Selection Criteria

Sure would be nice to be able to select based on number of stars and number of reviews. I do not even look at reviews that have less than three stars. Places with five stars and one review are just as suspect.

 

I understand your concerns. A CG or resort that has one review and a five star rating might be a challenge but a new listing has to start somewhere and until more people submit reviews for these locations we can only go with what we have. I know the Admins do what they can to establish the authenticity of a review when submitted by a new reviewer and a new location by a new reviewer. Which, I suspect is why RVPR has a minimum of two reviews being submitted before either are posted. However, for a new location it really does depend on people submitting their objective reviews.

 

I have seen reviews that show only one star but they were given because of a personal interaction that went bad. It had nothing to do with the "stay ability" of the parks. I have also stayed at a park that was given rave reviews but I thought it stunk. Had I actually "read" the reviews I would have never considered staying there. Reviews are pretty subjective. A one to some may be a five for others.

 

I agree with BC... Read the reviews before writing off a park with a low rating. Numerous times I've seen reviews that downgraded a park for reasons such as: "No/few activities for children", "It rained the whole week", There weren't many cable channels", "No/poor WiFi", etc., all reasons that are not part of my selection criteria.

 

The ability to apply a filter to reviews and ratings is a feature on other websites that could be useful on this one. But as BC mentioned, one needs to read the review comments so that they can get enough info to make a decision to use a particular CG, or not.

That then means that those who submit a review should provide useful information that reflects observations and opinions about the condition and quality of the facilities and amenities that they observed during the visit - whether or not those where of interest to them.

That cannot be done in a one or two sentence review. Those type reviews don't help with the decision making process regardless of the star rating.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that people who write such reviews really do think this way. As a full-timer I get to stay in lots of RV parks and have experienced lots of neighbors. Some of them are the same people who write the reviews that seem so "out of kilter" to many of us.

The other day in Chattanooga TN the couple next to us were angrily packing up a day early because they couldn't tolerate the water-logged campsites any longer. Chattanooga has recently been subjected to nearly as heavy rains as has South Carolina; there was no doubt but that the grass areas between our sites was rather soggy. Even though the CG might have been able, in the future, to make these sites less susceptible to flooding, there was little they could do about the problem right now. IMO getting all upset about the fact that the grass was a quagmire wasn't necessary or productive. I have no idea whether or not this couple will submit a review to RVPR, but, if they did, it would, no doubt, have been highly negative. Yet IMO it was a good RV park and didn't warrant the kind of rant they were likely to write.

This is why it is so important to read the written reviews and not just look at the numerical score. People tend to be very vocal about the things that caused them to provide good, and, especially, poor scores. If those factors aren't important to you, you can ignore those reviews and the associated scores.

 

In defense of your neighbors, there is a big difference between packing up and leaving, even upset, and blaming the park for those problems. Maybe they were upset that they had traveled 100s of miles for some event that was cancelled due to the weather. Heck, for all we know they could have been there for their daughter's wedding, only to find that the groom had suddenly decided to change his name from Vernon to Veronica and had scheduled sex reassignment surgery for his wedding night.
Over the years, we have had guests leave early for a variety of reasons that were unrelated to the park. There has been smoke from wildfires, snowstorms, roads closed due to floods and landslides and of course, the famous closure of the National Parks due to our totally responsible and sensible politicians. People left upset after each of those events, yet we never got dinged. Most people know what is the park's fault and what is not.

 

Western, you are right about not knowing what the people are angry about. However, that's the reason we need to take every review with a grain of salt. I saw one review a year or so ago where people camped right on the beach and gave the park a bad review because there was sand everywhere. I have seen reviews where people loved the park only because they had friends parked next to them. Parks are reviewed just like we see people. Good reviews, or bad ones, are only in the eye of the beholder. Sure, if a park has really bad reviews you can probably figure you might not like the park either. For hubby and I, we didn't like parks that had lots of "fancies" there. We like quiet parks where we can just sit and relax together. Some people are not happy unless there is tons to do so that they don't have to just sit. I liked to read all the reviews for any park where we were thinking of staying and then judging for myself. The park we manage got one horrific review from someone that left, blaming me for a policy the owner had implemented. The admins here reviewed the two reviews the people posted and saw that the comments proved that they were claiming to be here and in another state, both long term, at the same time. They also decided that the review was over the top vindictive. I'm sure there are a good many reviews that are not so obvious, both over the top good and super bad, that we might see and judge by. We all need to not assume every review is right on the mark as far as what we are looking for.

 

To clarify, these folks gave both my wife and myself lengthy verbal rants about how bad the flooded site situation was. We were packing up and leaving at the same time (ours was a planned departure) so we happened to be outside while they were preparing to leave.

 

To add a little fuel to the fire here, I think it's worth mentioning the large number of reviewers who denigrate the presence of "long term residents" at parks and the increasing number of them that I've encountered who treat that fact as reason for downgrading a park's score, regardless of whether or not the long term residents detract from the appearance of the park.

Anyone who RVs a lot these days knows that it is increasingly difficult to find any privately run parks that don't have a significant percentage of long term residents. Regardless of the underlying reasons for this, it's a fact of life and IMO parks shouldn't be downgraded just because they have such residents if the park is well maintained and the long term RVs look no different from anyone else's.

