This may have discussed in the past but I cannot find any recent discussions on the topic. I always use this site before making a reservation at a park and sometimes find it difficult to make a judgment. One person will rate a park a 1 and the next person rates it a 9. When reading their comments, you wonder if they are rating the same park. One says everything is dirty and the other says everything is clean. I often wonder if the park owner comes in after a bad review and submits his own good one?? :unsure: I usually take the majority view when making a decision if there are different opinions. When posting my own reviews, I will try to remark on prior reviews that I consider either accurate or just plane wrong. Any others have the same problem?
cuse44, There have actually been two other threads in this forum that have addressed your concerns. Try reading "Review Comments" in RV Park Discussions and "How True Is This Review" in General Chat. Maybe those comments will help you with your predicament about parks that get ratings from both ends of the scale. Personally I believe people rate parks depending on their likes and needs, and what one person likes or needs in a park may be completely different from what the next person is looking for. Hopefully people are fair about basic things such as security cleanliness, site appearance, etc. and do not to lower a rating for things that are not the campground's fault (e.g. The sun was too hot. It rained all weekend.) I try to mention what I did or didn't like about a CG in my comments so that readers can decide if that has a bearing on whether or not they would like that place. My best advice is when you read a review try to determine if the reviewer has similar camping equipment (type of RV) and preferences to you. If so then you will probably agree with their review--good or bad. Otherwise you already said it--"take the majority view."
My name is Kelly and I run a resort in Forestville Ca. I want to know if you actually check out any of the reviewed parks? We have fulltime tenants and if we have to evict them. they are vindictive. You have posted bad reviews, of my park from 2 of them, which does not in any way reflect our campground for overnighters. I am upset about the way anyone can post things without any accountability.
Sonofason: I can't speak to whether or not the reviews of your campground are accurate, or if they were just posted by campers you "evicted." But I did notice from your website that you charge $5.45 per night for a dog (including tax). I can tell you that if you had a Trailer Life Rating of 10-10-10, and fifty reviews of "10" on this website, I would not stay with you. That is ridiculous!
You have to remember that this is a forum to post opinions that might or might not help other people decide on what parks to stay at. I agree with Beastdriver, we refuse to stay at parks that charge extra for pets or children or any of the amenities.
I am glad that BeastDriver called this to my attention. I too, would boycott your park. Maybe you can explain the reasoning for this charge. My 2 maltese, who travel with us, are potty pad trained. They only go outside, into their exercise pen, when we are sitting outside. If they do happen to poop on the grass, we pick it up and dispose of it. My dogs do not take long showers nor do they watch tv or use the microwave, so they are not running up the water or electricty use. How can a charge of over $5 possibly be rationalized???
I have to agree with the previous posters about the $5 charge for dogs. For this reason alone I would not stay at that campsite. But the thing that really gets me is that according to the policies that I read on the website dogs are only allowed in the RV area and "must be contained in the vehicle when not being exercised." So not only would I have to pay $5 extra per pet per night to have the "privilege" of bringing my dogs but I couldn't even sit outside of my trailer with them on a nice day, I would have to keep them cooped up inside the trailer unless I was walking them. If you are so set against pets why not just say no pets allowed. The other thing I don't understand (as i noted on this campgrounds website) is the 2 person base occupancy and then charging an extra $3 + tax for a child 11 and under and $5 + tax for a child 12 and over. The review page lists this campground as being family friendly and then they nickel and dime you to death if you do bring your family. I have been to truly family friendly campgrounds where the base occupancy is 2 adults and 2 children and then extra children (over the first 2) that are under 5 are still free. One last question I would have for sonofason is related to the following quote: QUOTE We have fulltime tenants and if we have to evict them. they are vindictive. You have posted bad reviews, of my park from 2 of them, which does not in any way reflect our campground for overnighters. How do you know that these reviews are from full time tenants? There is only one campground listed in the Forestville area that has 2 reviews (the other has 1) and of those one said they stayed there for 2 months and the other doesn't mention the length of the stay. For one I wouldn't consider a 2 month stay a full time tenant, maybe seasonal. Also this site doesn't list the username of people who leave the post so who is to say that at least the one was not left by an overnight camper.
QUOTE(sonofason @ Nov 2 2006, 02:20 PM) [snapback]5406[/snapback] I am upset about the way anyone can post things without any accountability. But nobody answered the question. I think the answer is, Kelly, that nobody wants to be accountable unless they have to. You asked a valid question. I've noticed a consistant pattern in reviews that parks receive 1's & 2's if someone is offended. As a camper, I'd like to know that. It is as disservice to me when I am looking for a place to stay.
