Changes To Review Submittals

QUOTE(HercMaster @ Nov 7 2012, 03:10 PM) [snapback]31810[/snapback]

If a moderator would like to contact me by private email, I will be glad to give him the names of the 2 campgrounds I am talking about, along with supporting data as to why I am sure the other user made an error in referencing those 2 campgrounds. It would be good, for the sake of BOTH of the 2 campgrounds, to correct the incorrect campsite reference.



Since you have now located how to send a message directly to me, please go ahead and send the names of the 2 campgrounds and any other data about them to me, and I will have a look at them. Thanks for pointing this out.

Texasrvers

 

QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Oct 18 2012, 09:40 PM) [snapback]31642[/snapback]

Let me explain how this can happen. Sometimes a new reviewer submits their 3 required reviews which meets our criteria. However, if two of those reviews must be deferred that leaves only one review posted. Thus, it appears that he has submitted only one review when in fact, he really did submit 3.
By the way. we will gladly return Gold Miners' and gritz's membership fee if they will fill out the crap paperwork to request a refund.


Texas, this comment made me laugh so hard I woke my wife up sleeping next to me. Because of this I too want a refund, and I will no longer post any more reviews (for the next 24 hours). (Grin).

 

QUOTE(Fitzjohnfan @ Nov 24 2012, 01:23 AM) [snapback]31973[/snapback]

Texas, this comment made me laugh so hard I woke my wife up sleeping next to me. Because of this I too want a refund, and I will no longer post any more reviews (for the next 24 hours). (Grin).




OK, since you requested so politely I will not make you fill out the paperwork. Watch for your membership refund check in the mail. :lol:

 

The problem with even 3 is some of us are seasonal campers like me I stay at on site fore the season. With that said I know I'm new here but wanted people to know about the tv park I stay at and their unposted changes.

 

I'm a bit dismayed by this whole situation. I've written and had placed in the forum many reviews of campgrounds and have NEVER been denied a review. I stayed in a campground for two nights and wrote what I felt was an accurate review of the campground speaking of the false advertising and the problems we encountered at the campground. We are on a 3 month trip and have more than 30 reservations made for this trip. I cannot for the life of me figure out why my review was "deferred" except that I gave said campground a low rating compared to others who had reviewed it. I also mentioned a few positives. The only one being that they had spacious sites. If the campground advertises certain things and doesn't deliver, we should be able to advise fellow travelers so they won't have the same problem. I just cannot figure out what was wrong with my review.

 

QUOTE(MATurner @ Jun 20 2013, 09:55 PM) [snapback]33836[/snapback]

I just cannot figure out what was wrong with my review.




I am sorry your review was rejected, but we do not do this just because it gave the park a low rating, so I am sure the admin who read your review felt it did not meet our guidelines for publication for some other reason. The email you received explained the reason your review was not published, and the admin may have given you additional information.

 

QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Jun 21 2013, 12:12 AM) [snapback]33839[/snapback]

I am sorry your review was rejected, but we do not this just because it gave the park a low rating, so I am sure the admin who read your review felt it did not meet our guidelines for publication for some other reason. The email you received explained the reason your review was not published, and the admin may have given you additional information.



No, it did not. If you look over my other reviews, you will see how I write them. The fact that I found this park not as expected, you will see. I've got many reviews on this forum, and this one was no less or more than any others. I feel it was not accepted because it was not a good review as others were for this particular park, and if people read it, they would appreciate what I wrote.

 

QUOTE(MATurner @ Jun 21 2013, 12:18 AM) [snapback]33840[/snapback]

No, it did not. If you look over my other reviews, you will see how I write them. The fact that I found this park not as expected, you will see. I've got many reviews on this forum, and this one was no less or more than any others. I feel it was not accepted because it was not a good review as others were for this particular park, and if people read it, they would appreciate what I wrote.




LOL! I just went back and read over many of my other reviews of parks on this forum, and the one I wrote for the last park was absolutely no different. I told what I saw and what I felt about the park just as I did the others. Never have any been rejected. What I didn't say about said park was how the trash bin wasn't emptied for what looked like weeks, nor was the water at the dog park clean. I need an explanation for my review being rejected more than what I got. If you really want these parks to be reviewed, you do not need to be rejecting REAL reviews for the parks. Needless to say, this does not make me happy. Do you really want reviews which people want to see? Or, are you only looking for what you THINK the parks want to see?

