Looks like the webmaster has cleaned out the review box where less than 3 reviews have been posted. I always look at the bad reviews, part being sure I am not doing something that really might tick off someone and part rubbernecking the wreck. Three reviews caught my eye. The first was for Thousand Trails-Wilderness Lakes Preserve. The reviewer stated he lived next door, never has stayed there and is involved in a lawsuit against the park. I think this review should be deleted. When someone has a lawsuit against another party, they seldom have an unbiased opinion and will often exaggerate to make their point, or harm the opposing party. Just my opinion. The second review was for Riverview Campground in Texas. The reviewer stated the road to the park had a sign that said "No Trucks" so he didn't travel to the campground. He also said the "website was shaky" , now I am no expert, but I assume the no truck sign means no Semi-tractor trailer rigs, perhaps on a bridge down the road. Most genuine road limit signs have a weight limit, They don't just simply say "no trucks" I don't see how the campground could exist if RVs could not travel to it. A simple call to the campground may have cleared up the confusion. I am not sure the campground deserves a negative review due to a road sign. The road I am on has a sign about 50 yards down the road from my park that states "chains required" this sign used to have hinges and was covered up in the summer, but the hinges have rusted out and the sign is now displayed year round. Surely, people would have some common sense and travel the clear road, in the dead of summer the 50 yards to my park and realize the sign is meant for different circumstances. It's not like I can just cut it down, it is state property. Finally, there is a review for Yogi Bears Jellystone Park at Maple park. The Reviewer was concerned the park had little concern about the fact a cat walked near the reviewers RV. Supposedly, the reviewer's child has severe allergies and would have severe problems if a cat is somewhere near. Sounds to me like these people need to be in an environment that is more controlled than a campground. There is no way a campground could be responsible for all things people are allergic to. The cat may not even belong to anyone in the campground. Stray cats are not unknown in RV parks since people have trash with food to eat, water everywhere and lots of places to hide. A large woodsy campground would be a good place for a stray cat to live. Also, the reviewer was upset the park claimed to be "family friendly", yet allowed single males in the campground (I don't know if they were single 20 year olds out camping, 40 year olds on boys weekend out, 70 year old retirees or actual perverts, though I doubt pedophiles wear signs identifying themselves as such). I don't think you can discriminate by gender and marital status so I am not sure what the point was. Did they really think family friendly meant only families, no singles allowed? Or are they just wanting a campground without single males out of an unrealistic fear that any single male must be a pedophile. It is very close to complaining that there are blacks, or latinos, or Jews in the campground. Surely the Webmaster would delete those. Again, I have no idea if any of these campgrounds are good, bad or indifferent, but they are sure being punished for problems I feel are out of their control.
I once stayed at a park in Olympia, WA, and it was a very nice woodsy park. The reviews were 6's, 7,s and 8's, about where I would put it. I told them, "Hey, I heard about your park on campgroundreviews.com." Well, when I said that, the manager was very upset, because.... apparently, three years ago someone put in a "bad" review. The park manager said they were very upset about that review, and the fact that campground owners can't reply or post. The manager said they felt that review didn't apply to them because the "bad review" mentioned "road noise from large trucks" and this campground was five miles from any "road" that large trucks would go on. Well, I didn't read reviews that far back, I just read the current. Since the current reviews were good for that one park, I stayed! And if there is one "bad" review, I read the other reviews to see if that "bad" review has merit. Most times, one can "see through" the bad review for what it is. (Somebody broke a rule, the park manager remedied it, and the reviewer is mad because they got "punished" for, or "caught" breaking a rule....) JJ
Great opinion. I personally read through the fog. We are at a campground now for a month that is really the only one available where we are that fits our needs. It was given all ones ny other reviewers and I find it acceptable. It is full of permanent residents and the sites are narrow or to say the least but I wouldn't give it a one. I will review it after we have been here a few days. I think some people expect way too much. There is a four star resort across the street that is nice and you pay for the four star experience. I guess the bottom line is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Great opinion. I personally read through the fog. We are at a campground now for a month that is really the only one available where we are that fits our needs. It was given all ones by other reviewers and I find it acceptable. It is full of permanent residents and the sites are narrow or to say the least but I wouldn't give it a one. I will review it after we have been here a few days. I think some people expect way too much. There is a four star resort across the street that is nice and you pay for the four star experience. I guess the bottom line is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
It irks me when I see one that is complaining about bad or no cell phone reception. What is the owner supposed to do, put a tower in the middle of their park? Then contract it out to all carriers, just in case one of their customers shows up? Stay in a downtown metropolis next time. I live in a good size town, and the reception when I'm in one part of my house is bad. I think the people that sold me this house owe me a refund (even though cell phones weren't too popular when we bought it).
