This may never make it to the forums because it is an observation and complete dissatisfaction of how the reviews are presented. I have been using this website for over 6 years to check on parks and decide if I want to stay there. It is very upsetting to see personal disputes allowed here in the reviews. It is not the disputes themselves that are upsetting; it is the fact that the park/campground/resort can not respond and give "their" side of the story. A good friend owns a park. He has a busy holiday weekend. A very inebriated guest gets out of control, causing numerous problems. After all else fails; the sheriff is called and the guest is told to leave (with complete refund in hand). What does this fella do??? He gives an extremely bad review for an exceptional park. Owners and managers of parks are not allowed to review on this site and no rebuttal's or explanations are allowed. Don't forget...there is always two sides to every story. I've seen so many lately where the reviewer is complaining about the "bad attitude" of the clerk. What caused the "bad attitude"? Why does the park have all 9's and 10's and then along comes this #1, who NOW also says "the place is a dump". Granted, anyone can say anything..truth or not...but then let the park have a say also. Maybe..set up an area in the forums for parks to dispute accusations?
The admins do not like for reviewers to slam parks without due cause either, and I know that the they do their best to keep personal disputes out of the reviews. However, it has been emphasized many times that if a park has all 9's or 10's and then gets a 1, almost everyone who uses this site has the wisdom to see through that immediately and will ignore the bad review.
QUOTE it has been emphasized many times that if a park has all 9's or 10's and then gets a 1, almost everyone who uses this site has the wisdom to see through that immediately and will ignore the bad review. Quite possible, but the initial review should not be there. Very often it is complete lies...totally made up. The wisdom of the reader should not have to be relied on to distinguish truth from lies. Way too many people still believe that if something is written, it is true. Sort of like people who think that if something is in a newspaper or magazine, that it must be the truth.
QUOTE(parkdale @ Sep 23 2010, 07:44 PM) [snapback]24243[/snapback] ...Way too many people still believe that if something is written, it is true... You would be surprised how many hairball reviews, just dissolve over time. Please tell your good friend not to worry. I personnally like the hairball reviewers, as I can usually determine the issue from their rant. They either don't manage their kids, dogs, money or booze. Right? Thank heavens they are still in the minority in the RV world. B)
If you have relied on this site for 6 years then you have obviously come across some of those slamming posts. I would be willing to be that you ignored them and stayed at some of those parks that got those really bad reviews. I feel that you recognized those posts for what they were and never gave it another thought until it became personal with your friend. Why did you wait until now? Nothing has changed about how the reviews are presented except for the fact that you are extremely close to the owner of the particular park you are asking about.
Parkdale> The fact that your first posting (one of only two in six years) was critical of the site and yet still published, even tho you thought it might not be, may provide some insight to how the site works. With some reasonable rules associated with courtesy to others, I have not observed any censorship of opinions on the forum. I don’t mean any disrespect, but it isn’t the websites job to filter reviews that go from 10 to 1 or vise versa. As was mentioned in another post, most experienced users can see thru a BS review like the one posted about your friends CG. If you have been using the site for six years then you certainly have that experience, too. You probably do what many of us do when we see a questionable review. That is to take a look at that individual’s previously submitted reviews. One tends to disregard all reviews submitted by someone who always downgrades because there was too many bugs or some other frivolous issue. I totally agree that there are two sides to every story, but I personally do not wish to read a rebuttal of a bad review from a campground staffer. That would be asking me to believe or not believe either side. The website is just one tool to use in making an educated guess about where to stay. It’s purpose is to present reviews, not debates.
QUOTE(parkdale @ Sep 23 2010, 10:44 PM) [snapback]24243[/snapback] Quite possible, but the initial review should not be there. Very often it is complete lies...totally made up. The wisdom of the reader should not have to be relied on to distinguish truth from lies. Way too many people still believe that if something is written, it is true. Sort of like people who think that if something is in a newspaper or magazine, that it must be the truth. Unless we are in court, and everyone is under oath, and be cross examined, how can the word of a park owner be taken as gospel compared to the word of the customer? I doubt if ANY park owner will post on the reviews that the customer was right and that his park failed to provide what was advertised. Basically what you are saying is that the park owner should have the LAST word and that we are all supposed to believe HIS version of the incident. I think that you may see that this is unrealistic and would lead to many more problems than it could possibly solve. This whole review site would turn into a "he said, they said, I said" battle. As mentioned, most of us have the intelligence to read a review and take what we need out of that review, and discard the rest. A park with all 9 and 10's and a single bad review would probably not discourage me from using it. There is a review out there where one customer downgraded the park because of the fireworks noise on July 4th. That is a legitimate complaint and should have been posted. I planned on staying there in January, so fireworks noise would not have been an issue for me. Had it been July for my visit, I may have reconsidered staying at that park. Remember, the reviewer is writing his review based on his personal expectations and experiences at a park. My expectations may be entirely different. He may like the pool and noise from the airport. I may never use the pool and because of the airport I could not get a decent night's sleep. Both would be accurate reviews, but entirely different in their rating. My review will differ from his, and it is up to the reader of the review to decide which would affect his stay at the park. Who would the park owner side with if he got a chance. probably not my review, right? I think the system works fine exactly as it is being done. A user needs to sort out the reviews that will affect him, and disregard the rest.
