Is there some reason RVPR couldn't delete old post? Maybe limit the post to 5 years. Several time I have found parks I would like to visit to find out the last post was 2004. A lot of changes take place some great, some not so great in the last 5 yrs. Just a thought. Cary
If, to use your example, the last review of a park was in 2004 it's not clear to me why deleting that review is preferable to leaving it in. Why would no review at all be better than an old one as long as the date is clearly indicated? If a park has a succession of reviews covering the entire time period, I agree that the newer ones are more relevant, but I find it interesting to look for trends. For example, was this once a fabulous park that is now just average or is it a park that once was barely average which has been transformed and is now really nice?
No argument intended and that is a valid way to look at it, but in 40yrs of owning rv's I can count on one hand the number of rv parks that remained the same good or bad. a trend is not what I would be looking for. A campground that was worthy of my money is what I would look for.
But the question still remains, if the newest review for a park is a number of years old, would it be better to leave it on the list or remove it entirely? My perspective is that some information is better than none even if that information may be out of date. If I read that a park was not all that good a few years ago, I would definitely want to do some homework before agreeing to stay there.
I still think if a report is from 2004 the park is either not functional any more or at the least is not worth my time researching it. I do know some may have stayed there recently and just not posted anything. I quit trying to post several years ago because it never showed up on the site. that being said have a great evening. I have and will continue using this site and appreciate the time you devote to it.
When I am looking for a campground I check on different maps to see what is in the area. I have found one near where I want to stay and it has not been reviewed for some time. This doesn't mean that no one is staying there. Even if the review is old I have at least some information about what it was like at one time and then can make inquires as to what it might be like now. Another thing I do when checking out a campground once I have found one is to look them up on Google Earth to see what it looks like. This view from Google Earth may be a few years old but it gives me an idea. Then I also look up their website if one is available. Some information for me is better than none at all. FWIW BC
Most of the time, we visit a specific area, either because of what the attraction are or friends in the area. A review from 2004 would at least give me an idea about the campground, then it's up to us.
In more rural parts of the continent, it is not uncommon for parks not to have many reviews and often those they have may be older than one would have wanted. However, that's not a reflection on the park, just on the fact that only a limited number of people go there and not all of them submit reviews to RVPR. IMHO using that as a reason to "discard" a park is foolish. We enjoy going places where there aren't crowds; busy parks with lots of campers and reviews aren't necessarily what we want.