When we were in the B and B business, one of the biggest problems was unscrupulous competition writing great reviews on their places and bad reviews on their competition. We were the receivers of some of this and the jerk competitor even bragged about it to a friend who called me. There was nothing I could do. Trip Advisor was the culprit and I believe as much as 75% of their reviews are bogus. It is a kept alive by advertising based on site visits. This is extremely hard to control by the operators of a review site and if a dedicated competitor wants to trash your place, then there is not too much that can be done. I think we as consumers, just have to ignore the obvious one, but, I have not myself many times. I think the owners of this site have tried to control it and the 3 review rule would definitely help, but could easily be over come by a jerk competitor. It is up to us as a consumer to police the system and on the internet many things are less than they appear. How many have won the Nigerian lotto?
I would hope that everybody reading reviews at this site can evaluate them as well as westerrvparkowner and the rest of us. Some reviews just can't be taken seriously. As somebody once said, "It's not that it takes all kinds, it's that there are all kinds.
Western, I had read each of these reviews even before I read your post (I like to rubberneck, too), and I had many of the same thoughts about them that you did. You make some very good points, and I think the ratings are ridiculous based on the reasons given. However, I do not necessarily think they should be removed. As absurd as these 3 are they are no more ridiculous than those that give low ratings for having bad weather, or too many leaves on the trees, or no cell coverage, or they didn't tell me I couldn’t get a refund, or any of the other absurd reasons people slam parks for. If the webmaster had to make a judgment call every time one of these reviews came in he would have no time to do anything else. Since this is a public website I guess I just basically don't believe that the webmaster should pick and choose which reviews will be posted (as long as they adhere to the website rules). For instance what if someone thought there was no such thing as a perfect park, and therefore wanted the webmaster not to post any review with a 10 rating. He can’t deny posting reviews with 10’s (deserved or not) any more than he can deny posting reviews simply because they are stupid or possibly unfair. Fortunately for you and your park, most of us who read the reviews can recognize them for what they are—either a well written and fair representation of the park (even if it is not favorable) or a poor attempt by a disgruntled customer to discredit the park over some minor incident. When choosing a park most of us will give the unfair ones the consideration they deserve—zero. While I have your attention let me also take time here to say that I really enjoy and appreciate your owner view of the discussions on this site. I may not always agree, but you have on many occasions opened my eyes to a situation and made me see a side I never thought of. I think that has made me a better RVer. I know you do not want to name your park, but I sincerely hope that I choose it if I am ever in your area. Hope you have a great summer season, and I’ll look forward to hearing some of your stories. TX
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ May 2 2009, 12:00 PM) [snapback]16196[/snapback] Western, I had read each of these reviews even before I read your post (I like to rubberneck, too), and I had many of the same thoughts about them that you did. You make some very good points, and I think the ratings are ridiculous based on the reasons given. However, I do not necessarily think they should be removed. As absurd as these 3 are they are no more ridiculous than those that give low ratings for having bad weather, or too many leaves on the trees, or no cell coverage, or they didn't tell me I couldn’t get a refund, or any of the other absurd reasons people slam parks for. If the webmaster had to make a judgment call every time one of these reviews came in he would have no time to do anything else. Since this is a publeic website I guess I just basically don't believe that the webmaster should pick and choose which reviews will be posted (as long as they adhere to the website rules). For instance what if someone thought there was no such thing as a perfect park, and therefore wanted the webmaster not to post any review with a 10 rating. He can’t deny posting reviews with 10’s (deserved or not) any more than he can deny posting reviews simply because they are stupid or possibly unfair. Fortunately for you and your park, most of us who read the reviews can recognize them for what they are—either a well written and fair representation of the park (even if it is not favorable) or a poor attempt by a disgruntled customer to discredit the park over some minor incident. When choosing a park most of us will give the unfair ones the consideration they deserve—zero. While I have your attention let me also take time here to say that I really enjoy and appreciate your owner view of the discussions on this site. I may not always agree, but you have on many occasions opened my eyes to a situation and made me see a side I never thought of. I think that has made me a better RVer. I know you do not want to name your park, but I sincerely hope that I choose it if I am ever in your area. Hope you have a great summer season, and I’ll look forward to hearing some of your stories. TX The only one I though should