This is Posted as a Topic for General Discussion. I have noticed that on this Forum and several others I participate in, there have been several Posts regarding the numerical score given to CGs by reviewers.Reviewing the same CG the scoring range among reviewers ranges from very low to very high. Since the numerical score is totally Subjective, basically, all Subjective scoring reflects an individuals personal feelings (nothing is perfect, nothing is totally bad) and personal preferences (paved roads, pool, WIFI). The normal way to evaluate this scoring is to look at several reviews from the same individual and establish a trend line for his/her scoring. The same holds true for the written review, if the same items are discussed in several reviews this provides both a second trend line for the numerical score as well as the amenity impact. Based on the above, bottom line, from my personal point of view, is the numerical score of a review has little or no impact on my decision on staying at a CG. What say you?
The numerical score does very much interest me. I am usually suspicious of a 1 or 10 score... how many campgrounds are truly THAT bad or that good? I guess the numerical scores cause me look further into the reviews of the campgrounds.
Exactly, that is why I added the parenthetical note in my original Post. There are some individuals that will give no higher than a 3 and others no lower than a 7 irregarless of the CG.
QUOTE The normal way to evaluate this scoring is to look at several reviews from the same individual and establish a trend line for his/her scoring. Yes, I agree with this. I have seen a few that don't seem to be happy no matter what. I pay no attention to their comments or scoring. Also, If one gives a park a 2 (with reasons), and you look at his other reviews and they are 7-10...he probably has an honest reason for a low score of 2. The thing that bothers me the most is when a reviewer and the front desk or manager had a disagreement and the reviewer is soooo obviously slandering the park "to get back". So very immature and so able to see through. I know that the majority of readers of this review site have the intelligence to see through these folks that like to trash a park. This happens quite often when someone has stayed for a very long time at a park..had a spat..move on, and now wants to "I'll show you"...It's transparent and obvious.
QUOTE(summerland @ Sep 23 2009, 02:41 PM) [snapback]19163[/snapback] Yes, I agree with this. I have seen a few that don't seem to be happy no matter what. I pay no attention to their comments or scoring. Of course, it's possible that such a person only bothers to write a review in the cases of parks that are truly bad, or good. In that case, their thoughts may in fact be quite useful. One could divine this, albeit imperfectly, from checking the dates on the person's posts. For me, no question that the scoring system is the best feature of this site, since it is the fastest way to narrow down the choices and find a park to book. That is why I am one of those who previously posted on this subject, i.e. making the rankings better and more consistent. I doubt much will ever come of this however. The best use of the numerical rankings in in conjunction with the search feature, which I use all the time, and consider the strength of the site. It quickly and efficiently lists all the parks in a given general target area (filtered by the user), even if one doesn't know all the names of the little villages within that target area. A glance at the ratings provides a short-list of those worthy of a closer look. An invaluable help IMO.
I like the scoring system. I find myself reading the 1's and 10's to find out why. I also read other reviews by the same person to see if there's anything suspicious in their remarks. When I post I try to give the reader an idea of why I scored a particular way. A low score will definitely include a reason why. I'd have to be pretty disappointed to give a 1 as I'm easy to please when it comes to camping. I don't expect a red carpet or white glove treatment. I'm camping!
QUOTE When I post I try to give the reader an idea of why I scored a particular way. A low score will definitely include a reason why. I'd have to be pretty disappointed to give a 1 as I'm easy to please when it comes to camping. I don't expect a red carpet or white glove treatment. I'm camping! Sounds fair to me.
To give a (1) rating the campground site would be in a swamp with gators at my door step, full of mud over the wheels, off level to the point of roll over, no hookups, and cost $100 per night. Now how is that for a good rating on a 1? I think a person has been into RV life a short time will rate more on the wild side. Bad is a 1 and good is a 10 only.
I would say that the numerical scoring is an attempt to find a way to make the ratings more uniform and it is probably the best way that exists. The idea that all persons posting a review only rates at one score level or in some fixed pattern is as unlikely as thinking that you will ever find a way to have everyone rate the same. The fact is that different people will rate the same park with very different scores is just part of human nature and of differences of need and priority. When we stop for a night, it is very rare for us to use the pool, and we almost never use the showers or restrooms. In fact, we often stop at parks that do not even have either one. I did rate one of our favorite parks which has no restrooms or showers and we gave them a great rating, because the park is clean, and well cared for, staff are very friendly, sites are large and level with easy access and with no pool and showers, the park is mostly folks like us who are quiet and just getting some rest. Yet a family is probably not going to rate that park well because they have no pool, no play ground and the entire family was unable to get through the showers. Both reviews are completely valid simply because we have different needs. for any score that is either high or low to make sense, you need to read the remarks that go with it and support the score given.
