Campground Website Photos

I have to take the opposite position relative to pictures since most campgrounds have websites with photos and yours aren't going to provide me much additional insight unless they show something incredibly bad which probably would have been adequately described in your review. I, too, am a heavy contributor to TripAdvisor but rarely upload photos unless I am reviewing an attraction that doesn't have a good website of its own and lacks photos already posted to the review site.

 

I would love to be able to provide photos. I use TripAdvisor and traveler photos are a big help in clarifying what pro web shots provide.

 

With no offense to you personally, how would readers know if the posted pictures were any more accurate than the ones on the website?

 

QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Aug 2 2013, 04:11 PM) [snapback]34340[/snapback]

With no offense to you personally, how would readers know if the posted pictures were any more accurate than the ones on the website?



None taken!

Accuracy is no more guaranteed by word than by photograph so concerns about photo inaccuracies are puzzling. I suppose someone might "plant" a problem in a photo or create one via photo editing (?) but the same could be said of a written review.

One example would be a location we recently visited. Visually stunning on the website - and also in my photo (it's a beautiful pool). Otherwise, however, the park is looking shabby and the photos I took of badly rusted doorway, torn carpeting and mildew climbing the walls would be of interest to ME if I were a fellow traveler. A photo of "dirty" and "maintenance required" says far more than a reader trying to ascertain what my standards might be. One persons "filth" is another's tiny speck of lint on a rug. My photo has geo tags that prove location (if that were in question).

Photos may not always be used negatively. I have been pleased to share photos of gorgeous rooms, grounds and similar that have been rated helpful for assuring others that - at least at time I traveled - the properties continued to "match" the representation provided by professional / Web photos.

We are a society of social media addicts who Instagram every meal as if we don't know what a hamburger looks like. Visual media is a powerful tool.

I understand it can be daunting to host images, however. It's easy to say and likely harder to do.

 

Agree, Google is your best bet.....there is a website called campgroundphotos.com. The site is an independent company that takes pictures of each site in a campground, however the campgrounds are limited.

 

It is called advertisement. You can make all the Excuses you want,it still doesn't make it write.People are getting wise these days and getting tired of the deception. It used to be called false advertisement! If the camp ground or R.V. park is not living up to what they advertise, Don't go back and write it up and put it in the park reviews. That is also called advertisement.




ad

 

I always look at google earth and find the campground. IT shows me the lay out and how tight they are and after you have been to a few it becomes easier to see what is going on.

 

I dropped off of this forum after selling our small 5th wheel. I'm back and like the old saying.....go big or go home. Actually, I retired earlier this week and we are now full time in this new 5th wheel and much larger than before.

User photos vs. web site photos....a huge difference! User photos would show current photos of the RV park and individual RV spaces. All are not created equal. I can and do use google earth but it only goes so far in showing detail of spaces, especially parks that are covered in trees. Web site photos show what a park looked like back when it was new and a professional photographer took the pics with enhanced lighting, color, etc. User photos show the good and the bad and are just much more realistic.

 

Congrats on your retirement! I still have a few months to go.

I too, use Google Earth, and on occasion, I can navigate through the park. Just not that often. I have started uploading pics of the park with my reviews and plan on continuing. I will also note that the park is Google Earth friendly. I also think real time pics are more valuable than what is shown on the web site and ask that more people use this option.

I hope you enjoy your new 5th and your new life!

Darrell

 

Time is a factor for us campers that are not fortunate enough to be retired. Even today with smart phones, it takes time to upload pictures with a review of a particular campground. But I do agree if more of us on this site started doing it, more of us would be conscience of it while we are enjoying our next camp outing. This is an older thread but still relevant today for the exact same reasons as 6-7 years ago, old, show nothing pictures on campground websites. Part of the problem is so many of these are "small business people" that got into the campground ownership because of their love for camping themselves. However, many don't have any marketing moxie to bring their business to a wider audience of potential customers by showcasing what and why you would book a site at their campground. They love the hokey pictures of the small pond, hayrides, one camper at any campsite pic, the pot luck dinner and so on. They forget when they were camping how much they would've loved to see several pictures of different campsites, sort of like many state park sites, placement of power pedestals, the roads and even dump station access. Sure if your camping with your kids, you'll want to see the pool, playground, rec room and so forth. Today it seems most campgrounds that have excellent Wi-Fi don't even promote that, not knowing how important it has become, especially to full timers.