be removed was the one from the Guy suing the Park. He stated he didn't stay there, stated he had a problem with the Park and stated he was suing them. It is not a park review, it is an attack on a party to a lawsuit. The only value to that review would be to the Park to use it against the reviewer to show the guy is trying to harm the business. The other reviews obviously had an ax to grind, but at least they had the appearance of a review though I repeat my opinion that if the reviewer of the Yogi park had replaced "single males" with "blacks" or "Jews" the review would have been at least edited of that comment. It comes close to liable (or is it slander) to imply that an RV park endorses or encourages pedophiles to stay at their park. Again, just my opinion, but if the website gets overrun with these types of attack reviews it will lose it's credibility and value.
QUOTE(westernrvparkowner @ May 2 2009, 01:11 PM) [snapback]16197[/snapback] The only one I though should be removed was the one from the Guy suing the Park. He stated he didn't stay there, stated he had a problem with the Park and stated he was suing them. It is not a park review, it is an attack on a party to a lawsuit. The only value to that review would be to the Park to use it against the reviewer to show the guy is trying to harm the business. The other reviews obviously had an ax to grind, but at least they had the appearance of a review though I repeat my opinion that if the reviewer of the Yogi park had replaced "single males" with "blacks" or "Jews" the review would have been at least edited of that comment. It comes close to liable (or is it slander) to imply that an RV park endorses or encourages pedophiles to stay at their park. Again, just my opinion, but if the website gets overrun with these types of attack reviews it will lose it's credibility and value. You do make a good point. It is the WM's call. I guess it won't hurt to at least call them to his attention. TX
IF I can't get a cell phone signal, I'll "comment" just so people know, but not rank the park down for it....... JJ QUOTE(HappiestCamper @ May 2 2009, 08:57 AM) [snapback]16192[/snapback] It irks me when I see one that is complaining about bad or no cell phone reception. What is the owner supposed to do, put a tower in the middle of their park? Then contract it out to all carriers, just in case one of their customers shows up? Stay in a downtown metropolis next time. I live in a good size town, and the reception when I'm in one part of my house is bad. I think the people that sold me this house owe me a refund (even though cell phones weren't too popular when we bought it).
Had not read the most recent review of the Thousand Trails Wilderness Lakes RV park outside Menifee, California. Interesting commentary. FYI: the reviewer is correct on the cause of the smells... h34r: As some of you know we hail from this part of California and pretty much know all the local camping spots. Menifee has grown exponentially. What was once wide open spaces of cows, sod-farming with the occasional cheese factory...has filled in dramatically with tract-homes and schools. Wilderness Lakes RV park, once all by itself in a pleasant setting, now serves as full-time living for numerous lower-income families who've been priced out of the area. Their older septic system was never designed for the influx of full-time living. I agree that posting a review when one has not stayed is 'iffy' at best. Too bad the reviewer didn't take the time to stay a nite and take notes from within the place. We've never been interested enough to sit thru a Thousand Trails membership sales meeting...just to camp overnight in order to post a review. :lol:
QUOTE(FosterImposters @ May 3 2009, 11:23 AM) [snapback]16226[/snapback] Had not read the most recent review of the Thousand Trails Wilderness Lakes RV park outside Menifee, California. Interesting commentary. FYI: the reviewer is correct on the cause of the smells... h34r: As some of you know we hail from this part of California and pretty much know all the local camping spots. Menifee has grown exponentially. What was once wide open spaces of cows, sod-farming with the occasional cheese factory...has filled in dramatically with tract-homes and schools. Wilderness Lakes RV park, once all by itself in a pleasant setting, now serves as full-time living for numerous lower-income families who've been priced out of the area. Their older septic system was never designed for the influx of full-time living. I agree that posting a review when one has not stayed is 'iffy' at best. Too bad the reviewer didn't take the time to stay a nite and take notes from within the place. We've never been interested enough to sit thru a Thousand Trails membership sales meeting...just to camp overnight in order to post a review. :lol: My concern with this "review" was not whether or not the guy stayed there, it is he lives next door and is suing the park. He is not an RVer, has no interest in the park from an RV prespective and is just being vindictive. Would this website accept a review that gave a park a 1 that went something like this. "I live next door to this park and I hate RVers, you are lazy idiots who do not work and destroy the environment with your stupid motorhomes. All RV parks are a waste. They should all be rated as low as possible" I believe this website's purpose is to provide a resource and forum for RVers and Campers. It is not to slam the industry as a whole or slam a park they happen to dislike because it is in their neighborhood. That is exactly what the review for Wilderness Lakes is.
