Anither park in Gold Beach Oregon rated and it did not appear the rater even went to the park. I have personally been to this park and this rating is plain wrong. Why is RV. Park Reviews allowing this to become a practice???? Please rethink what you are allowing as you are losing credibility among parks and users alike.
I think "drive through" reviews can be helpful. Please note, I said *CAN*. If a person pulls into a park and reports that they were greeted by two pit-bulls who try to chew off their tires, unsavory armed characters exchanging small glassine envelopes for money, and several burned-out trailers covered with tarps that have people living in them and then they decide to pull right back out and look for another park, I consider that information that I would like to have about this particular park. I don't need them to spend the night to garner more info for me. At that point, I don't have a lot of interest in how clean the bathrooms are, what the water pressure is like, or how friendly the office personnel is. On the other hand, a review that says nothing more than "we pulled in and didn't like the place" isn't giving much info and definitely doesn't have a place here. I think it should be a call by the moderators as to whether to allow a "drive-through" review or not.
Luvtheroad has given a very good explanation, but let me add a little bit to it. We do post some reviews when the reviewer did not stay at the park, but our guidelines require that 1.) they go to the park so that they have first hand knowledge of what the park is like, and 2.) their review contains information about the park including things like the appearance of the park, the condition of sites and the utilities, the amenities available, etc. And it is up to the admin who checks the review to decide if it meets our guidelines. As Luvtheroad said, a review that just says we drove in and did not like the park so we left is not an acceptable review. If the reviewer did not like the park, they need to give specific reasons for their rating based on what they actually observed. Of course we prefer that reviewers actually stay at the park, but some information can be valuable even if they did not stay. Now having explained that, I agree that the review that you mentioned for a park in Gold Beach, OR, does not meet our guidelines, and therefore it has been removed. Thank you for calling it to our attention.
Thank You, I have stayed at the park in question and in no way shape or form is it a 1 star park. We have been RVing for 25 years and stayed in many parks and I can tell you we have never stayed in a park that would ever warrant a 1 star rating. We try to find the good in any park we stay in. Seems to me many either have much higher standards or seem to nit pick in their ratings of parks. It seems to be happening more frequently. Is it a new breed of campers? Is it the me me me crowd? Who knows.
QUOTE(RVRVRV @ Sep 2 2014, 11:04 AM) [snapback]38121[/snapback] Thank You, I have stayed at the park in question and in no way shape or form is it a 1 star park. We have been RVing for 25 years and stayed in many parks and I can tell you we have never stayed in a park that would ever warrant a 1 star rating. We try to find the good in any park we stay in. Seems to me many either have much higher standards or seem to nit pick in their ratings of parks. It seems to be happening more frequently. Is it a new breed of campers? Is it the me me me crowd? Who knows. I would love to hear what makes a good campsite in your opinion. We are thinking about starting a new RV park and would love some opinions of experienced campers. Thanks
Let me give an example of a "drive-thru" (or in our case, a "pull-into-the-driveway" review) that I debated posting back in June, but didn't. We had reservations at a small park we have stayed at before. When we got there, the owner told us up-front that there had been a bad flood and all of the sites were still very muddy. She walked us to a few sites to see if we thought we could pull our big rig into without getting stuck trying to get out. She said most people were getting in and out but was most apologetic about the situation and said that if we didn't want to stay, she would gladly refund our deposit. We checked out the sites and though we felt that we could probably get out without getting stuck, the sites were terribly muddy. She refunded our deposit and we went on our way. I would have liked to review the park and comment on how the owner handled our not wanting to stay there, as compared to a park we stayed at a couple of years ago that was in the same condition, but would not refund our deposit as they claimed the sites were usable, even though they were ankle deep in mud. I would have liked to comment on how the owner handled the situation honorably. Would that have been acceptable? I like to give praise where praise is due....
Drive or walk through reviews are not always negative. In areas where there are only a few campgrounds listed it can be a great service to other users of reparkreviews.com if you write a review of a new place that you happened to discover, even if you did not stay in that park. Have a look at this listing, go to the very first review in August 2010 to see an example of what I mean. https://www.campgroundreviews.com/regions/New_B.../Dalhousie.html
To answer Luvtheroad's question if what they wrote would be an acceptable review. In my opinion, no. It is not a review; it does not tell what the park is like under normal conditions. However, it is admirable to report situations that are handled well so your comments would be very appropriate for the forum. And wpr your example is a good one. Even though the reviewer did not stay at the park, they gave very useful information about it. This review is more valuable than some we get when the reviewer actually stayed there.
