I no longer post on RV Park Reviews because they showed me a couple of years ago they didn't want negative reviews. I now post on tripadvisor.com a much better site.
Hmmm, and yet here you are still a member and posting a comment on RV Park Reviews even though TripAdvisor.Com is a much better site.
That's interesting to learn. I've posted a couple of pretty negative reviews that I felt were well deserved and none of the admins has taken me to task about them. I've also read some really negative reviews that if it were my park being reviewed and given the ratings shown for it, I'd either be closing it down or finding ways to improve, etc. When the day comes that someone tells me my review is too negative or doesn't like what I've said in it, etc. will be the day that I will start posting on tripadvisor.com due to it being a much better site of course............... .............
Negative reviews aren't an issue to post. That said we do have some posting guidelines designed to prevent "grudge reviews" and customer disputes that can;t be resolved by RVPR Reviews must be about the actual park rather than a specific individual and contain information about the property or sites. The reviewer must have actually stayed at the park and parks owners and their employees are not allowed to post reviews. We have many, many negative reviews posted and continue to post them so long as they meet the basic requirements laid out for all reviews. You can read more about those here:https://www.campgroundreviews.com/docs/guidelines Airstream Man - I see a number of low review ratings from you that are currently posted including this one star review: https://www.campgroundreviews.com/r...ge-and-rv-resort?page=1&reviews_by=rating_low
TripAdvisor has no organized listing of the amenities available at the reviewed parks, and generally few reviews for a relatively few parks. Good for restaurants perhaps, but not so much for RV parks. "...a much better site."? Hardly...
I've heard the complaint in the forum, way too many times, that RVPR doesn't post negative reviews. That is absolutely a false statement. It may be that some individual's negative reviews aren't posted because they failed to take time to read the posted guidelines. Which by the way, everyone has to acknowledge reading by checking a box when you submit a review. With respect to this issue and of particular importance is the two rules under these paragraphs: Disputes and negative reviews and Disputes and Complaints . For those who complain, but still do not read them, those rules say that a personal rant and rave about how you were singled out and treated on a particular day and time is not a review of the campground. There is nothing wrong with TripAdvisor excepting that they do not have the same standard for providing detailed and useful CG reviews for me and my fellow RVers. It is not enough to check the box. Read the rules for submitting a review!
I no longer have cable or satellite tv, only over the air. However, I don't go to sites about cable or satellite tv and post about it.
I submitted a review a year or two ago that wasn't posted. We stayed at a county CG that had a problem with poison oak. They had signs posted to beware. I gave a complete review including information about the poison oak and submitted it. The poison oak part of the review read something like "it's great to have the signs to beware, but small kids and dogs can't read and they should have strung caution tape". The review did not post. This could have been a fluke instance, but I suspected that someone at RVPR axed the review. After about a week I re-wrote the review but left off the part about poison oak. This review was accepted. FYI, the CG is Richardson Park a few miles west of Eugene Oregon.
RickB, I took a look at your concern and don't see that a review that referenced poison oak was received. I did find the one you submitted however for Richardson Park here: https://www.campgroundreviews.com/regions/oregon/junction-city/richardson-park. There is no reason we would not have posted info about poison oak, btw. It's something that campers would be interested in and a specific comment about the park. If you had submitted a review that was not posted, you would have received a note from us to that effect outlining the reasons and giving you the opportunity to edit the review. If you had submitted the review and then submitted another for the same park shortly after you would have gotten a notice about that as well as the system will only allow one review in the same time period for a property. I think it's likely that the review you mention regarding poison oak never made it to our server. We routinely post negative reviews as well as positive ones and work hard to ensure that posted reviews are penned by REAL campers rather than shills, park owners or owners of competing parks.
Thanks for your reply Janet. Maybe I submitted the initial review from a bad internet connection that timed out or something. I didn't mean to imply that there was some sort of conspiracy theory. I rarely post reviews of the CG's or parks we visit. Unless I think I have something important to add such as trees need trimming, poorly angled pads, the park is open for business, wrong location on the RVPR map, poison oak, etc., I don't post. Well, I have posted twice over the years for our favorite park, but next to home it's our favorite place on earth
Rick, everyone has their own perceptions of every park they visit. Please go ahead and submit fresh reviews for the parks you visit even if there's no substantial changes from previous reviews. The features that are more important to you may help reinforce someone's decision whether to visit that park or not. And thanks for contributing to the overall database we all depend on for timely reviews!
I have posted several negative reviews. I rarely do, but when I am lied to, I write it and it got posted. We were in the lodging business for 10 years and Trip Adviser is known as the shark of the business. They tried to get as much money out of the lodging folks as possible and you could buy placement. They did not vet the reviews at all and competitors routinely wrote great reviews for themselves and poor reviews for their competitors. They bragged about it. You can get a different email address in about one minute. We were in a very competitive small town resort market during the recession. At one point, we figured 70% of the reviews were bogus. If Trip Adviser said it was good to be a bright, sunny day. I would go roll up my windows.
In an earlier post I mentioned that I rarely post reviews unless there are certain issues that are important to me. One of my big issues is safe access into a campsite (tree branches, poorly angled parking pads, etc). Yesterday, while searching for a campsite using Reserve America, I noticed that they have improved their "Alerts" for individual sites. They now alert for poorly angled parking pads! I'm not a fan of their $7 reservation fee, but this is good news!
Rick, the RA fee and the site information available varies depending on the location and type of park. State parks, NPS, COE, private parks, etc., all have different fees, with some having no fee at all. RA gets paid for all reservations of course, but the parks (or park service) decide how much of that fee to include in the site rates, and how much of it RA will itemize separately. The individual site listings are provided by the parks also, with no uniformity to them. Some parks supply better and more current info than others. I particularly like the parks that provide individual site photos.
We use TripAdvisor for finding things to see such as museums, gardens, etc. I doubt there's too many SPAM reviews for the Grand Canyon! We also have had pretty good luck with TA reviews of the kinds of local restaurants we frequent. We don't go to high profile restaurants where one would be more likely to see the kind of competition that can result in false reviews. We also compare TA restaurant reviews with those from Yelp.
The problem with Tripadvisor is they make their money on page views. They are all about getting massive content. Some of the cheaters in my town used to brag about it. You can get new email address in about a minute. In a bad economy when owners are fighting to stay alive, the incentive is very high to cheat.
I know from previous discussions that you are very down on TripAdvisor. But, I urge you not to dissuade people from using TA for things like finding attractions and small restaurants where the cheating problem is less significant or nonexistent. We've been using TA throughout our 5 years of full-timing and haven't yet felt like we had been deceived by fake reviews. This year we used TA to plan our sightseeing in Ottawa and Nashville, to name two of our weeklong stays. In neither case did we feel that we had been deceived by the reviews we used to choose the attractions we visited. I seriously doubt that the Canadian national museums in Ottawa compete against each other with false reviews! As for restaurants, maybe it's because we don't have the budget or the interest in "A List" restaurants that we rarely find we are in disagreement with the ones we find by using both TA and Yelp. For example in Montgomery AL last month, we came across a wonderful Cajun restaurant that I'm confident the owners of which barely knew what TA is let alone knowing enough to create fake reviews. I fully acknowledge that fake reviews are a serious issue on TA, just not for the sorts of places we are likely to go.