I recently read a review stating the couple that checked them in was 'old and frail'. In another a reviewer stated the manager 'would possibly' use 4 letter words at you if you crossed him. The intention of these posters is clear - they have a personal vendetta or agenda. These are just two of the many I have read on this site where needless negative comments were allowed to be posted. A park can be rated low, if warranted, without negative comments about persons. Comments should be restricted to the condition and amenities of park not personal attacks on the people. I noticed that many of these are from the single post reviewers. There is nothing to stop the same person from posting multiple negative or positive reviews of the same facility using different computers and screen names. I find the credibility of the reviews are becoming suspect. Perhaps, it is time to end the anonymity of reviewers.
I am aware of two other review sites (but they aren't as "in depth" as this one...This one is the best!). On both of those other sites, you have the choice of whether or not you want to be anonymous. You either send in an "anonymous" review without logging in, or you make up a login name. But, if the "anonymous" part were removed, there wouldn't be as many reviews, which is what makes this site the best and so successful. There are plusses and minuses to "anonymous" reviews. But this site is the best, and I think most of the reviews are fair. We know enough to weed through the "negative" comments. JJ
Hi Jobob, Perhaps if a camp ground owner, manager or employee swore at you, you might feel it was a good idea to mention that to others who may stay there. I don't see that as a personal vendetta--I see it as a campground owner trying to give his own property a death sentence. I am sure that the powers that be here do not allow any names to be used in reviews--even in positive ones. I don't think that having the reviewer's "handle" posted with the review would solve the anonymity question. QUOTE(jobob @ May 3 2009, 06:48 PM) [snapback]16238[/snapback] I recently read a review stating the couple that checked them in was 'old and frail'. In another a reviewer stated the manager 'would possibly' use 4 letter words at you if you crossed him. The intention of these posters is clear - they have a personal vendetta or agenda. These are just two of the many I have read on this site where needless negative comments were allowed to be posted. A park can be rated low, if warranted, without negative comments about persons. Comments should be restricted to the condition and amenities of park not personal attacks on the people. I noticed that many of these are from the single post reviewers. There is nothing to stop the same person from posting multiple negative or positive reviews of the same facility using different computers and screen names. I find the credibility of the reviews are becoming suspect. Perhaps, it is time to end the anonymity of reviewers.
QUOTE(pianotuna @ May 4 2009, 12:00 AM) [snapback]16244[/snapback] Hi Jobob, Perhaps if a camp ground owner, manager or employee swore at you, you might feel it was a good idea to mention that to others who may stay there. I don't see that as a personal vendetta--I see it as a campground owner trying to give his own property a death sentence. I am sure that the powers that be here do not allow any names to be used in reviews--even in positive ones. I don't think that having the reviewer's "handle" posted with the review would solve the anonymity question. The reviewer did not say HE was sworn at. He said, 'could possibly use 4 letter words'. HE was using inuendo as a way of attacking a manager. Some reviews have to be read carefully to get their true meaning. How can a reviewer possibly know if a pile of gravel has been sitting in a campground for years when this is their first visit. Or what purpose does it serve to say the people at the desk were old and frail. Or the review mentioned by the OP about single men. All of these comments were inuendo leaving very negative, business damaging, impressions on the reader. Some of the commentary in these really negative posts borders on slander. Unfortunately, not everyone reading the reviews can separate the vendictive reviews from the problem parks. Anonymous sites give the disgruntled kicked-out camper or ex-employee a chance to sound-off without taking responsibility for their words or resulting actions. There are lawsuits in several states regarding this anonymous posting problem. I see this site as informative, but tighter controls should be taken before credibility is lost.