I am from California and familiar with the area this campground is in. It is a very nice part of the state. My wife and I recently went on vacation in the area. After researching the area mainly from this website we chose Bodega Bay. The reviews of this paticular campgroung along with the outrageous charge for pets kept us away from there. If I am going to pay for my pets which I would never consider traveling without, and they are not small by any means, 2 labs and they are what I would consider campground, RV trained, I would expect much more than what you are not offering me. Check out Stockon KOA, if you want to charge an outrageous price for my dogs than offer me that, maybe I would consider it. I don't just go by the review, I also check the website and try and get a feel from that as well. This site is never going to be perfect because it's based on opinion. One other thing, you talk about bad post's that aren't true, how about misleading websites, creative pictures, streaching the truth about the campground. I have been to parks that I thought I was at the wrong park because it didn't look anything like the website. It works both ways. Just my opinion.
Park Reviews Not Consistent. With every new group of members registering on the discussion forum, this subject is again posted. It has been posted numerous times, and more or less follows the same thread. One must not miss the point that the reviews and postings are one person's opinion(s), and you may or may not agree with their opinion. This is "America", and we all have that right to voice our opinions, as long as it's not illegal or slanderous. Let your conscience be your guide. sonofason: Kelly, you asked about accountability, who are you accountable to? In your posting you state that , " I run a resort in Forestville, CA", my question is; running under what authority; owner, manager, what is your position ? If you are not the owner, is the owner aware of your posting ? If you are indeed the owner, and or the manager, I personally would not stay at your so called "resort". The charges for dog(s) and children, if in fact are true, eliminates your "resort" from our list. I'm not going to allow you or anyone like you, to nickel and dime me. And to answer your question as to checking campgrounds reviewed, yes we do check on and look at campgrounds reviewed or posted. We walk the campground, talk to others staying there, and then if we have a question or a feeling that is less than favorable, we may stay for one night and observe or just move on. denbroncs: Answer to you that, I personally stand behind every posting and or review that I have posted, and accept the responsibility for any and all such material posted here. But have a question for you, was just wondering what "number" would you give to a cg if you, or a member of your family was offended, in any manner by that cg ? I can state that if a person or persons in any cg, mistreated myself or my wife in any manner, they,(the cg), should not expect any number more than a 1 or a 2. And the fact that they,(the cg), may or may not have a first class appearing cg would not sway my applying a deserving low number. Just my opinion.
I do not think it is neccessarily true that people here do not want accountiblity. I for one, would have absolutely no problem posting my name to any of my reviews if that were an option. From what I know of the folks here, I would venture to say that almost every one of them would feel the same way. I would never say anything, here or in person, that I would not stand behind.
denbroncs: I have found almost everyone on this site to be honest and forthright, and I believe almost all of them would use their real name and not their handle in reviewing sites, if requested. By the way, is denbroncs your real name? If not, why didn't you sign this post with your real name and, on your future reviews, why don't you simply put your real name in the review if you think that, somehow, that makes the review more believable?
QUOTE(sonofason @ Nov 2 2006, 10:20 AM) [snapback]5406[/snapback] My name is Kelly and I run a resort in Forestville Ca. I want to know if you actually check out any of the reviewed parks? We have fulltime tenants and if we have to evict them. they are vindictive. You have posted bad reviews, of my park from 2 of them, which does not in any way reflect our campground for overnighters. I am upset about the way anyone can post things without any accountability. Sonofason Kelly has missed a golden opportunity to gain favor with all of us unaccountable RV'rs. If there is any truth at all to the two unfavorable reviews of his RV park he could have fessed up, apologized and outlined the steps he is taking to correct the problems. He then could have let us know from time to time how things are going. He also could have said that he taking another look at charges for dogs, etc. and what he plans to do about it. But he has done none of that and has probably lost any business from people that frequent this site. Sad.