QUOTE(John Blue @ Sep 24 2009, 07:29 PM) [snapback]19199[/snapback] To give a (1) rating the campground site would be in a swamp with gators at my door step, full of mud over the wheels, off level to the point of roll over, no hookups, and cost $100 per night. But if it was only $5 :lol:
I recently read a review on a park where the reviewer gave it a 5. Not because they were dissatisfied, rather, because they thought other people might see it as a 5. :unsure: When I review a campground I rate it based on my personal experience without trying to crystal ball what some future camper might feel. They can post their own review.
I want to thank those that replied to the Post and urge others to continue Posting their thoughts. I believe the comments Posted will help not only newbies but all of us in understanding what we are reading in and how to interpret the Reviews.
I check the reviews just about every day. I look for the extremely low scores and read them to figure out why a park was scored that way. I look for parks that I have been in to see if someone else had the same feeling I did in giving a score. I find it interesting if we decide to use a park that was scored low by others, it normally seem accurate to us too. I like the number system to use as a gauge in our decision to use or pass a given park. So far I have never scored a 10 to any park, not that they are not out there, I just have not been in one yet.
QUOTE(weighit @ Oct 1 2009, 12:09 PM) [snapback]19358[/snapback] So far I have never scored a 10 to any park, not that they are not out there, I just have not been in one yet. I have given three "10" scores so far: to Hammonassette State Park in Connecticut, boondocking (no hookups), but huge sites, clean, and beautiful place to stay. Lake George Evergreen Escape in Lake George, New York: Big, big campground, full hookups, tons to do (both pay and free), great workkampers. Then of course there is Fort Wilderness, Disney World. That campground needs no introduction! So a "10" score to campgrounds ranging from basic, no frills boondocking to full-out top end resorts. I have yet to be in a park that is below a "7"... I think that is my lowest score so far. We did have a bad experience at one resort, but that was years ago (before I was a member here) and have not been back since, so I don't think it would be appropriate to give a review for it now. I find it fascinating to read the "1" reviews. Sometimes it sounds like just a horrible campground (especially if other reviews are similar), other times it seems like the reviewer and campground owner just had a "personality conflict, lol! I wonder, and am a little scared to find out, how bad a campground has to be for me to give a "1" review.
I think the numerical scores serve a purpose in that they can signify the intensity of a reviewer's views. When I give a "10", it means I really loved the place. I think I have given one "1" and it was for a place that I thought was truly terrible.
I like the numerical ratings. I rarely rate extremely high or low, and when I see a 1 or 2 or 9 or 10, I usually read the reviews of that poster, to see if there is a pattern. (Some people are just NEVER satisfied!) I saw one reviewer rate a park (Moss Landing ((KOA)) a 2, both times he was there within three months. Why would you go back after rating it a 2 the first time. (He had also rated it a 5, two years earlier.) His highest rating was an 8, back in 2005, and the only comment about that park was a warning (all caps) about no charge cards. The rest of his 5 ratings have been 3 or 2s. Don't know if anything would make this person happy.
Numbers are important, but it's also important to read the entire review. Sometimes someone who leaves a 1 has a specific beef with a campground that might not effect me. Numbers should be used as a general gage. I recently read a review of a campground that was given a very low number. The number was because there was alot of adult beverages being consumed. Now, mind you, the reviewer didn't say the adults were rowdy, rude, loud, partying after hours or out out of line. This reviewer just didn't like that there was alcohol being consumed by so many adults. Well, to me, this review certainly didn't hurt the campground. I have seen reviewers who give all 4's or 5's - not sure what they are looking for in a campground. Also recently stumbled upon a reviewer who had given no lower than a 7 to over 100 campgrounds!! That person was either really good at picking them or really easy to please! End result - take the numbers with a grain of salt and READ the reviews. What might bother me, might not bother you!
As a campground owner I ask that you do take into consideration an overall view of the ratings given to any campground. If the majority of the ratings are good to excellent, with an occasional "bad" rating keep in mind it could because the camper doing the rating was probably doing something he/she ( or their kids!) that were in violation of the camping rules or making an unpleasant sitution for their fellow campers.
