This cg was reviewed today. It was given a "5". "Please note - this campground is for Military only! We made the mistake of coming only to be turned away. We camped here in a Motorhome. " How in the name of all that's good and holy can anyone give an objective rating for a cg that they didn't see or use? Luckily there are other ratings and narratives so that others won't be swayed by this rating.
I didn't write the review you are referring to, and I'm not trying to defend it--just explain it, maybe. Possibly this person wanted to let others know that the campground was only military so that someone else would not make the same mistake and also be turned away. If you submit a review I'm pretty sure you HAVE to list a rating in order for the system to accept the review. A 5 is in the middle so this is probably better than choosing a 1 or a 10 if you did not stay at or even see the park. You're right about there being other ratings and comments, and I think people will take them into consideration. Perhaps it would have been better if the person had stated that they gave it a 5 just because they had to put something. Should they have submitted a review at all? I'm not sure. The problem is this: Is it wrong to share information you have about a place even if you didn't stay there or do you keep quiet and let the next person discover the problem with no warning.? This has been debated in the past on this forum, and I'm not sure there was a resolution back then so there probably won't be one now either.
I can see what Texas is saying.... but I don't think they should have submitted the review. But then I also think this to a point...... There is one park I was going to stay at once, and there are no reviews for this park yet on here, but when I got to it, I got the "eebie jeebies" and decided to leave. Later, I found out that the park I got the "eebie jeebies" at was a haven for...... um....... :unsure: how can I say this politely and not get board management mad at me...... :unsure: "sellers of pharmaceutical products and female entrepreuners who preferred to work evening hours....." I wanted to post a "don't stay here" review, but didn't know if it would be "allowed." (I actually posted a "don't stay here" review to another review site, and that review site never "aired" it and never told me why....) JJ
I agree with Texasrvers. I don't have a problem with that type of review being written. It's a heads up that that particular campground is military and is off limits to those who are not military or guests of someone in the military. The same with I don't have a problem with people who submit a review to let others know that certain campgrounds are no longer operating. It's good information to have.
QUOTE(BBear @ Dec 30 2008, 11:10 PM) [snapback]14660[/snapback] I agree with Texasrvers. I don't have a problem with that type of review being written. It's a heads up that that particular campground is military and is off limits to those who are not military or guests of someone in the military. The same with I don't have a problem with people who submit a review to let others know that certain campgrounds are no longer operating. It's good information to have. I semi (?)-agree that it would be a good thing to let people know that a park isn't operating or that it is restricted to a certain clientele. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism to do that. In that light, I feel it is unfair to the CG owners to rate them poorly as it would be almost impossible to refute the original rating. I still think it would be better to not rate it at all.
I agree with Teas also. You have to put a rating in or it will kick back and ask you to. I guess the 5 was just in the middle. I have never gone to a military campground, but have been looking at them to go only to realize it after wasting my time on them. I think it was a good heads up and it could stop somebody like me from making the same mistake.
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Dec 31 2008, 11:46 AM) [snapback]14664[/snapback] I semi (?)-agree that it would be a good thing to let people know that a park isn't operating or that it is restricted to a certain clientele. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism to do that. In that light, I feel it is unfair to the CG owners to rate them poorly as it would be almost impossible to refute the original rating. I still think it would be better to not rate it at all. There is a mechanism...it's called a review. If you read the text of the review it will tell you what you need to know. Perhaps you're putting too much emphasis on what the rating is and not what is written. I know when I read a review and it's of that type like a military park or a private park that you need a membership to or a park that's closed and essentially the reviewer says in no uncertain words that their review of this campground is to let others know what kind of park it is or that it's now closed, it's not even necessary in those cases to even look at what the rating is, because the information in the review indicates that the park is not being rated in the first place, but only providing a specific type of information about the park. It may be better for you to not have a rating on such a review, but as it stands now a rating is necessary in order for the review to go through and my opinion is, if it's changed, that's more work on the Webmaster that really isn't necessary if people just take the time to read the review and see that the rating given for such reviews don't really matter to begin with.
I once sent in a suggestion that the "military" campgrounds be in a separate category, but so far, I guess there aren't enough in the database to warrant a separate category..... JJ
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Dec 30 2008, 02:33 PM) [snapback]14656[/snapback] This cg was reviewed today. It was given a "5". "Please note - this campground is for Military only! We made the mistake of coming only to be turned away. We camped here in a Motorhome. " How in the name of all that's good and holy can anyone give an objective rating for a cg that they didn't see or use? Luckily there are other ratings and narratives so that others won't be swayed by this rating. If that is the actual review what is the problem, it's just giving information not banging the CG. I would sure hate to make the same mistake they did. I think most people look past the number and read the text anyway and make their own dicision's. Just my opinion,
QUOTE(rodman @ Dec 31 2008, 04:54 PM) [snapback]14669[/snapback] If that is the actual review what is the problem, it's just giving information not banging the CG. I would sure hate to make the same mistake they did. I think most people look past the number and read the text anyway and make their own dicision's. Just my opinion, This is a battle that I apparently can't win and is seemingly unimportant to anyone but me, so I'll just back out.