QUOTE(denbroncs @ Nov 3 2006, 07:20 AM) [snapback]5411[/snapback] QUOTE(sonofason @ Nov 2 2006, 02:20 PM) [snapback]5406[/snapback] I am upset about the way anyone can post things without any accountability. But nobody answered the question. I think the answer is, Kelly, that nobody wants to be accountable unless they have to. You asked a valid question. I've noticed a consistant pattern in reviews that parks receive 1's & 2's if someone is offended. As a camper, I'd like to know that. It is as disservice to me when I am looking for a place to stay. I believe almost everyone has answered the question. I agree with the 2 above posts that everone here will stand by their reviews. I stayed at a park in Paso Robles that received a 1 for traffic noise when the park is absoultly beautiful and received nothing but 9's and 10's, but that was that person's opinion of a 1 and they stated that. I have read many reviews and it is always stated why a person gives a park a certain number so you can tell what is important to them. Your park offends me and I will not hesitate to give it a bad review and not return. Again just my honest opinion.
QUOTE(Nov 3 2006, 02:54 PM) [snapback]5416[/snapback] If not, why didn't you sign this post with your real name and, on your future reviews, why don't you simply put your real name in the review if you think that, somehow, that makes the review more believable For the same reason that I am confident that "Beastdriver" is not your real name. You did not answer the question either - just point out a dog fee. I did not question the integrity of anyone - just pointed out that a valid question was being dodged. Accessorial charges have nothing to do with the post. I hate dog fees (I have one); I hate kid fees (I have 4) but that was not the question asked. I am puzzled as to why this person is being attacked when a legitimate query is posted. Guess it's because you are so "honest." This site is at its best if we understand why a camp is rated a certain score. If persons utilize the rating system due to a personal vendetta they have - it is a disservice to anyone using this site. I believe that was the point sonofason was trying to make.
There is always the chance that someone with an ax to grind will post information that is overly negative and unfair in the parks eyes. If your park only has one review and it's very negative that isn't great for business, but hopefully your park will have additional reviews that make the one very negative one stand out like a sore thumb. My pet peeve is reviews that are so obviously written like an advertisement for the park rather than a review that I have a hard time believing them and therefore reserve judgement on the park. I know of one park on the east coast that is deteriorating and in bad shape. Many reviews state just that, yet in among those reviews are posts raving that everything is wonderful and how much fun the park is.....they are so obviously from some of the fulltime residents that know the owner. I feel sorry for the traveling rver who might fall for the positive comments about this place, but I think most folks reading this are too smart for that. Just like they are too smart to fall for one negative amongst a lot of good reviews. This website is what it is....a place for opinions good, bad or indifferent. Great parks will get great reviews and one cranky camper with an ax to grind won't run off the rest of us.
Unfortunately, as with any site like this, you are going to have people who have a personal vendettas and who will write a bad review just to try and get even. On the other hand there will always be some unscrupulous camp ground owners who will get on sites like this and give their crappy campground a glowing review just to try to drum up business. It is just a fact of life that there are people like that and always will be. This site has taken steps to try and eliminate this possibility but there will always be people to find ways around any security measure that is put in place. That being said, I believe that for the most part that the people who post reviews are truthful and rate a cg based on their honest opinion and what they expect from a campground. I also think that most of the reviewers (myself included) would not have any issues standing behind their reviews. However, people will always have different opinions and will not always agree with a posted review. In the long run as more reviews are written a cg will always be shown for its true colors. A bad cg will have more bad reviews than good. Likewise an good cg will have more good reviews than bad. When I am looking for a cg and I see one that has only 1 or 2 reviews total and they are both bad I still might consider camping there. No cg can please all of the people all of the time and even the best cg will receive a complaint. I would not want to miss out on a great campground just because one person had a bad experience. That is why I also check out websites to see what amenities a cg offers. This is also why I think that bringing up the extra charges for dogs and kids was also legitimate. No one was attacking sonofason but letting him know that this is also a very important factor to people (not just the reviews) when they are considering a campground and trying to understand why it is that cg owners feel the need tack on extra charges like this. This looks like a nice park according to their website and I might of considered it but the extra charges and some of their policies would keep me (and apperently some of my fellow posters) away even if they had several excellent reviews.
Sorry I didn't do a search for this topic before I posted my question. But, it looks like I stirred up another problem. I hope you people who are upset with each other resolve your differences. Thanks for all of your input. I am going to look at the reviews a little different after reading some of your responses. :unsure: I think that this is a great site and kudo's to the ones who maintain it.
QUOTE(John Blue @ Nov 10 2006, 07:47 PM) [snapback]5467[/snapback] Boy, that was a lot of fun! John, thanks for the laugh!!! Going thru kind of a tough time right now and I needed that!!!