All site also have the reverse problem of owners writing rave reviews on their below average parks. We we were in the lodging business, this was a much bigger problem than disgruntled customers. Some unscrupulous owners can ever write bad reviews on their competitors down the street. This is just the world we live in and we as responsible consumers of information have to deal with it. I love this site and have learned to just read between the lines of the selfish folks who do things to mess it up. It isn't hard to read between the lines if you just try to do so.
I like the fact that the admins won't allow park owners. This web site, in my humble opinion, SHOULD be driven by the users. And, if the park normally gets all 9's and 10's and then gets a 4, oh well. We will recognize it for what it is. Users standards are different. My 8 is your 7 or maybe your 6 or maybe your 9. I don't care about satellite, you might. And the "it raned, give it a 2....." still just tickles me. I wish I could remember who posted that. JJ
QUOTE(parkdale @ Sep 23 2010, 10:44 PM) [snapback]24243[/snapback] Way too many people still believe that if something is written, it is true. Unless it's written by a park owner, right? There would be nothing stopping a park owner from lying about a legitimate complaint either. This site is for the people, not the owners.
QUOTE(parkdale @ Sep 23 2010, 07:44 PM) [snapback]24243[/snapback] ... The wisdom of the reader should not have to be relied on to distinguish truth from lies.... Then whose "wisdom" should we rely on?
Ya can't take one persons word for it. One has to read and see if their are continual problems of the same nature. I've found most the reviews spot on,, very accurate.
There is no way to stop an unscrupulous owner from signing up and writing reviews as a camper. It happens. The owners of this wonderful site have done what they can to stop it, but if a park owner is dedicated, they can easily get around the system. When we were in the lodging business, we realized that over 2/3's of the reviews on Tripadvisor in our small resort town were bogus.
You've been using this website for over six years but you haven't actually joined or posted until yesterday? Odd.
QUOTE(chickenpants @ Sep 24 2010, 09:45 PM) [snapback]24268[/snapback] You've been using this website for over six years but you haven't actually joined or posted until yesterday? Odd. I wasn't aware that there was something to join. I visit this site when I am contemplating a particular rv park to see if it has been rated, if at all. QUOTE This site is for the people, not the owners. I wasn't aware of this either. I'm not saying that owners should or should not be allowed to post...only that if they or an employee are accused of rudeness, inappropriate behavior, foul language, etc; they should be allowed a rebuttal or an explanation as to what happened. I guess that if they were allowed to explain (give their side) to a situation; it would be up to the reader as to weather or not they want to listen or believe. Judging from the responses here, it sounds like the owners of the parks are considered "the bad guys". Thats too bad.
QUOTE(parkdale @ Sep 24 2010, 10:04 PM) [snapback]24269[/snapback] it sounds like the owners of the parks are considered "the bad guys". Not so. There have been quite a few threads where owners have given their point of view and helped RVers understand why parks have particular rules and policies. I, for one, learned many things about running an RV park that I did not know, and I think those insights have helped me be a better RVer. There will always be those who see this site as an us against them situation, but again the admins try to keep that from happening.
QUOTE it sounds like the owners of the parks are considered "the bad guys". Sometimes they are the bad guys and sometimes the folks writing the reviews are the bad guys. It is up to the reader to read them all and make a decision on a park. Hard to do it any other way. This is like an office water cooler. Some people have it right and some folks are full of it. You have to use your interpersonal skills and make your own decisions on a place. Remember this is free site and is successful because it is simple and depends on the folks who use it to be honest. Like many things in life, some cheat and some are just plain stupid. Realize what a great resource we have here and use it for what it is. Good Luck
QUOTE(parkdale @ Sep 24 2010, 08:04 PM) [snapback]24269[/snapback] ... I'm not saying that owners should or should not be allowed to post...only that if they or an employee are accused of rudeness, inappropriate behavior, foul language, etc; they should be allowed a rebuttal or an explanation as to what happened. I guess that if they were allowed to explain (give their side) to a situation; it would be up to the reader as to weather or not they want to listen or believe. ... At first glance, that seems reasonable. What would happen, though, is that the original poster would demand the right to respond to the owner, the owner would respond back to the poster, etc. It would change the character of this site from a place for park reviews to a place to engage in p***ing matches. Where would you cut off the argument? Who gets the last say? Your suggestion has merit, but I don't see how it could be implemented.
I have been using this site for several years. I know it says I am a newbie but that has to do with re registering - I find this THE most useful information source for deciding where we should park. It is not my only source but I almost always consult it before deciding to stay. I like the site the way it is. You can easily tell if a park has been rated 8-10 for 9 reviews and there is 1 that is a 2 - you just average them all together and use your common sense to sniff out what the park is like. In almost ever case RVpark reviews has been a great source for information. What I really like is that you find low profile places in this site that do not make it in the usual books like TL, Wood, and AAA.
QUOTE(RFCN2 @ Sep 25 2010, 09:43 PM) [snapback]24284[/snapback] I have been using this site for several years. I know it says I am a newbie but that has to do with re registering - I find this THE most useful information source for deciding where we should park. It is not my only source but I almost always consult it before deciding to stay. I like the site the way it is. You can easily tell if a park has been rated 8-10 for 9 reviews and there is 1 that is a 2 - you just average them all together and use your common sense to sniff out what the park is like. In almost ever case RVpark reviews has been a great source for information. What I really like is that you find low profile places in this site that do not make it in the usual books like TL, Wood, and AAA. My thoughts exactly.
