Blaming A Campground

I agree with a couple of posters. I really don't think the admins changing the scores to reflect the written review would be fair. In the post in question, leaving a very low score with that review would indicate to me that the reviewer was off their rocker and I would dismiss the review entirely. Changing it to a midling score of 6 makes me believe the park was mediocre at best, and the lack of things to do only part of the problem. Even editing for grammar and spelling sometimes changes the whole tone of the review. A poorly written review, riddled with spelling and grammar errors is something I would take less seriously than a well constructed review. If a park had six reviews, three of them well written and complimentary of the park, and three of them negative and written by people who appear to be 1st grade dropouts, I would lean towards believing the good reviews. If the sentence structure and grammar was the opposite, and the bad reviews were well written and the positive reviews were nearly incomprehensible, I would lean towards the park being a mess. How people communicate is important to me, and if I don't see their original work I feel important information has been lost in translation.

 

I just looked for the review that may be the one in question. There is a 3 rating listed for the KOA but the actual review doesn't seem to be visible.

There may be a reason that someone would rate a park poorly simply because there was nothing to do there. I just rated a park quite high for that very reason. I need the peace and quiet after a very stressful work week. I did specifically note the quietness and serenity in the review.

Perhaps the writer was expecting the park to provide some type of entertainment. The review is not available to me. I was hoping to be able to "read between the lines". If the park promised entertainment, then perhaps the writer provided a valid review. It should have been specified in the review though. i.e There were no Clowns or Three Ring Circus as promised.

I think the review should stay posted as it was written. Perhaps it was lacking a proper exlaination but "I" would rather make that call.

 

Jdolen, the campground in question was not the KOA and was not even in the area of that KOA.

 

QUOTE(dalsgal @ Sep 23 2011, 06:19 AM) [snapback]27670[/snapback]

Jdolen, the campground in question was not the KOA and was not even in the area of that KOA.



Oops. My bad. I just had KOA imbedded in my mind.

I still maintain that reviews should remain as posted unaltered.

 

I just go by what they say they have and general condition of the camp ground.As in are the rest room and showers clean.If they say they have WIFI does it work and so on.Is the grass cut or if they have a pool is it clean.Also I don't expect a camp ground I pay 24 dollars a night for to be the same as one that is 80 dollars a night.

 

Having been in customer service for many years, I agree, it's amazing how some people can justify blaming others for their own lack of good judgement.

However, I think most of us can look at the reasons given for a campground rating, and see if its reasonable or not. That's why I like it when there are lots of reviews for a campground I'm considering staying it, as I can see patterns, and disregard the ones with bad ratings because someone misplaced their $2 flip flops etc. I have read reviews for parks where several people have mentioned the friendly, helpful managers....then I read a review from someone who mentions they have lived at that park for several months, and most of the review goes on about what a jerk the manager is. I tend to disregard the later's rating for the park.

In regard to various bugs, you will expect them if you do much camping . Mosquitoes are common near water. However in one review I too mentioned the mosquitoes because they were so bad that campers could not sit outside for several days, and a tent camper across from me actually left the park because of the seriousness of the problem. I returned a year later and the mosquitoes were gone- the park management said they now had someone come in to supply mosquito control when it got too bad, so sometimes management can make "the experience" better even though they didn't create the initial problem.

I've never mentioned "dog poop" in a review, as it's never been a major problem where I have camped. However if a reviewer stayed somewhere where it was an excessive problem, and felt there was no attempt to enforce the rules, and a month's worth was on the ground, I would appreciate it being mentioned in the review.

In regard to the theft issues mentioned, let's say the park owners built and staffed a guard shack at the campground entrance, had a private patrol car drive up and down the roads every few minutes, and installed cameras in key locations. Even here the ratings would be up and down. One person might give a high rating and mention the wonderful security, and another could give a low rating, and mention the lack of privacy and feeling of being in a prison. Of course they would have to increase the rates, so someone would blame the campground for the rise in cost.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with those of you who think all reviews should be posted as received.

