Question about "non-standard" reviews.

This questions is mostly for the admins, but users can definitely add their feedback as well.

I have several parks where I have had varying degrees of contact, should I put reviews in for these?:

Park #1 and #2 I have not stayed at, but I have utilized their dump station. This requires me to at least deal with the desk staff and see some of the park. Should I put in a review?

Park #3 is not in the database here, and I have driven into the park to find the office to ask some info (never found it). I also called and asked some questions about rates, but have never stayed there. Should I put in a review to at least add the park to RV Park Reviews?

Park #4 is a free campground on BLM land. It's a nice place we've stayed numerous times. No amenities except for vault toilets and sometimes a park host. Should the users add parks and campgrounds, even if they are free, like some city parks?

Thanks,
Chris G.

 

3- no. 4 - yes. 1 & 2 - maybe.

Of course, when reviewing #4, don't mark it down for the lack of amenities (such as wi-fi).

 

Very definitely #4. You can hardly travel the "Great Plains" States without at least considering a municipal park. I would like to know about utilities available and how to make a donation if there is no payment procedure.

 

RVPR rules permit reviews for places that you haven't stayed overnight at as long as you physically went to the park and your review can provide some substantive information that would be helpful to others. Your circumstances aren't the norm for such reviews; most tend to be from individuals who go to a campground and then decide not to stay there for one reason or another. But there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to submit a review for parks 1-3 in your post.

As for park #4, there is definitely no reason not to review it. Having a fee associated with a site is not a requirement (although our software may insist on a minimum price of $1). All we ask is that the place being reviewed has some sort of designated RV parking area even if there are no hookups. What we try to avoid is listing parking lots where RV parking is "tolerated" such as is the case with Walmart, Home Depot, etc. Free city parks or BLM facilities would be great additions to our database.

Joel

 

DocJ, thanks for your response. Have wondered, therefore especially appreciate:
"What we try to avoid is listing parking lots where RV parking is "tolerated" such as in the case with Walmart, Home Depot, etc..."
The longer one travels, the higher the probability of finding oneself taking advantage of an occasional "tolerated" overnight. Never posted a review of these 'blessings in disguise' as it never seemed logical to document these (mis?) adventures into this database.
You confirmed my instincts. Thanks again.
Cheers!

 

Interesting. I've stopped at quite a few that didn't meet my standards and left. And I occasionally dump or buy propane without staying overnight. I never thought to review the parks.

I much prefer a "tolerated" parking spot to an expensive RON at a place with showers that smell like mildew (or won't let you do a sniff test), campgrounds without laundry facilities, or those having golf cart races.

Thanks Chris and Joel.

solo on the road

 

What works for you is what you should do. For some of us who never use campground bathrooms and who carry our own laundry facilities, what's more important is the ability to have hookups and the relative security provided by a controlled environment rather than sleeping in a parking lot. To each his own.

 

Personally, I think only reviews for parks where you stayed should be submitted. Maybe an occasional review of a park that you were going to stay at, but left because conditions turned out to be unacceptable, but I seriously doubt that actually happens very often. But it is surely unfair to foist your review criteria onto parks you would not stay in only because you used one of their ancillary services.
For example, if there was a very expensive, very top line park (something like Motorcoach Country Club in Indio, CA or Bluewater Key RV Park in Florida) that you only stopped at to fill up your propane tank, it isn't fair to anyone for you to bash that park because they only take high end rigs, they have very high rates, or because they have very highly developed sites and you like the rustic feel. You had no intention of staying there, so what they offer really shouldn't be something you review. It is no different than stopping at a McDonalds to use the rest room and then start berating the restaurant because it serves burgers and fries on trays and doesn't offer Pheasant under Glass served on fine china. I think you should only review parks you personally stay in because you had an expectation that the park would meet your needs and then it either did or didn't. A review of a McDonalds should be a review about how well their burgers, fries and service met your expectation of fast food burger, fries and service not how well their food and service stacks up against a five star restaurant. Same with an RV Park and if you aren't staying there, it is pretty hard to judge how well your stay matched up to your expectations.

 

I mostly agree with WRVPO that a stay in a park is needed to give a fair review in most cases. Exceptions would be parks with conditions so deplorable you couldn't stay there, and of course, parks that have closed, either long term temporarily or permanently. Seasonal and short term weather or construction related closings wouldn't need to be reported.