QUOTE Please note - this campground is for Military only! We made the mistake of coming only to be turned away. We camped here in a Motorhome. That is information about the park - pretty important information if you are not in the military and had planned on going there.
QUOTE(gilda @ Dec 31 2008, 05:30 PM) [snapback]14671[/snapback] Why review at all if you didn't stay there? A review is supposed to give you information about the park. Gilda, In this particular case I don't think the person was actually trying to review the park and based on what they said they did give valuable information. And if I didn't want to go to an R rated movie (or if I couldn't get in because I was underage, for example) I would want to know it was R rated before I got there. Abbey, I fully understand that the problem that started all this was the 5 rating when the person didn't even stay at the park. I agree that is somewhat unfair, but as stated before they were forced to give a rating in order to post the other information. I do not agree with trying to write a review of a place that you may have just driven by, but this situation seems a little different. Again the best bet is to read the comments and not go entirely by the rating. I recently saw a 2 rating given to a park which I gave a 10. The person who gave the 2 had specific reasons for the 2. However, the things he complained about would not have made one bit of difference to me. I'm not saying he was wrong. He wrote it the way he saw it based on what he needs to be comfortable. I simply saw it another way based on my needs. In this case our ratings mean nothing; it is our comments of what the park is like that will help another person decide whether or not they would like to stay there. All that said I'm still not sure (as I stated in my first post) if no-stay reviews should be allowed. Some may be ok, others not, and I'm thinking it would not be fun for the person having to make the decision which are which.
Gilda, you're right. This is probably not worth the effort, but I have nothing else to do so here goes. QUOTE(gilda @ Dec 31 2008, 08:15 PM) [snapback]14675[/snapback] So I guess the reviewer did not know that it was a Military Campground when he pulled in? That would be my take on it. Yes, that is what I thought all along, and I think that is the main reason why they wanted to warn others. QUOTE my stupid "R" rated movie example.... Just to set the record straight I didn't say (or even to mean to imply) that your example was stupid. I understood that you were saying someone shouldn't write a review for a movie (or RV park) that they did not see (and I don't totally disagree), and I think you see my point that if I had known in advance that I didn't want to (or couldn't) get in the movie (or RV park) then I wouldn't have even bothered going there. (Hmmm, you don't suppose that is why they put the ratings in the movie listings? :lol: QUOTE I just think that a little research is needed when choosing a park, or maybe just a phone call. Absolutely!!!!! I couldn't agree with you more. And I also couldn't stand it so I looked up this park just to see what was said about it. First when you look at the website the pictures and write up make it sound really nice. If you read closely there are a few clues that might indicate it is military, but it does not really jump out at you. Having the name of the base in the cg name should be a clue, but it could have been named that just because it was close to the military base, not on it. So based on the website I can see how someone could be misled. However, some of the other reviews do mention that it is military only--another reason for reading the comments not just the ratings. In all honesty I think the reviewer should have at least suspected that this was a military park, and if they were in doubt they should have called. But I also think that after they made the mistake they just wanted help others by warning them. OK, I'm finished for now. Don't get me started again!!
QUOTE(gilda @ Jan 1 2009, 01:13 AM) [snapback]14678[/snapback] OK....done.....Happy New Year!!!! Thanks. You too!
I am basically with the posters who feel that if the "review" gives us important information, then it is acceptable. In this instance, the fact that the reviewer was letting us know that this park is for military only. That and other restrictions such as age, RV type, etc. and parks that have closed or have seen some other significant change are important for RVers to know. I also agree that folks should do their homework but a lot of people do travel with less structure and planning than some of us. While I have never left in the morning without having fairly definite plans for where I am staying that night, some people do. So, if you are making your plans about where to stay while you are on the road, the amount of research you can do is limited. According to Texasrvers research (thanks), if somebody saw this park on this site (before the questioned review) and checked the park website, they would not have known that it was military only. Thanks to "reviews" like this, people will now know they cannot stay there. Personally, I'd prefer that this type of "no stay review" would be limited to factual information. I have seen a number of such reviews that were based on feelings, biases, and worse. It does, however, seem that many folks here do appreciate that kind of information. As far as the rating of "5" is concerned, that's just a minor flaw in the way this great site is set up. A "1" would have been unfair and a "10" would have been unjustified. Choosing "5" seemed reasonable under the circumstances.
Jerry S. I was looking at couple of the Military Parks (El-Paso) & (Edward AFB) and now see they are marked as Military Only. I guess someone in admin group picked up on this problem and updated information. I need to see if others were updated at well. I also think the comments person made were good and we all need good information. I would hate to drive into a Military base and think we could spent the night. May get shot due to 911.
Wow, I just did a campground search and put in "military" as the term to search for in the campground name. I got 34 hits. That should be a big help to both people who are looking for a military park and those who aren't eligible to go there. Cool.