The problem is you have not seen how bad some reviews are. Even though a spell checker is provided when the review is written, it is obvious that many reviewers ignore it. Also what you may not be aware of is that we try to correct only those reviews that have a few minor mistakes. Making those small grammatical changes should not alter the content or "change the tone" of the review in any way. If we receive a review that contains numerous mistakes, we do not try to rewrite it. We return it to the sender and ask them to make the needed corrections.

This site has always prided itself on publishing well written, easily read and understood reviews, and I hope we can continue to adhere to these standards for a long time to come.

 

QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Sep 24 2011, 11:35 PM) [snapback]27683[/snapback]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with those of you who think all reviews should be posted as received.

The problem is you have not seen how bad some reviews are. Even though a spell checker is provided when the review is written, it is obvious that many reviewers ignore it. Also what you may not be aware of is that we try to correct only those reviews that have a few minor mistakes. Making those small grammatical changes should not alter the content or "change the tone" of the review in any way. If we receive a review that contains numerous mistakes, we do not try to rewrite it. We return it to the sender and ask them to make the needed corrections.

This site has always prided itself on publishing well written, easily read and understood reviews, and I hope we can continue to adhere to these standards for a long time to come.



Allow me to clarify my position. My concern was only to do with a posters original "rating". This thread related to a park being given a poor rating because there was nothing to do near by. Is it fair to allow the rating to stand?

I appreciate being able to read a post. If it must be edited for content or grammar, I have no problem.

I believe the task that you undertake must make you want to pull your hair out at times. Even after proofing what I write myself, I discover errors. Since you are proofing material that you didn't write, the ability to do a little mind reading has to come in handy. You are doing a fine job. I thank you.

 

QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Sep 25 2011, 01:35 AM) [snapback]27683[/snapback]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with those of you who think all reviews should be posted as received.

The problem is you have not seen how bad some reviews are. Even though a spell checker is provided when the review is written, it is obvious that many reviewers ignore it. Also what you may not be aware of is that we try to correct only those reviews that have a few minor mistakes. Making those small grammatical changes should not alter the content or "change the tone" of the review in any way. If we receive a review that contains numerous mistakes, we do not try to rewrite it. We return it to the sender and ask them to make the needed corrections.

This site has always prided itself on publishing well written, easily read and understood reviews, and I hope we can continue to adhere to these standards for a long time to come.


Thanks for the clarification on editing.

 

I have had a well written review of a negative experience with a prominent RV park that would had been helpful for many others including my self, denied by the powers to be saying that it was something this site is not designed or intended to be used for.

 

QUOTE(hoefler @ Sep 25 2011, 05:05 PM) [snapback]27694[/snapback]

I have had a well written review of a negative experience with a prominent RV park that would had been helpful for many others including my self, denied by the powers to be saying that it was something this site is not designed or intended to be used for.


Maybe you should clarify those issues with the moderators and try again. I have not found them to be unreasonable, and in fact very fair.

 

QUOTE(mdcamping @ Oct 21 2011, 07:25 PM) [snapback]27969[/snapback]

We've had a couple of instances where our cooler was broken into at our campsite...to me that's a reflection of campground security or lack of it. I've rated lower because of this but it certainly wasn't a deal breaker with my online reviews...more of a heads up for other RVers who might be staying at the campground.

Mike



I don`t know where you were camping but are you sure it was a person? Raccoons, Squirrels and other critters get real smart that live around a campground,

Wink

 

One of the parks that we have stayed at got a negative review because the user complained about the winds. Apparently they felt that the owners should somehow have been able to block the wind from blowing through their park. Of course the park was located in the middle of the Great Plains where high winds are pretty common. We have stayed at some parks in the Great Plains where it is against the rules to leave a canopy extended when you are absent. If you travel in the Great Plains, which covers from Texas to Canada, you can occasionally expect high winds and there is nothing a park owner can do about it.