 

I could easily post the picture of the toilet the guy with explosive diarrhea used and then didn't flush. Ditto photos of a firepit used as a dumpster, photos of our laundry room with the bags of dirty laundry tossed about by someone sorting their colors from their whites and a photo of the guy who felt the parking pad wasn't good enough for him, so he parked on the lawn with his medium duty truck, but that isn't really indicative of the park either. How would a photo of a power pedestal or the photo of a road be that valuable? Do you really think a park with potholed roads would use a photo of them and not a photo of a section free from problems? Wouldn't even an idiot use a photo of a power pedestal and utility hookup show one of the good setups? I could take a deposit from the dog park, put it on a bun and cover it with mustard and ketchup and the photo would look like a nice brat from the grill, but it is still dog$#%$.

 

Well Westerrvparkowner you sound exactly like the type of park most of us would never spend a buck at. Crass and jaundiced from the trials and tribulations of being a small (I'm guessing here) businessman owing a campground. If the things you mentioned bother you so much, why don't you sell your park, become a camper yourself, then you can become a PITA like the clients profiled in your response. Oh yeah, roads and locations on respective sites of the power pedestal do matter. If you can't showcase your park then you are better off not having any photo's, especially the hokey pot luck's for seasonal only. All the more reason this thread is relevant today, that the people using this website to review campgrounds they visit to try to include photo's if possible to bring to the community that relies on these reviews when making camping decisions will have more tools to decide on the dumps with staged photo's and descriptions to some of the nicest and most beautiful well run establishments out there across country.

 

Maybe everyone should take a deep breath before making any more posts in this thread. I don't see how different views about photos reflects on someone's business acumen. I, too, don't pay much attention to the "smiling faces" photos shown on many park websites, but, OTOH they don't offend me.

I wouldn't have thought that the topic of park photos would have engendered such emotions. I think that photos can be helpful to prospective customers, but I also recognize that vindictive customers could misuse them. The RVPR admin staff does screen photos in an effort to prevent this sort of abuse.

To respond to westernparkowner, I agree that photos of a park pedestal, by them themselves, aren't all that useful, but if your park's pedestals are placed at the rear of your sites, or are on the "wrong side", or are shared by sites facing in opposite directions those are the sorts of things that photos would reveal. Even though most private parks don't make reservations by site number, the way many state parks do, it sure would be nice IMHO to have a catalog of photos of each of your sites available on your website or your RVPR photo space.

There are "advertising" photos and there are "informational" photos. Both types are valid uses of website space IMO. Park websites are primarily advertising, but potential customers may want to know more detailed information about a park before visiting for the first time. Personally, I do more research on places where we intend to stay for a while than I do parks where we are "just passing through." However, every potential customer is a unique individual and adding additional informational park photos seems like a very inexpensive way of broadening your park's appeal to those who like to research their stays in detail. In other words, I can't see any downside to including more photos of your park.

I considered closing this thread but didn't because I think the dialogue here has been useful, but I urge everyone to calm their rhetoric so the discussion can remain helpful not hurtful.

Joel (AKA docj)
Administrator RVPR

 

Well said Joel. Some of the best campgrounds my wife and I have enjoyed have been small mom and pop type locations with out a lot of feature amenities. As Joel mentioned, we also don't put a lot of effort into researching a place that we will only use for a one night stop over during an extened trip. We do tend to use state parks or COE campgrounds over private parks whenever possible primarily because on average the sites are larger and well spaced. When we do make reservations at private campgrounds we try to use one or a combination of RVPR, Tripadvisor, RVParky, campground websites and Google Earth to make a determination of places we are considering.

 

I realize this is a old thread that has recently been revised and after reading several of the prior posts would like to jump in with a few comments from this peanut gallery. Some interesting and valid points brought out by several posters. After visiting the websites of several hundred or more various RV parks and campgrounds, not to mention a few "resorts" or ones that like to feel they are resorts, I have found myself looking favorably upon those parks that show a few things I feel are important to most RVers. Not all mind you but a fair majority I would think. What I like to see on a website are pictures of the following:

1. The park's entrance and/or exit for access and egress
2. The office or check in station
3. The interior roads
4. A few of the actual sites showing the hookup pedestal, etc.
5. The restrooms and shower facilities
6. The pet area or areas
7. Playground or area for children if there is one
8. Pool and hot tub if one is available and that can be actually used
9. Specific features such as a lake or pond on the property or a river or stream nearby
10. A community area or clubhouse if one is available

