"We had stayed at this park this past summer, so we decided to make a return trip and got a reservation for a month's stay over the phone. We then drove 3 days and 1200 miles only to find out that they DO NOT accept credit cards for monthly stays. I also requested a site that is advertised for $325 and mysteriously, the price was bumped to $375 when we arrived. No explanation other than they will take a "Debit" card but no "Credit Card". They will take a credit card for daily, and weekly....but NOT FOR A MONTHLY. 5:00 PM after 3 days of driving and I get turned away. That's okay...turns out that there are other RV parks that will accept Visa cards for monthly rates. Just thought I'd warn others that might make the same mistake as we did. [SIZE=14pt]WE DID NOT STAY AT THIS PARK[/SIZE]. We camped here in a Fifth Wheel. " The large type is mine.
I'm sorry. Except for the very last sentence your post is just a copy of a review that was posted recently. What is your point?
They did pass along some useful information that might be of help to others thinking of staying at the park. The fact that they were repeat campers also tells us a lot about the parko. Usually, debit and credit cards are handled through the same processer. Might have been thas some small businesses will do a larger amount "off the books" and didn't want to run it on a card and would rather have cash, but seems stupid to turn business away because of it. Better to have it on a card than have nothing unless the park would be full anyway. Wonder if this was covered on their website.
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Jan 17 2009, 03:02 PM) [snapback]14841[/snapback] I'm sorry. Except for the very last sentence your post is just a copy of a review that was posted recently. What is your point? I would've thought that the sarcasm that dripped from the title of the post would clue in even the least imaginative soul. Sorry I was wrong. A purpose of a review is to tell potential campers of the campground and its amenities. Condemning a cg WITHOUT using the facilities is unfair to the cg. I can see the info the rater wanted to impart being included in "chat", just not in the rating portion. Too many people will see the numerical rating and conclude that the facility is unworthy when in fact the rater has a bone to pick regarding another subject. That is MY bone to pick. I just went back to the review to see what the rater had given the cg when he was there earlier. Apparently this was his first time rating as his rating listed no other ratings previous to this one.
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Jan 17 2009, 01:38 PM) [snapback]14845[/snapback] Too many people will see the numerical rating and conclude that the facility is unworthy... Even if reviewing at the speed of light (guilty)... one can see there is a string of above average reviews (7, 8, 8, 8, 7, 9, 8, 7, 9) topped off with a 1. Dead give-away of a unique issue. Most of us quickly skim the lone bad review to insure the Park didn't close or burn down in the last week... (nope: just another reservation snafu)... then move on. I'm glad they posted... but that "1" would not deter me if I was looking in the area. B)
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Jan 17 2009, 03:38 PM) [snapback]14845[/snapback] I would've thought that the sarcasm that dripped from the title of the post would clue in even the least imaginative soul. Sorry I was wrong. A purpose of a review is to tell potential campers of the campground and its amenities. Condemning a cg WITHOUT using the facilities is unfair to the cg. I can see the info the rater wanted to impart being included in "chat", just not in the rating portion. Too many people will see the numerical rating and conclude that the facility is unworthy when in fact the rater has a bone to pick regarding another subject. That is MY bone to pick. I just went back to the review to see what the rater had given the cg when he was there earlier. Apparently this was his first time rating as his rating listed no other ratings previous to this one. And I would have thought that even the most naive soul would be able to recognize this numerical rating for what it is--an unfair condemnation by a disgruntled camper. This would be especially true when all the other ratings are at the opposite end of the scale. To set the record straight, I do not think the reviewer should have slammed the park because he had a disagreement over a credit card transaction. He did, however, state that he did not stay there and that he was trying to warn other people. That's good. So now what rating should he have given? Remember he has to put in something or the system won't take the review. Should he put a 1? In my opinion, absolutely not. Should it be a 10? Again I'd say no. So now there is the middle 4, 5, or 6. That would be a better choice, but I remember a review that was posted a few weeks ago that seemed to do just that, and it was also blasted for the low rating. Should he have written a review at all if he didn't actually stay there? Based on the recent posts in the forum, it appears we are still debating that question. Maybe in the future there will be a way for reviewers to give this type of information without having to enter a rating. Unfortunately though I am not sure even that will solve the problem because there are just too many people who, when they get mad about a situation (warranted or not), are going to "get even" with the park by posting a bad review and/or rating. Until these people change their attitude I'm afraid we will always get this type of review, and readers will just have to use their own judgement as to whether the ratings are credible or not. My bottom line is I just can't see how copying these reviews and posting them in the forum is doing any good or solving the problem.