This is another case where reading comments provided by others is essential in order to evaluate how relevant someone's review is to you. Personally, I completely comments about long term residents unless they indicate that a park has a run-down appearance.

 

I admit that when I'm searching "Campgrounds" or "Resorts" and I read "lots of long term residents", I see that as a negative. However, if I'm searching "RV Parks" - especially in or near a city - I expect there to be lots of long term residents and I don't view that negatively. "Campground" suggests outdoor activities such as sitting around a fire and cooking and eating outside at the picnic table. "RV Park" suggests a place to park your RV.

 

I've seen too many "RV parks" that fit your description of "campgrounds", and vice versa, as well as "resorts" that are anything but, to let the name color my expectations.

 

I agree that those are totally meaningless labels. IMO if you're using them to help to select a place to stay, you're leading yourself astray.

 

I think you - Dutch & Doc are misinterpreting what I tried to say. My research goes beyond reading the name (label) of the CG or Park. I'm thorough in my research and typically base my choice on what we are expecting out of each CG or park we choose. I read the reviews and select based on the reviews, the amenities and if we are overnighting or vacationing.
When vacation camping, I'm looking for reviews that don't included the phrase "long term residents". It's not that they're a negative, but the situations that can occur between vacation campers and long term residents have proven to be negatives to us on a couple of occasions. Here is one example: We stayed at a KOA outside of Vancouver B.C. when we were vacationing (for Expo 86) and we were given a site next to a long term resident who happened to be a night shift worker. At the time we had three young kids. At lunchtime the youngest accidentally spilled her milk and started to cry. The long term neighbor yelled out her window "if you don't shut that kid up right now, I'll shut it for you"!

 

With all due respect, I think it's a bit of a stretch to tar all "long term residents" because of a single 30 year old experience. I've encountered quite a few uncouth RVers who were capable of making the same kind of comment or who, conversely, didn't have any concerns for the effects of their late night partying on their neighbors. The idea that all RVers are pleasant people that you'll have something in common with is a myth or at least a rather gross exaggeration of the truth. Quite honestly, I don't mind having long term residents as neighbors because they are often absent all day long which can make for a rather peaceful site.

Also, you should bear in mind that the average reviewer doesn't distinguish between long term residents who are working people (heaven forbid, trailer trash) and those who are seasonal residents for vacation getaway purposes. In many parts of the country it is really difficult to distinguish between the two. When we set up at our winter site we have all sorts of furniture and bicycles, etc, around our MH. We definitely would have to be called "long term residents" and, heaven forbid, I hope no one considers us to be trailer trash!

 

DocJ, I gave you a single example, I could give you two more from only that single vacation.
We differ. You full-time and I vacation. I use RV Park Reviews to plan VACATIONS.
Please re-read what I wrote in my previous two posts. I clearly explained why I find the phrase "long term residents" to be a negative in certain situations but not all situations. I do not "TAR" long term residents and certainly would not judge someone as trailer trash by their home. One earns that label in other ways.
You picked on (and picked apart) a small part of my two posts. My viewpoint is that of a vacation planner and I presented that viewpoint without intending to argue but you seem to love arguing.
To paraphrase, "Arguing with DOCJ is like mud wrestling with a pig: after a while you realize that the pig actually enjoys it". No offense intended to you (or the pig).

 

All I can say is that these days you had better avoid most private RV parks because virtually all of them have large contingents of long term residents. It's our experience that it's become more and more difficult to choose a park late in the day and still be able to get a full-hookup site, let alone a 50A one.

 

Maybe we just need definitions that are agreed on first, then everyone can discuss the topic and be talking apples 'n apples. Even "Long Term" implies a term, albeit long. I truly think what people are complaining about are permanent residents, think Park Models with yards and fences, and trailers with skirting, wrap-around decks and 100lb LP tanks. These folks take away spaces permanently and usually the better sites. My most unsettling experiences have been with permanent residents. I am very leery of their unlicensed, beat up trailers and their life style, and fault the park because they often own and rent the trailer and the space. Evict doesn't seem to be in their vocabulary.
Transient labor, long term or short term, have to keep their trailers and fifth-wheels licensed and tip-top so they can move again. They work very hard and often have families with them. These are not vagabonds or itinerant workers, most are union men. I've met custom-combiners, high tension linemen, and pipeline workers. I would not trade with any of them, they are always working and take care of their families. I understand that the oilfields bring younger men and they often share a trailer, and can be trying.
But all of this is still better than that old trailer with missing windows and flat tires, that you presume to be derelict till you see someone step out and throw a dishpan of water out onto the yard. In fact, I don't believe the one I am recalling here was even plugged in.
It has been my experience that RV Parks cater to their permanents and expect their transient residents to adhere to a much higher standard than the permanents. As if moving from place to place attaches a stigma that must be monitored, where as the permanents can live in a hovel with no reproach.

 

If you actually believe that most private RV parks should be avoided, perhaps you aren't the best person to moderate and administer a website that rates those very parks. Personally, I think your observations are highly mistaken. There are virtually no private RV parks in my area that are predominately full time residents. Heck, almost all the parks in Montana (and the neighboring mountain states) close by November and do not reopen until April or later. During the winter months the parks are completely vacant. As for rolling in and not finding any vacancies, that is the risk you take traveling without reservations. Those sites you can't get aren't occupied by long term stays, they are occupied by travelers just like you, with the exception they planned ahead.