 

You make a very good point. We used to require an overnight stay, and we still absolutely prefer that a reviewer has stayed overnight at the park, but we came to realize that sometimes reviewers go to a park and do not stay for some reason. This is usually due to something being wrong at the park, but not always. We also realized that in these instances the reviewer has gotten a fairly good idea of what the park is like, so if the reviewer goes there and writes a good description of what he observed at the park, then we have been accepting the review. This type of review may not cover all the information that we would like for them to, but if they comment on 2-3 aspects concerning the park, then we feel that is enough for posting (which is sometimes better than reviews from someone who actually stayed there.) I agree that if someone just got propane and then bashed the park for only accepting Class A's, this is not the type of review I would post. On the other hand if they got propane and said the roads into the park had bunches of potholes, and the grounds had lots of trash lying around, and the pool was green, these would be helpful comments. It really does depend on what the review actually says, and we consider these no stay reviews on a case by case basis. Finally, it is important to note that we do not accept reviews where the person never set eyes on the park (because of cancelled reservations, for example) because we feel that to be fair to everyone concerned, comments should be based on first hand knowledge of the park and observations made while the reviewer was there.

 

A review from someone that did not spend a lot of time at a park is still a review as long as it contains relevant information. I'm sure we have all read reviews that had minimal or useless info that were posted by folks that had spent a month there.

Darrell

 

I just disagree. It isn't right to review a restaurant if all you did was use the restroom because people go to restaurants to eat the food, not to use the toilet. You shouldn't review a hotel room if all you did was walk into the lobby to get a newspaper because people go to hotels to sleep, not to use them as a newsstand. And you shouldn't review an RV Park based on using the dump station. People using this site to determine where they are going to go, go to those RV parks to stay in the sites, no just to dump their tanks. I have stayed in many parks, and the dump station is seldom located anywhere except in an out of the way location. To say the dump station offered a window into the entire park would seldom be true.

 

I am in agreement with WRVPO on this issue with one exception. That would be the key word in mdcamping's bold text is detailed. If I get much of the same information that can be obtained from an overnight stay, then it could be a useful review. But rarely would a drive thru look-see provide any information about the site suitability, bathrooms, WiFi strength, pet area, noise, or other onsite facilities and amenities that would provide help in making a choice to use a particular CG.

In the published rules for submitting a review it states that one will be rejected because The review lacks information that would be useful to other RVers. I suspect that the drive-by reviews are rejected more often than not.

 

I prefer to just see reviews for those that have stayed in a park. I don't remember what park it was, but one time I read a review which could be summarized as " We drove through and it looked like mostly year round people, so we went elsewhere", and my reaction was "so what, why is that even there. What if you had stayed and one of year-round residents had invited you to a BBQ". On the other hand if the person had said they drove through in October and went elsewhere because a big sign said "water shut off for the winter" it might be useful. I sometimes use municipal campgrounds, and read and submit reviews. Some are very primitive but I stayed in one that clearly had more features than any private park in the area. Although some public parks may not have a lot of amenities there is a lot of helpful information that can be given, such as a feel for the neighborhood and privacy etc.

 

We're not boondockers but have found it necessary to overnight once at an all night gas station and a Catholic church parking lot, both with permission. Wouldn't want to review them of course, but would like to broadcast their generosity. Which would quit possibly be exploited if they were identified.

 

To each his own I guess, I've read less informative reviews.

That one line tells me that the campground is less expensive than others in the area and is never full. They also allow dogs, especially German Shepherds, Rottweilers, an Pit Bulls. The park WiFi is unusable when the little darlings aren't in school- easy to tell by the screaming.

The dog walking area IS the transient area so if there are no "presents" in your spot when you park, there will be come morning (wear shoes).

There is likely a working laundry, often full of dog and cat hair. The residents are likely clannish and unfriendly. It would have been nice if the reviewer had stopped to smell the water (sulpher smell) and see if the showers were full of mildew. The presence of golf carts would have been a deal breaker for me and I would appreciate a warning it they were all over.

But all in all not a bad review. I might stay there overnight. I might have already stayed there.

solo on the road