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Jan 17 2009, 05:20 PM) [snapback]14850[/snapback] And I would have thought that even the most naive soul would be able to recognize this numerical rating for what it is--an unfair condemnation by a disgruntled camper. This would be especially true when all the other ratings are at the opposite end of the scale. To set the record straight, I do not think the reviewer should have slammed the park because he had a disagreement over a credit card transaction. He did, however, state that he did not stay there and that he was trying to warn other people. That's good. So now what rating should he have given? Remember he has to put in something or the system won't take the review. Should he put a 1? In my opinion, absolutely not. Should it be a 10? Again I'd say no. So now there is the middle 4, 5, or 6. That would be a better choice, but I remember a review that was posted a few weeks ago that seemed to do just that, and it was also blasted for the low rating. Should he have written a review at all if he didn't actually stay there? Based on the recent posts in the forum, it appears we are still debating that question. Maybe in the future there will be a way for reviewers to give this type of information without having to enter a rating. Unfortunately though I am not sure even that will solve the problem because there are just too many people who, when they get mad about a situation (warranted or not), are going to "get even" with the park by posting a bad review and/or rating. Until these people change I'm afraid we will always get this type of review, and readers will just have to use their own judgement as to whether the ratings are credible or not. My bottom line is I just can't see how copying these reviews and posting them in the forum are doing any good or solving the problem. It just makes me feel good that there is someone even dumber in the RVing world than me! But I guess you would even argue that point as well... Just out of curiousity, you did read the part in which he stated that he had stayed there before, didn't you?
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Jan 17 2009, 05:55 PM) [snapback]14854[/snapback] It just makes me feel good that there is someone even dumber in the RVing world than me! But I guess you would even argue that point as well... We all have our moments of stupidity on any given topic. I personally have several of those moments on a daily basis. QUOTE Just out of curiousity, you did read the part in which he stated that he had stayed there before, didn't you? Yes, I saw where he had stayed there last year. My reference to him not staying there was for this review. And to go a step further I do not think he should have tried to write a review or given a rating now based solely on his stay last year. That was too long ago and things change.
I think anyone here who has been in RV life more that couple weeks would have giving the rating no value. If you see all 8's or 9's then a 1 has little value to me. I like to see the comments and if person did not stay in park then I would love to know what happen. This is good to know that owner did not wish to pay the 4% on CC. We see this from time to time, no big deal, write a check or move on to the next place that will take our CC. I wish we had a box to check that "we did not stay here" and rating would automatically go to a "0". Only way to get this problem fixed.
For what it's worth - I've sent an email to the forum moderator asking if the rating system can be changed so that people who wish to make comments regarding a cg can do so in an area separate from a numerical rating system. That way pertinent comments (at least in the eyes of the rater) can be made and it would not necessarily denigrate the campground.
As a park owner I work very hard to maintain high review scores, be it here on this site, in Woodalls or even Trailer Life. If I get a low score for something out of my control or because of a reasonable policy, I feel like all my work is for nothing. I don't know why this particular park didn't take credit cards for monthly stays. My guess is they have figured out that if the fees are 3% and they have 33 monthly sites, they have to rent a site for an entire month just to pay the credit card company. They may also have a codicile in their credit card processing contract that forbids accepting cards for monthly rent. Some card processors will not accept a number of transactions. ( can't buy lottery tickets, casino chips, provide cash back on the transaction etc) If scores don't matter, why have them. Surely, you would not want a bad employee review in your work file for something you could not control such as everyone who had brown eyes got a bad review. Being told the score really wouldn't matter because all your other reviews were good, wouldn't really make you feel better. You would probably file a grievence against your boss with your HR department or your Union rep.
QUOTE(John Blue @ Jan 17 2009, 10:22 PM) [snapback]14859[/snapback] I think anyone here who has been in RV life more that couple weeks would have giving the rating no value. If you see all 8's or 9's then a 1 has little value to me. I like to see the comments and if person did not stay in park then I would love to know what happen. This is good to know that owner did not wish to pay the 4% on CC. We see this from time to time, no big deal, write a check or move on to the next place that will take our CC. I wish we had a box to check that "we did not stay here" and rating would automatically go to a "0". Only way to get this problem fixed. John Blue, great post....I totally agree with you. Cudos to the reviewer who submitted the information.