 

QUOTE(MATurner @ Jun 21 2013, 12:45 AM) [snapback]33841[/snapback]

LOL! I just went back and read over many of my other reviews of parks on this forum, and the one I wrote for the last park was absolutely no different. I told what I saw and what I felt about the park just as I did the others. Never have any been rejected. What I didn't say about said park was how the trash bin wasn't emptied for what looked like weeks, nor was the water at the dog park clean. There was green slime in it. I need an explanation for my review being rejected more than what I got. If you really want these parks to be reviewed, you do not need to be rejecting REAL reviews for the parks. Needless to say, this does not make me happy. Do you really want reviews which people want to see? Or, are you only looking for what you THINK the parks want to see?



Further, at what point is someone NOT considered a newbie? I've been posting on this site since 2009. That's 4 years. What's up with that? I really don't care if I'm considered a newbie, but I do care when my reviews are rejected when they have been very informative. BTW, the park about which I posted is the KOA in Carlsbad, NM, and it is not a good park, nor do they live up to what is advertised. They are 50 miles from Carlsbad Caverns and 15 miles from town. What do I need to do to tell people that they do not tell the truth about their park? They say they are the #1 rated park in NM. If that is the #1 park in the state, I'm in shock!!

 

The term "newbie" isn't anything more than a label used by the forum's software to describe someone who doesn't have many forum posts. It has nothing to do with your posts on the website. It's nothing more than a machine applying a category; it's not a put-down.

As for the Carlsbad KOA, this park repeatedly gets negative comments from people who stayed there only to discover that it is further away from the Caverns than they realized. IMHO the park doesn't conceal its location on its website and even provides maps. If someone chooses to stay there and then finds the drive to the Caverns longer than what they desired, why is that the park's fault? There's no bait and switch going on; the park is exactly where it said it is. Personally, I consider downgrading the park's rating for that to be totally inappropriate, but I am not the admin who deferred your review.

 

QUOTE(MATurner @ Jun 20 2013, 07:55 PM) [snapback]33836[/snapback]

I'm a bit dismayed by this whole situation. I've written and had placed in the forum many reviews of campgrounds and have NEVER been denied a review. I stayed in a campground for two nights and wrote what I felt was an accurate review of the campground speaking of the false advertising and the problems we encountered at the campground. We are on a 3 month trip and have more than 30 reservations made for this trip. I cannot for the life of me figure out why my review was "deferred" except that I gave said campground a low rating compared to others who had reviewed it. I also mentioned a few positives. The only one being that they had spacious sites. If the campground advertises certain things and doesn't deliver, we should be able to advise fellow travelers so they won't have the same problem. I just cannot figure out what was wrong with my review.


Can you copy and paste your review here so we can all see what the issue(s) might have been?

 

QUOTE(MATurner @ Jun 21 2013, 01:18 AM) [snapback]33840[/snapback]

No, it did not.


First, all deferral emails that are sent to the reviewer have a reason listed along with some standardized comments to explain the reason. An admin may choose to add more individualized comments to further clarify your particular deferral. In fact, the subject line of the email contains the name of the reason, so you did get one, even if the admin in your case chose not make any further comments.

Second, as docj said, I think the “Newbie” term refers to your posts, not reviews, and until you began this line of posts yesterday, you had only 2 posts. I would imagine that is what has kept your newbie status.

Finally, Denali, has an excellent suggestion. None of us can accurately say what was wrong with your review until we know what was in it. If you prefer to keep you review anonymous (out of the forum), you can send it to me using our Personal Message system.

 

I've used RVParkReviews for many years now but have not participated in this forum.
A couple questions and then my comments if I may..
How does one communicate to the Admin folks directly or is this the place to do it?
Truthfulness in rating parks can be achieved in a positive manner I believe.
I do think we could all use a better definition from Admin of the basis for which we make the overall rating as it is very subjective by nature and could help us all from a quality control standpoint. I would also find it helpful in some of the checkmark areas had more than just a yes or no. For example, "Clean Restroom" would be more descriptive if there were three categories such as outstanding, clean, and not clean. A 20 year old clean restroom is not the same as a brand new facility meticulously maintained. Yes, maybe this could be addressed in the comments area but trying to do so without being negative is difficult.

It would be helpful to include a "value received" check area so folks don't give an average campground a 10 just because they saved a few dollars. Sometimes we do need to pay for the value received.

I've found RVParkReviews very helpful. But, due to what I refer to as frequent over-ratings either by we users or campground owners, I find it necessary to triple check other sources in an attempt to get a true picture. I often do not rate a park I've stayed at when the ratings are accurate. I do however make it a point to attempt to even out the picture of parks I stay at that have been in my opinion overrated.

