Changes To Review Submittals

Hello Torce and welcome aboard the forum side!

When we first located this site, we too had too few camping sites to qualify posting here. You may want to try something we did.

Print out a handful of fliers from this website, and give them to friends you meet when camping at your one-and-only park. Tell folks to post THEIR reviews.

I now keep a couple fliers available for when we meet and 'click' with folks on the road. Perfect way to trade e-mail addresses using the back of the RVparkReviews flier.

Just a thought.
B)

 

Hi FosterImposters

Thanks for the suggestion re: the spare fliers. I have been thinking
about referring some of our fellow campers to this site. Passing
out some fliers might just work.

Have a great summer!!!

 

Hi DXSMAC

Been there - done that!! That's one reason why I suggested removal of a single 5+ year old
negative review - things change - as many times for the worse as for the better.

I also hoped (in my review) to correct some of the information about the campground -
some of them aren't set up or appropriate for the huge rigs that seem to be so popular
these days.

Happy travels!!

 

I do think this is a good idea to have added security to the reviews, because we base our choices for parks on the comments. The problem is I wish I had known this a little sooner because I posted a second review on the same park thinking it did not go through. Some kind of notice or notification should be posted when a comment is submitted to let people know why their review is being held. We are fairly new to camping and plan on referring to this site frequently, quicker postings of the reviews would be helpful.

 

We are working on the problems each day and hope this will go away soon. Remember this website is under heavy load at times due to all the reviews that pour in. The admins work hard to keep up with checked in the reviews. You can see a hundred or more hit the site in short time. Each review is checked before it goes on line to the public. All this takes time and someone to work the reviews. Changes will happen as soon as our webmaster can make them.

 

What John has said is correct. We do receive a huge amount of reviews in the summer months, and the checkers have trouble keeping up at times. In some cases it may take several days for a review to appear. Last summer at one point we had a backlog of almost 1000 reviews. Fortunately summer is short, and the rest of the months sees a lighter load.

Let me also add that we do not hold reviews except for two reasons: 1. The reviewer has not yet sent in 3 reviews (for different parks) which is mandatory before any review is posted. This has been in place for several years now; and 2. When a large number of reviews is submitted, they remain on hold until a checker can get to them. We do try to post them as soon as possible. In some cases that may be as little as an hour or two, and in other cases it may be a day or two.

Other than this we do not hold reviews. If a review is not accepted for posting the reviewer should get a note telling them why the review has been deferred.

I hope this makes things a little clearer, and we look forward to getting your reviews in the future.

 

I thought I'd add my two cents to this long-running discussion (I hope my contribution is worth two cents!).

Reviews are just peoples' personal opinions. Opinions of the same park can differ widely, so you take that into account when you read the things people say here. Reviews that are a bit too gushingly positive ... eh, you take them with a grain of salt. After a while, the owner-written "reviews" are usually pretty easy to spot. Same can be said of the overly negative reviews, too.

I have no problem with the three-park rule for posting an individual's reviews. Frankly, there are plenty of reviews that could use more editing, in my opinion. I just laugh at some of the things people complain about ... the park was "too windy", or the girl at the check-in had a pierced tongue (I'm not kidding). And it seems to be SOP to complain about a park's long-term residents.

Personally, I don't really care about those kinds of things. What I want to see in a review are straightforward ... was the owner/manager friendly? Was the park noisy with traffic/trains? What's the park's neighborhood like? Any particularly interesting amenities of the park?

And while I understand wanting to quote a discounted rate based on some membership or another, that's not useful information for those who aren't in that club. Quote the regular price and then give the discount in the body of the review, if necessary.

Thanks for listening. This is one of the most useful websites on the net, in my opinion (hope that's not too gushingly positive!)

 

Welcome to the site, John Tucson, and thank you for your comments. You have made some very good points. We look forward to more posts from you. BTW I'd say your 2 cents is probably worth at least four cents.

 

QUOTE(JohnTucson @ Jul 5 2010, 09:25 AM) [snapback]22838[/snapback]
And while I understand wanting to quote a discounted rate based on some membership or another, that's not useful information for those who aren't in that club. Quote the regular price and then give the discount in the body of the review, if necessary.
That's a very good point. It is important that folks who get a heavily discounted rate at least note that in their reviews, unless the park is strictly, exclusively, members only.

