No longer Post

Back when we were in the business, they did lodging only, so I have no knowlege of dining reviews. I am a big fan of review sites. Now with a tablet that gets the internet via phone signal, we can do as we are on the go.

 

I don't post reviews here either because the format does not appeal to me and when I tried to post a review years ago it was rejected for including too much "extraneous". I post and read reviews on Trip Advisor because you can add personal information such as children's ages and opinions about your own interests. Personally I feel that information adds value to a review but doesn't fit the format here. So be it. Doesn't bother me all that much. There are plenty of resources out there to do my research and this site has its merits as well. No one site is perfect. I do read reviews here because not every campground is popular enough to merit a space on Trip Advisor. The ones I have found on Trip Advisor generally do suit my needs better.

 

This thread seems to have a life of its own. RVPR has the muscle power because of its archived library of reviews. GS is just getting started with reviews it will be years before they can see RVPR's taillights. I doubt that any other site will ever build the contributor loyalty that RVPR boasts. I trust the folks I've met here. It would be fun to get together at a campfire.

My problem with TA is that it has no "RV mode" for reviews, there are no RV relevant questions posed or answered. Some people write very nice prose, but without the prompts often don't include information that I need.
I'm too old for surprises, at 72yrs I like adventures but not unexpected ones when I stop for the night. I'll stick with RVPR.

 

Trip adviser has many, many bogus reviews. They are paid by page views and also sell positions within a city. They also have their own reservation system that favors their members. (at a cost). When we had our lodging facility, about 70% of the local reviews were bogus, Owners would write glorious reviews on their own property and bad reviews on their competitors. You can get an email address in about one minute. Trip adviser makes no effort to correct this crap. This site tries. We had one Inn that had about 3 or 4 great reviews a week, It was an average place, We he was gone, it got none. The main difference is, they are a business going for volume of page views and this sites isn't.

 

Posting reviews on RV Park Reviews is MUCH easier than the old days. Give it another chance.

 

Some extra information can be helpful in a review, such as knowing if you're a family with teenagers or toddlers, as this helps other people "calibrate" your perspective. We don't ask reviewers to delete that sort of stuff. However, when reviewers add information such as where they're planning to go on vacation (sometimes including rather detailed itineraries) or why they were running behind because they had engine trouble and were delayed leaving their last location, we do ask that such material be deleted because it makes it more difficult for other readers to get to the heart of the review.

 

rkw99,
There is an area on your profile where you can add personal information about yourself (family, where you are from, interests, hobbies, your RV information,etc) if you want to. Just click on your username on the main menu, then in the drop down box click on Edit Profile, and when your profile is displayed you can fill in information in the Bio and other boxes on the left side of the page. Just remember that the info you add here will be visible to other members; However, the Account Settings information on the right side of the page is never visible to other members. Hope this helps you use our site the way you would like.

 

It has been mentioned by the Administrators of this site that all of the staff members are experienced RVers themselves. Which then might provide for a better understanding of what its readers wish to have available as a research tool for finding a suitable campground. The minimum standard put in place for reviews, which by the way is published in the Help section of the site, would then be maintained and monitored by those same skilled staff members.

I very much doubt TA can make a similar statement, or has any standard for what one reads in the way of campground reviews. Although, I suspect they have the skill and expertise to be able to recognize an RV two out of three times.

 

I review every park in which I stay. Because I wish to give others a good idea of what the CG is like before they arrive or make a reservation. CG's that I have been to before have changed so just reviewing a CG once doesn't tell others what it is like the day you stayed. I have a 38ft 5th wheel that is 13ft tall. I like to know if it will fit into the sites, not be damaged by low hanging trees, if the sites are easy to enter and services are good. Just think of what you would want to know about a campground you plan to stay at and that is the information that you should place in a review. Just saying it was nice or bad doesn't make it.

BC

 

All review sites suffer from the fact that different people have different ideas as to what constitutes a useful and acceptable review. The reviews you write are excellent, but they're beyond what many others can or are willing to submit. Personally, if someone's review isn't helpful or interesting to me, I go on and read the next one. I don't consider myself particularly "inconvenienced" by someone submitting a review that lacks substantive information.

 

IMHO everyone has their own "style" when writing a review and we should all be respectful of each others limitations and review writing skills, etc. When I see a review someone has submitted that simply says they liked the park and would stay there again, then to me that goes along with the other positive reviews that go into much more detail. We will skip over some of those reviews in favor of reading one that goes into much more detail but we still add that short and simple review to the positive list for future consideration. I can get a little long winded on some of my reviews and I'm pretty certain there are those out there that read mine and stop half way thru as they've gotten enough out of it, and move on to the next one. To me it would be really boring if we all wrote the same type and/or length reviews. And with that said, think I'll end this on that note...................

Regards, BankShot

 

Oh well. I guess that standards no longer are important. When I first started reviewing campgrounds there were standards to the reviews. I had a number returned because of spelling or punctuation. Now it seems if you say "Great place to stay" then some one agrees, "Yep Great place" then another says "I hate this park" those are good enough for you to determine if you want to stay at the park.