Last week I chose a facility that had two 10s compared to one three miles down the road with 7s and 8s. I felt sucked in by the 10s as the two facilities were nearly identical. From outward appearances the one I didn't use appeared more spacious and so forth. There is no way to say that without getting your rating rejected by Admin so as a user, how can I trust the overall rating system unless there are more specific guidelines to same.

So Admin, if you read this stuff, I thank you for a great site and the many helpful ratings users have posted. I just wish there was a way to share our concerns when we feel a park has been substantially over rated.

 

Hello PtM,

Yes, we read these messages, and in answer to your question it is appropriate to post here, or you can click on the “Contact Us” button at the bottom of each page.

Thank you for your comments, and you are quite correct: An overall rating is (and always will be) very subjective. Our members are not professional reviewers, nor do we expect them to be. The things that one member likes about a park may be totally unsatisfactory to another. If a person likes to camp in the woods, he may rate a place with concrete pads and manicured landscaping much lower than a place in a very natural setting , and vice versa. This is also why some people feel parks are sometimes “overrated,” when in fact it is simply a case of one reviewer liking what the place has to offer a lot more than another reviewer. If the park meets a reviewer’s needs, likes, and wants, then it is appropriate for him to give a higher rating. If the next reviewer does not find a park to his liking, he should give a lower score. And yes, it is always good to get as much information about a place as you can so that you are not sucked in by reviews that are higher or lower than the rating you would give the place.

Related to the above, this is why we like for reviewers to give a lot of specific, factual, (hopefully objective) information about the park itself: What it looks like; What the sites are like; How the utilities worked; What amenities are available; etc. It is these descriptions that give readers a much better/bigger picture than a simple “yes” or “no” or a 5 rating. Therefore, to say something like “the bathrooms were clean, but were old” is very appropriate and helpful (and not necessarily negative), and I have seen comments such as this many times.

Also along these same lines, we have considered adding more items to the check list and/or expanding the descriptions to more than just yes/no answers. However, our thinking has always been that we want to stick to the basics and keep this list simple for reviewers so that they will not become bogged down trying to answer numerous questions. We feel that most reviewers will gladly check off a few items, but many would not take the time to submit a review if there were a long list.

Comments about our rating system, its short comings, and ways to improve it should be posted here, not in a review. We really do try to insure that reviews are about the park itself. We also do not allow reviewers to comment on a second park or to compare parks. To be fair to all parks, a review should be for one park only. I am guessing your review contained a lot of these types of comments, and was not really about the park that the review was for, and that is probably why your “rating was rejected by Admin.”

Finally, as for wishing “there was a way to share our concerns when we feel a park have been substantially over rated,” all you need to do is submit a review that tells about the park you stayed at and why you felt it deserved the rating you gave it. You can even say that you feel the park has been over rated by others, but then you should cite your reasons why. In this way, you have presented you opinion just like other reviewers have, and readers will then have diverse views to choose from.

 

QUOTE(docj @ Jun 21 2013, 09:36 AM) [snapback]33846[/snapback]

The term "newbie" isn't anything more than a label used by the forum's software to describe someone who doesn't have many forum posts. It has nothing to do with your posts on the website. It's nothing more than a machine applying a category; it's not a put-down.

As for the Carlsbad KOA, this park repeatedly gets negative comments from people who stayed there only to discover that it is further away from the Caverns than they realized. IMHO the park doesn't conceal its location on its website and even provides maps. If someone chooses to stay there and then finds the drive to the Caverns longer than what they desired, why is that the park's fault? There's no bait and switch going on; the park is exactly where it said it is. Personally, I consider downgrading the park's rating for that to be totally inappropriate, but I am not the admin who deferred your review.



My negative review of the park was more about the park itself than the distance. However, I just looked in the KOA book, and it says nothing about how far it is from the Caverns. It wasn't until checking in, we found out about the hour drive. It should be called nowhere land KOA, rather than Carlsbad, because it could as easily be Artesia KOA. Do you work there? But, you are right, they didn't conceal they were nearly an hour away when we CHECKED in. Since we'd already paid, it was a bit late to be told. I don't give bad reviews for driving distance. That's ridiculous. I review the park. The fact it is so far away SHOULD be noted in the review, however, and it was.

 

Not to belabor this discussion but this is the map on the Carlsbad KOA's website:



The words immediately above the map state:

Just off US Hwy 285 between mile markers 51 and 52. Located thirteen minutes north of Carlsbad and twelve minutes south of Artesia.

Judging by the map, I would take the distance from the CG to the Caverns to be at least twice the 13 minutes noted plus the time it takes to drive through Carlsbad. So a driving estimate of at least 45 minutes is reasonable.