Being a park owner I have to agree that some reviews just are not true. My park has had one BAD review. After the Bad review some one else defended us "I don't know who but I sure did appreciated their kind words" Here is a copy of the review {We were shocked when we stayed at this campground. The owner was nowhere in sight and we actually had to sit on the front porch and wait for two hours until the owner arrived during business hours. Turns out, her home is situated directly on the campground. After checking in, we deiced to shower and get some rest. The shower stalls were extremely small, so small that we could hardly move in the stall, and we were then awakened the following morning by a loud dump truck, followed by ongoing hammering due to a nearby home being built. We were told that the home will be completed in the middle of Summer or maybe early Fall. There were also alot of long termers at this campground in travel trailers. We simply didn't get a vacation feel here; it is much more like a trailer park with permanent residents. After staying at this campground for only one day, we were ready to leave and go elsewhere to find some peace of mind. We ended up at ****** in Buxton and we loved it there! No more ****** for us! We camped here in a Motorhome. "Owner was no where in sight" This was at the beginning of the season Just getting open, I had to go out for supplies, there was a big note on the counter and also on the Bulletin board beside office door, note said"Welcome, we are out Please make your self at home, take a site and we will be back at X o clock. I was not gone two hours, but she didn't have to wait as she could have taken a site, rates and map were also on the counter. Shower Stalls Small "showers are average size, camper who poster after her said they were plenty big for them" "Awakened by dump truck" The truck they heard was the trash Man who does come early but I can not control that. They do have to dump the dumpster" "Hammering" This was across ed the street from the park. This would have been at least 325 feet from their site. They started their day around 8:30 . I could not stop them from working and I never thought that it was that loud, but I most likely had gotten use to it. 'it is much more like a trailer park with permanent residents.' We have NO Permanent residents in the park. NO ONE Lives here. We do have seasonal campers, they leave the camper and visit mostly on weekends or during their vacation. The seasonal campers are located on the back side of the park. Every thing else is for Guests just passing threw even thou we do have some that stay a month both spring and fall when the Big Drum are running. The next day at check out NOT ONE WORD was said about all the complaints. If they had of only told me how un happy they were I would have let them know how sorry I was and would not have charged them for their stay. I have bent over backwards to make sure every one enjoys their time here. Most of our guests are repeats and we have become friends, we are a small friendly park where every one is made to feel special. I have often thought what would happen if park owners could review GUESTS, 99% of our guests are the worlds greatest but if I could review or may be even write a book on the other 1% it would be a very FUNNY, Interesting read. You good guys and gals can't even imagine what we as park owners and workers put up with UNLESS of course you have also worked with the public.
QUOTE(campNout @ May 10 2009, 11:53 PM) [snapback]16328[/snapback] ...You good guys and gals can't even imagine what we as park owners and workers put up with UNLESS of course you have also worked with the public... Amen! Had our eyes opened late last fall: watched over a smaller RV park in Astoria for the owners so they could squeeze in a break before winter. Its been years since I've worked directly with the public. DH was astonished at that 1% of the folks out there. Nothing we haven't laughed about on the forums: cannot get their WiFi to work, their pets poop is invisable, the rules do not pertain to them, their rig is too special to get wet. Oh, and why can't we affect the weather and local traffic noises? Our recourse was to smile kindly and say we'd alert the owners when they return. :lol: Thanks to all you park owners out there, for your special brand of kindness to the camping public. Looking forward to seeing you all in our traveling future! Cheers!