 

Although I have used this website to check out campgrounds for several years, I have never posted a review until a couple weeks ago. Like many who did not read the fine print, I was wondering why my review was not posted. :blink:

Upon reading the FAQ at the top of the home page, I realized I just had to wait a few days. Now, I find out that I must submit 3 or 5 (???) reviews before they are put into the queue to be posted.

I guess my point here is this. The rule that you must submit multiple reviews before any are considered is not mentioned in the FAQ at the top of the homepage. All it says is you must wait patiently for a few days. Not everyone goes to the trouble of tracking down the inside scoop on this forum, so I am sure many are left wondering why their single review was never posted, like me.

In closing, I will say I am not against the multiple review requirement. I just think it should be stated in the FAQ at the top of the homepage where most newbies would look first.

DOTLDaddy

 

QUOTE(DOTLDaddy @ Jul 9 2010, 07:43 AM) [snapback]22906[/snapback]

I guess my point here is this. The rule that you must submit multiple reviews before any are considered is not mentioned in the FAQ at the top of the homepage.

I just think it should be stated in the FAQ at the top of the homepage where most newbies would look first.





DOTLDaddy,

I’m sorry you had a problem with the website. To be truthful I had not looked at the FAQ section in quite some time and did not remember exactly what was in it, but after seeing your post I read it again. It appears to me that it DOES state in the second question/answer that you need to post three reviews before any will be considered for posting so I am confused about your saying that this rule needs to be included in the FAQ’s. Is there something that I’m not understanding here?

Texasrvers

 

It does state "You also need to post at least 3 reviews before your reviews enter the approval stage". I do know of a couple of instances where posts were made with no other posts and one with only 1 other post. That just means there are a few exceptions that are made on occasion.

 

QUOTE(dalsgal @ Jul 9 2010, 02:34 PM) [snapback]22911[/snapback]

It does state "You also need to post at least 3 reviews before your reviews enter the approval stage". I do know of a couple of instances where posts were made with no other posts and one with only 1 other post. That just means there are a few exceptions that are made on occasion.




I can explain why that happens. Let's say that a member submits three reviews just like the rules say. When those reviews are checked for errors TWO of them are not acceptable for whatever reason (incorrect information, poor grammar/spelling, etc.) so they are not posted. However, the third review is good and is posted. The person met the requirements for submitting reviews so they were all considered for approval, but only one review was acceptable and posted. In this case the system will show that the person has only one review so it looks like they did not send in the required amount when actually they did.

 

We have absolutely found this site the very best information from 98% REAL campers. Due to health issues we have had to really stay close to home, therefore I posted reviews on 2 local campgrounds. One in particular, Cloud Nine RV park between Hot Springs, Ar and Benton, Ar could be very dangerous for Big Rigs pulling a Toad. (it didn't show up under reviews because I didn't meet my mandatory 5) It was a fair and accurate review and truly feel that it could help the safety of our fellow RV'ers. I felt pretty sure that someone connected with that campground had posted a rebuke of sorts.

That being said, I think that this 3 to 5 reviews required, will eventually kill this website. Many times, after settling in for the night, we would do a review. On a trip to Mt Rushmore, we might stay in 3 parks. It is possible it could be weeks or months before that 5th one could be written. I think the forum is punishing the honest to get rid of the few. We as readers of reviews got pretty good at figuring out the "fake RV park owners and their cronies". 99% of us read other reviews by that member. In fact, over on RV.net there was a discussion about this website, and how to sift through the reviews to get a general idea of what a park is like. '

We really liked the "heads up" on bad interior roads, narrow turns, high/steep climbs, dirty and nasty parks with dangerous people.


The Tiffin website, and other major brands are beefing up their campground websites that could eventually kill this one. This is, and has been our favorite and most trusted site (even though we could tell the "plants" for ourselves. We're getting ready for a long trip soon, and we will check this website, but it seems that the Forum must believe there are more phony park reviews, than from members such as ourselves to make such a strict 5 review rule.