I don't see how the park can be accused of being deceptive in its advertising. It very clearly states that it is located midway between Carlsbad and Artesia. Other than posting a big warning label on its website stating: We're not really located all that close to the Caverns! I have no idea how more open the CG can be about where it is located. Maybe what is needed is for people to read the information provided.

And to answer your question, no, I don't work at the CG or for KOA. I simply don't think it's fair to blame a business for customers failing to do their homework before making reservations.

 

QUOTE(docj @ Jun 21 2013, 06:59 PM) [snapback]33862[/snapback]

Not to belabor this discussion but this is the map on the Carlsbad KOA's website:



The words immediately above the map state:

Just off US Hwy 285 between mile markers 51 and 52. Located thirteen minutes north of Carlsbad and twelve minutes south of Artesia.

Judging by the map, I would take the distance from the CG to the Caverns to be at least twice the 13 minutes noted plus the time it takes to drive through Carlsbad. So a driving estimate of at least 45 minutes is reasonable.

I don't see how the park can be accused of being deceptive in its advertising. It very clearly states that it is located midway between Carlsbad and Artesia. Other than posting a big warning label on its website stating: We're not really located all that close to the Caverns! I have no idea how more open the CG can be about where it is located. Maybe what is needed is for people to read the information provided.

And to answer your question, no, I don't work at the CG or for KOA. I simply don't think it's fair to blame a business for customers failing to do their homework before making reservations.




This is nuts. We were planning a 3 month trip. As I said, this review was not about driving distance. It was much more than that. I reviewed the awful park, our lack of power twice while we were there, the incredible amount of dust, the rude service by the man who brought us in, the dog park with green slime in the bowl and dogs without owners attending them, etc. I could go on and on, and you are dwelling on my lack of knowledge about an area in which I've never been. The ratings for this park are out of line in my opinion, and I stick to that. Have a good evening.

 

QUOTE(MATurner @ Jun 21 2013, 07:40 PM) [snapback]33863[/snapback]

This is nuts. We were planning a 3 month trip. As I said, this review was not about driving distance. It was much more than that. I reviewed the awful park, our lack of power twice while we were there, the incredible amount of dust, the rude service by the man who brought us in, the dog park with green slime in the bowl and dogs without owners attending them, etc. I could go on and on, and you are dwelling on my lack of knowledge about an area in which I've never been. The ratings for this park are out of line in my opinion, and I stick to that. Have a good evening.


By saying the ratings for the park are out of line, you are basically saying you are smarter and better than everyone else who posted a review. I don't believe this site has any problem with someone posting a review that is lower than all the other reviews. I often see parks with nothing but 10s and 9s suddenly have a 1 or 2 show up. But if in the review you call out all other reviewers by implying they were wrong when they rated the park, that review should be rejected because it is a direct attack on all those other reviewers, not the park.

 

QUOTE(PtM @ Jun 21 2013, 01:47 PM) [snapback]33856[/snapback]

I've used RVParkReviews for many years now but have not participated in this forum.


I've found RVParkReviews very helpful. But, due to what I refer to as frequent over-ratings either by we users or campground owners, I find it necessary to triple check other sources in an attempt to get a true picture. I often do not rate a park I've stayed at when the ratings are accurate. I do however make it a point to attempt to even out the picture of parks I stay at that have been in my opinion overrated.



I don't think you are being fair when you try to "even out" the ratings. What you see as a poor campground may be a better one in the eyes of someone else. You are telling other people that your opinion is more important, or better, than their opinion. It isn't your job to overrule someone else but your job to be honest with your ratings.

 

QUOTE(PtM @ Jun 21 2013, 02:47 PM) [snapback]33856[/snapback]


I've found RVParkReviews very helpful. But, due to what I refer to as frequent over-ratings either by we users or campground owners, I find it necessary to triple check other sources in an attempt to get a true picture. I often do not rate a park I've stayed at when the ratings are accurate. I do however make it a point to attempt to even out the picture of parks I stay at that have been in my opinion overrated.




When I look at the reviews for a particular park I look at the average rating it has received and tend to discount both the very highs and lows. Personally, I would greatly appreciate it if you would write reviews of parks where you are simply "adding to the average" because that's what makes averaging a powerful tool. The more people who agree with a rating, the more likely it is to be the correct rating.

On the other hand, if you write a particularly negative review of a park for which the average review is much higher, I am likely to discount it as being from someone who simply had an atypical bad experience. If, on the other hand, is only slightly off the average then I will give it much more credence.