There are other pictures that can and should be shown if the park feels it in their best interest to show them but for us personally we can usually judge a park by looking at the 10 above pictures if we are interested in staying there. We don't need to see pictures of a fish being caught in the stream or river next to the park or even within the park itself however some that fish may want to see that, Same with a bunch of folks sitting around a campfire eating and sipping their favorite libation, etc. Again, this is just us talking and others that enjoy socializing may want to know that kind of "get together" is there for them if they wish to join in. We are all different in what we want in a park or want to see on the park's website. At the same time I think some parks need to take a slightly different approach as to how they advertise or show off their facilities. Above all, don't try to pass the park off as an RV resort when it isn't. Dirt roads and sites with old run down permanent RVs as neighbors don't cut it as a resort. Present to the traveling RVer an honest and up front "picture" of what the park is about and then we can decide if we want to spend some time at that park. If the park has some problem areas such as a few potholes in a road or two, or isn't set up to correctly handle larger and/or longer RVs, then say that in print. Don't say you are big rig friendly if you can't handle RVs 38' and longer. Tell it and show it like it is, that's all we ask for. I'll leave it at that. Thanks for hearing me out on this.............

Regards to all, BankShot.............(aka Terry)

 

IMO this is one of the most controversial park "attributes" to evaluate. First of all, do you mean 38' fifth-wheels or MH's; there's a big difference in their maneuverability? Furthermore, a lot depends on the driver's ability to handle his rig or whether and whether or not he's going to consider branches touching its side as a serious concern. I've processed quite a few reviews of campgrounds complaining about CG's that we have visited in our 40' Class A without concerns.

Maybe I'm too laid back, but a few branches aren't going to keep me away from a beautiful place such as Colter Bay in Grand Teton Park, to name one that I've read negative comments about. Down here in TX we call brush burns from branches "Texas pin-striping!" Heck, it's an RV, not an art object; it gets rock chips and other scars from being used. But that is what you're supposed to do with it, aren't you?

 

Hi Joel - I actually meant any RV 38' or longer, be it a 5ver or Class A or TT. I realize each type has very different handling characteristics, etc. but it really makes no difference if the site you are put in is only 36' long and you are RVing in a 40' Class A or a tri-axle 40' 5ver. Neither one is going to fit into that 36' site. As for scratches, chips, and dents, etc. we all get them and have to expect to when travelling down the highways and weaving our way around a park full of trees and bushes, etc. I don't like it when it happens but I live with it and make do. We got a rock chip in our windshield a while back from a gravel truck that passed us and that had no cover over the trailer full of gravel he was carrying. Pissed me off big time but hey, we got home, I called the window repair folks and they came over and did their job on it and you can barely see it and now it won't spider off into cracks across the windshield. You are correct, it's an RV and it will get a scratch or ding here and there if you use it and don't let it sit gathering dirt and moss. Oh, and by the way, we also got our coach pretty scratched up a couple of years ago in a park that hadn't trimmed their tree branches. As we backed into our assigned space a tree branch reached out and put a nice long scratch on the upper passenger side. We complained, the park sent us a check to have it repaired (it buffed out as it didn't got thru to the paint) and we were once again happy campers. Not all parks will do this of course as in most of them you do sign a waiver relieving the park of damages by trees and bushes, etc. This particular park went over and above to take care of our damage done by their non trimmed trees and we really appreciated that...............

I like your "Texas pin-striping" comment. I will remember that one next time I see an RV from Texas with some scratches on the sides or up top and be sure to ask them who did the pin striping on their RV...............

All the best and happy travels to you, Terry.............(aka BankShot)

 

Mike:

As someone who reads hundreds (thousands?) of submitted reviews every year I totally agree with your characterization of the situation. Some folks have difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff and when they get upset at a park they get really upset! At that point many of them become almost irrational in their dislike for the park and whatever has bothered them overwhelms any positive aspects of their stay.

For example, today I processed a review in which someone said that he would have given a particular park a 6 or 7 rating if it wasn't for the fact that someone mowing the grass blew cut grass at his RV. He didn't claim it was hit by any rocks, but he gave the park a rating of "1" because of the mower incident. For all I know he also submitted photos of his "grass covered RV"! LOL

IMHO there's nothing wrong with being annoyed about something that happens at a park, whether it's a botched reservation or a dirty, unlevel site, but I repeatedly urge people to try to put it in perspective with everything else they experienced at a park. Unfortunately, I'm not always successful with that plea!

Joel (AKA docj)