We may start going with our " Brand Forum" where they will eventually have a large data base of RV parks like this one.

 

Please excuse me while I shout.

OUR RULES CLEARLY STATE THAT YOU NEED TO SUBMIT THREE REVIEWS—NOT FIVE.

(Deep breath taken) Now let me address your other comments.

Our records show that you have 21 reviews posted. You have met the THREE review requirement. You do not have to meet it over and over again.

Our records also show that you have 4 reviews in the approval queue, one of them being the review for the Cloud Nine Park. There are currently 266 reviews in the queue. Two of your reviews are about half way down. The other two are near the bottom. This is an extremely busy time. On many days more reviews are submitted than can be approved. Reviews are handled in the order they come in, and they are approved as soon as possible, but that may not be for a few days at this time of year. Your reviews will be posted in due time.

We feel the three review rule does help weed out the less serious reviewer or the occasional review from a park owner. Yes, most of our members can spot a bogus review, but we strive not to have them in the first place. This has been a requirement for about 3 years, and we’re not dead yet because as you state this site has “the very best information from 98% REAL campers” and it is our rules that keep it that way.

So thank you for the compliment and your other comments, and look for your reviews to appear in 2-3 days.

 

Thank you for clearing that up. As you can see I haven't posted lately, or done any reviews until yesterday. I guess being out of commission for awhile made us a bit rusty. I looked back where I posted at the beginning of this thread, and I think we understood it at the very beginning, then after being off the road for a few months, misunderstood. I also agree with above members statement, that if we re-visit a park at a later date, and the park has gone down, we can make a note of it or improved, note that too. Example: we recently stayed at Lake Hamilton RV Park, where a couple of years ago, several members posted that the owners were very unfriendly. Unfortunately, the prior owner died, and the park now has very friendly new owners/management. If we constantly review the parks, then it is even more fair for the new owners who are friendly, have cleaned, made improvements, etc. We also mention that we found their park on this website.

We really appreciate you taking the time to set us straight on this. We love this website and had always found it helpful. Thanks again.

 

QUOTE(reddie @ Jul 11 2010, 05:20 PM) [snapback]22947[/snapback]

I also agree with above members statement, that if we re-visit a park at a later date, and the park has gone down, we can make a note of it or improved, note that too.


You are absolutely correct that parks should be updated frequently. A review from two years (or even one year) ago may not be valid now since things change so quickly. All we ask is that a reviewer not post a second review for the same park within 90 of the first review.

BTW your Lake Hamilton review is in the queue, but unfortunately it is the one near the bottom. I have seen several of the volunteers working on the submitted reviews today so they will get to yours as soon as they can.

We're glad to have you back as a poster and reviewer.

PS: The shouting wasn't just at you. We get emails and posts all the time from people saying they will never be able to reach the FIVE review rule. It was five at one time, but the webmaster changed it to three over two years ago. We are aware that once-a-year campers may have a problem with this, but we do not feel this is a burden for most of our members.

 

Please advise... how do I edit a park review done by another person. I found the review done to be factually incorrect, i.e. No cable tv, no internet, cable or wifi. This is from the park ranger. How to I get these facts changed at this park? Please advise. Thanks.

 

QUOTE(jake blake @ Jul 12 2010, 02:27 PM) [snapback]22972[/snapback]

Please advise... how do I edit a park review done by another person. I found the review done to be factually incorrect, i.e. No cable tv, no internet, cable or wifi. This is from the park ranger. How to I get these facts changed at this park? Please advise. Thanks.



A member cannot edit another member's review (or even their own for that matter). Only admins can do that. If you will send me a personal message with the name of the park, its location, and list the things that are incorrect I will pass along the information. If the admin can verify that the changes are valid they will correct the listing.

Texasrvers

 

I am an old 'user' but a brand new 'member' and may not be where I should be but wanted to comment that I really appreciate the time and effort that obviously goes into creating this excellent review site. I was wondering why my very first post (today) did not appear and now I know. It is unfortunate that such scrunity is necessary but it reflects the present state of our world. I DO wish that I could edit my first post, however, as I failed to mention their excellent WiFi. Thanks again for having such a helpful site.