Whatever the reason for not taking the credit cards, a little communication between the desk person at the campground and the camper, would have gone a long way to settling the problem and getting a “happy camper”. In our old business, we did not take credit cards for small purchases as our average ticket was almost $200 and we got a great rate from the credit card processor and selling inexpensive items reduced the average ticket drastically and hurt our rate costing us money in all sales. We explained it very carefully and people seemed to understand and didn’t get offended if we just said no we didn’t it. Once again communications can get through a lot of rough spots. Credit card processors have been hurt badly by the economy and the bankruptcies of the times. New rules protecting the “deadbeats” have had the affect of increasing rates for those of us who follow the rules and have good credit. We seem to be rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior these days.
As always, the only way these reviews can help anybody is if you READ the review. As with CG reviews, restaurants reviews, even women, what may be a 10 for you may not be a 10 to me (and vice versa).
If a campground host EXPLAINS the reason, like saying, "we get a great rate if our credit card amounts are at least $X," then I am happy and will write a check. But if the host just says, "nope, sorry, we just don't take credit cards..." without providing the reason, then I say POO ON THE HOST OR OWNER! And when I say "reason," I mean.... the real, actual, driving, reason. I do not want to hear a bunch of bogus words made up to concoct some "semblance" of being a "reason." Also, "our computer requires it" is NOT a reason! (Computers don't have the ability to "Require." The campground is the one who "requires," thus, the software is programmed for it..... so, the "reason" would be the driver for why the software was programmed for this.) JJ
QUOTE(DXSMac @ Jan 20 2009, 01:37 PM) [snapback]14906[/snapback] If a campground host EXPLAINS the reason, like saying, "we get a great rate if our credit card amounts are at least $X," then I am happy and will write a check. But if the host just says, "nope, sorry, we just don't take credit cards..." without providing the reason, then I say POO ON THE HOST OR OWNER! And when I say "reason," I mean.... the real, actual, driving, reason. I do not want to hear a bunch of bogus words made up to concoct some "semblance" of being a "reason." Also, "our computer requires it" is NOT a reason! (Computers don't have the ability to "Require." The campground is the one who "requires," thus, the software is programmed for it..... so, the "reason" would be the driver for why the software was programmed for this.) JJ Often, the person at the front desk has no idea why a policy is in place, NOR SHOULD THEY. What if the reason they company didn't take credit cards was that the owner had credit problems and didn't meet a card processing companies credit standard. (yes you have to apply and be approved to accept credit cards) Should this information be shared with employees and consequently guests? My card processing agreement has clauses in it I don't completely agree with or even understand, yet I have to make them part of my policies. Same with insurance, my policy has many liability exceptions that I have to make part of the park policy. Certain dogs are excluded from my coverage. I don't want to argue the virtue of that clause with my guests, suffice it to say we cannot accept pit bulls. My insurance made me close a walkway in my park due to excessive slope. I just tell people it is closed, I don't want to argue whether or not it is too steep or if I should change insurance carriers etc. I don't want to train all my employees on the backround of all policies. Sometimes a policy has an origin that is nobody's business except the owner of the park.
It is against the merchant agreement to offer a discount for cash instead of credit card on a purchase and this can cause the merchant to lose his contract with most of the major credit card companies. Credit card company polices are written mainly with the card holder in mind rather than the merchant. If you want to accept credit cards, you must lay by their rules. My merchant agreement was about 20 pages of fine print and most of it was designed to protect the cardholder and the card issuers. The merchant was just a necessary evil in their minds. Being in small business isn’t as cut and dried as people tend to think.
QUOTE(Lindsay Richards @ Jan 20 2009, 03:42 PM) [snapback]14912[/snapback] It is against the merchant agreement to offer a discount for cash instead of credit card on a purchase and this can cause the merchant to lose his contract with most of the major credit card companies. Credit card company polices are written mainly with the card holder in mind rather than the merchant. What you've said might be true in some states, but it is certainly not the case in the midwest. For example, almost every gas station around here gives a cash discount. Other businesses discount the price if paying in cash. You cannot make some businesses (gas stations) exempt from a policy that others are required to follow. Also, the policies forced on everyone by the credit card companies have nobody in mind except the credit card companies. Don't think for a second that these evil empires care a rats $#% about the cardholder. The merchant is the one who is usually screwed by the cc company - but it is the consumer that ultimately pays as the merchant is forced to consider this an additional cost of doing business.