How soon will those that really look to the Review for good information will go some where else? It is inevitable..

FWIW
BC

 

I agree with what you say here TXBobcat but if that's all a reviewer cares to say about a park then I simply take that minimal review and either put it in my positive file or my negative one. At that point it really isn't a "review" of that park, rather it simply becomes a yes, no or maybe. I much prefer reading a review that does go into at least some detail on the park's amenities, management, and other pertinent areas that we look at in choosing that park as a place to stay...........

Regards, BankShot

 

I agree that a simple "We loved this park." can be of some value in that serves the purpose of adding a hash mark in the plus column, but as you said it is not a review, and the purpose of this website is to post reviews.

I also see two issues with allowing this type of review:

1. What if every reviewer only made a short comment like this. How many reviews would you have to skip over before you found one that actually explains what the park is like? In this day and age of instant information, many users would not have the patience to wade through bunches of unhelpful reviews to find one that provides the information they want. They would simply switch to a site that allows them to locate the facts quicker. So we want all our review to provide useful information; not just some.

And 2. This reviewer may have loved the park for all the things you don't like in a park. For instance, what if the park was beautifully landscaped with all concrete pads, no campfires allowed, and there were lots of activities going on all the time making the park a very busy place. On the other hand, what if you like a very natural, calm setting among trees where you can roast weenies over a campfire and do nothing but relax. Does "We loved this park." give you any hint if this park is the kind you like.

Not trying to start a big argument here. I'm just trying to say that this site has always tried to ensure that the reviews it posts are helpful to RVers in choosing a park that is right for them, and I personally do not see how the comment "We loved this park." does that.

 

Let me be a tad more clear on what I meant in my above posts. I agree that this site is, and should be, for reviews that actually tell what the park or campground is like and done with as many comments being made as possible that are pertinent. When I said that we simply take a review that basically just states, "We loved this park", and put It in the positive column, we also do read the other reviews made by those that do include some much needed additional information. My point in all this was to not lose track of those that aren't into making long or detailed reviews as most of us are. Nobody can really expect to learn anything from a reviewer that just says they liked or disliked a given park. Hope this clears that up as I too don't want to start any pissing contests here for sure. I also happen to feel that when a reviewer only posts that they liked or disliked a park and doesn't give any reasons as to why, they really aren't contributing anything to a great review site that is intended to inform everyone about the parks we all stay in. So, with that said, how about you folks out there that are in that small group perhaps start telling the rest of us a little more of what you do and don't like about the parks you stay in. I think that just might help to end this thread on a good note................

 

[

Good post! Thanks for your input and thoughtful comments.

 

Lets say a reviewer has a 17ft (the largest one) Casita Travel Trailer. Pulls into a campground an writes a review. You have no idea what type of trailer they have when making a review.

They write something like this..
Great place, plenty of room, sites plenty long.

You go into the campground with a 38ft trailer or 40ft motor home. The trees would scrape the sides of your trailer, tear the roof because of low limbs and you almost have to take up 2 sites just to stay the night.

Even the info above will not tell you if you can get into this rv park. So the more information you have the better you can make a choice of where to stay. Just saying that it is a great park is dependent on your perspective.

This is where RVPR will get a bad name. Your website gave us information that was incorrect and we will not return. I would rather not have the poor reviews not be involved than the ones that depend on RVPR for good informative information. Something can be great and dependable or mediocre. Depends on the standards you set and adhere too.

Most people are to lazy to take the time to give information to others that they receive from a review that was informative. I say if you want to read the reviews great. If you want to post reviews you must agree to the Guidelines. Probably very few read the guidelines.

BC

 

Whoa, it seems that we are on a slippery-slope toward "Authorized" or "Certified" Reviewers based on a scoring criteria that would give rise to ranks and oversight by an editorial board. Gosh maybe we could be awarded titles. We could hang an oval shaped award on our rear ladder along with the other stuff that is hanging back there.
There is no activity more egalitarian than Rv'ing. From a Jayco pop-up to Joel's "Patriot Thunder" everyone is welcome in the space next to yours. And all these RV'ers should be welcome to post their opinion of the park they have stayed at. There can't be a writing test or a required level of proficiency at free verse. You don't have to be a competent writer to tell me that there is a loose dog problem. Just tell me before I get bit.
The problem seems to be one of perspective. In the current vernacular, we need to know,"where you're coming from."
So why not put it up front? You know that dumb phrase at the end of reviews:"we camped in a motorhome." Replace it with a fill-in-the-blank section that would be encountered before starting the open prose of the review. Describe the RV that you camped in and other misc. info such as a tow. Save this info for the reviewer so that it doesn't have to be repeated.
I know, some folks, like TXBobcat and docj, have their RV type in their profile, but most of us don't.
I have met many older couples who have downsized to a Roadtrek. Bathrooms are important to them. If they tell me the bathrooms were sparkling clean that is good to know. If they tell me that the sites were very big, I will consider that in light of their ride.
So why not start off the review with a quick profile of the writer's equipment and any other info they might want to add. It would only be an inconvenience once.

 

Good idea, Jack B. It would certainly help put the review in a better context.