue you had with that camp 30 some years ago? is irrelevant

Of note, public camps, operated by any entity of government are exempt from water quality RGWR rules and testing. By complaint only may the state or EPA get involved.
How do you like that?

[rk911]

fj12ryder wrote:
Or just wing it. That's what people used to do, believe it or not. And they rarely died. Surprise can be good.

or not. pulled into the White's City Motel and RV Park outside of Carlsbad Caverns, NM 30-yrs ago around 9pm. while checking in and searching thru the 'things to do' pamphlets I discovered a pile of mimeographed sheets *under* a pile of those chamber of commerce magazines intended for tourists. each sheet had a large WARNING across printed across the top. it warned users of the RV park not to use the fresh water hookups due to a massive e-coli bacterial infection and was issued by the NM Dept of Public Health. the desk clerk never said a word about this and when I asked she dismissed it as an over reaction.

we parked for the night but did not hook up water. the next morning I discovered the reason for the warning. horses were allowed to roam freely thru the campground and had collectively done their business everywhere...literally everywhere. several were roaming that morning. there was dung on picnic table benches, patios, truck bumpers and water spigot hookups. we checked out and never looked back. I was lucky not to encounter any of these surprises while hooking up electric the night before. this was the filthiest campground we had...and have to this day...encountered. we've stayed at several camps that permit horses and all of them have either stalls or a corral for the horses. none allowed the horses to roam free.

nope, didn't like that surprise which, if we had hooked up to the water, could've sickened or killed us.

[Veebyes]

Generally it is RVPR here. Seems like RVPR has more people who take the time to post a review. A CG is going to get a negative review before it gets a positive one. The nature of people to be quick to complain.

Always take a look at the poster. How many postings have they made. The traveller who has made many postings is worth paying attention to IMO. The complainer who has only made a few & each one not happy about the CG, is not worth paying much attention to. Same with the person who gives an exceedingly low mark for a CG but only has one complaint item about it.

Everyone has their own method. Mine starts at 10 & 1 point deducted per item. Rude checkin, 1 point. WIFI does not work as advertised, 1 point. Poor value for money, 1 point & so on.

[Fizz]

Using online reviews is no different than using your GPS. It's a tool to be used with caution as a guide, not concrete facts.

[fj12ryder]

Or just wing it. That's what people used to do, believe it or not. And they rarely died. Surprise can be good.

[Crowe]

I find TripAdvisor to be as accurate as RVParkReviews or any other similar website. Do the campgrounds that have experienced deaths, child abductions and the like print those reviews? Probably not. As in any situation you must be fully aware of your surroundings and keep control over your own personal safety.

I always pull an "average" on ratings plus I look at the reasons for the negative ratings. I also do a Google search to make sure the hotel/campground hasn't been in the news for bad reasons. ALL reviews must be taken with a grain of salt-you don't know who is lying because they got called out for bad behavior or who is Miss Susie Sunshine who never says anything bad about anyone. Some people just have an axe to grind and some people won't grind on anything. Do the math, do the research and then decide if you are comfortable.

[Matt_Colie]

As someone that writes for a number of things, I do read both Trip Advisor and RV Park Reviews. I also take both with a grain of salt. (Did you know that salt is an open ended lattice - a single grain can be huge.)

If I see that the only reviews posted are old, I approach with caution. We went into a restaurant once before I had a chance to get to the web and had a delightful meal. When I got to TA, the last review was years old and bad.

We also picked a CG once that had recent and rave reviews on RVPR. It was a total bust. My guess is that the owner either wrote or paid someone else for those. While being entirely aware of possible litigation, I made it very clear that this was not a place to select for a pleasant time.

Are you aware that RVParky has reviews of many of the stops too?

Matt

[fj12ryder]

Why couldn't they use the rating but cut the comments, rather than deleting the whole review?

[rr2254545]

SpeakEasy wrote:
Read the Article.

Then, put yourself in TripAdvisor's (or any online review publisher's) shoes. If you publish something that is libelous you could be sued. If you publish allegations that damage a business, and those allegations turn out to be untrue, you could be sued.

I'm not necessarily defending TripAdvisor's business practices, because, as the article said, they aren't disclosing much about those business practices. But I am pointing out that a business like TripAdvisor HAS TO protect itself somehow from publishing stuff that is untrue and that could damage a business.

Not that any internet user ever puts anything untrue out there. No.

-Speak

Excellent analysis of the situation