I see there's a new review out there "We gave it a 7 because there was no WIFI and no sewer connection. There was a dump station." It was a STATE PARK - which doesn't advertise WIFI, and specifically says that each site has water and electric and that the park has a dump station.
QUOTE I see there's a new review out there "We gave it a 7 because there was no WIFI and no sewer connection. There was a dump station." It was a STATE PARK - which doesn't advertise WIFI, and specifically says that each site has water and electric and that the park has a dump station. I guess I don't understand your comment. If a person's personal rating scale says a "10" would include sewer (as mine would) they would deduct away from "perfect". If WiFi is important then they would also deduct for that. Each of us has our own way of rating parks with a number - there are no rules. At least they were kind enough to tell us why a 7. That, to me, is why this site works so well. The people who use it are contientious enough to describe in detail their likes and dislikes.
I just don't see how people can deduct if the park is as advertised. If those things are important, why would they even consider a state park? I guess I don't get it - I rate a park on what it is, how it's advertised, how I'm treated. If I stayed in hotels, and part of my criteria was they had to have suites, then I pick a hotel that does not have a suite but I stay there anyway (my choice to stay there), why should I give that hotel a bad review? 10 doesn't have to mean perfect on a site like this.
QUOTE(HappiestCamper @ Dec 13 2010, 04:32 PM) [snapback]25086[/snapback] I see there's a new review out there "We gave it a 7 because there was no WIFI and no sewer connection. There was a dump station." It was a STATE PARK - which doesn't advertise WIFI, and specifically says that each site has water and electric and that the park has a dump station. I'm new to the RV world and this was the first time we stayed at a state park (it was our first major RV trip not to mention we have two boys). We didn't realize that not having WiFi and sewer would be an inconvenience at the time. This is why I joined the forum so I could learn about things like this. BTW, I also mentioned several nice things about the park as well. Yes, thinking back now, I could have given it a higher rating and not a "7" due to our inexperience. Please don't discount people like me who just don't know any better. Just point out in a nice way what you know for sure. I always appreciate feedback. I love this forum. I have so much to read and learn. I promise to do a better job at rating next time!
QUOTE(Explorers4fun @ Dec 14 2010, 09:00 AM) [snapback]25090[/snapback] Yes, thinking back now, I could have given it a higher rating and not a "7" due to our inexperience. Please don't discount people like me who just don't know any better. Just point out in a nice way what you know for sure. I always appreciate feedback. Explorers, welcome to the RV world, and please don't beat yourself up over any previous ratings. The difference between a 7 and an 9/10 rating really isn't much and still looks like a positive rating in my book. As far as how to rate for different amenities, I usually put more weight behind the things that are important to me, but I do take into consideration other campers that might come behind me. Examples: I am fine with a 20amp power hookup most of the time, but if the park doesn't have 30/50 amp hookups, I might mention it for future campers and mark down the rating very slightly. If the sites can fit my 33' motorhome, I'm fine, but I do look around to see if they could accomidate larger rigs, if it can't, if might mark the rating down very slightly. This is just my 2 cents, I'm sure other people have other ways to rate parks.
QUOTE(Explorers4fun @ Dec 14 2010, 10:00 AM) [snapback]25090[/snapback] I'm new to the RV world and this was the first time we stayed at a state park (it was our first major RV trip not to mention we have two boys). We didn't realize that not having WiFi and sewer would be an inconvenience at the time. This is why I joined the forum so I could learn about things like this. BTW, I also mentioned several nice things about the park as well. Yes, thinking back now, I could have given it a higher rating and not a "7" due to our inexperience. Please don't discount people like me who just don't know any better. Just point out in a nice way what you know for sure. I always appreciate feedback. I love this forum. I have so much to read and learn. I promise to do a better job at rating next time! Explorers4fun, First, welcome to the site. It is nice to have you aboard. Next, you do not need to feel bad or apologize about your review. It was fine! I think most everyone who writes a review rates the park based on how it meets their needs and desires. If a park does not meet those needs/desires then the reviewer probably lowers the rating a bit. Your review was based on the things you found to be lacking at the park. You were not unreasonable. You gave reasons for your rating (even some others not mentioned here), and you told about things you liked. That is a well thought out review. If others do not agree with your opinion, then they can write their own review and tell it the way they see it. That is what this site is all about.
I rate for what it has to offer, and try not to go apples to oranges. I rate the state parks for what state parks generally have: W/e, or w/e/s, and that's it! I rate a park with WiFi against other parks with WiFi. I don't like to give 10's. I would give a 9 to a park that had only w/e/s, as long as it was pleasant appearing and clean and staff was nice. Ok, about that "clean" part.... I find that I'm influenced on flooring..... cement versus linoleum. I rank cleanliness a bit down for a cement floor, even if it is clean. JJ
