I have mixed feelings about the "didn't stay" issue for park reviews. Let me start by saying that I have never entered a review for a park at which I have not stayed. But I can think of one, where we did end up staying, that I think a review would be warranted had I not stayed. This was a park in West Virginia where, upon entry to the registration area, things looked bad, very bad. Had we not been exhausted from far too many hours on the road, we would have left immediately. But we stayed, to experience drug use on one side of our site; drug sales on the other side; a fist fight between 3 men behind us; gun fire at 2:00 a.m., and a truly frightening and unpleasant experience overall. Check my review of this place and you'll see that we stayed inside the TT, locked our doors, and left VERY early the next morning. Had we had a warning from others about how bad this place is, we may have (a) stopped earlier or (B) driven further. I don't know what the answer is to the "didn't stay" issue; but I think (unfortunately) there are RV parks that are dangerous and that should be avoided. And I think that sometimes these places are recognized by people who (unlike us) see the problem from the outset and bail out. Maybe the Webmaster could establish a special category of reviews for people who "didn't stay", but have a really negative first impression... and ask them to clearly specify WHY. I offer this only for the purpose of further discussion. I'd be interested in what others think about this topic.
What about, "I didn't stay but I left because I got the heebie jeebies????" On the particular park that gave me the "heebie jeebies," turn out I was right, but if I posted a "didn't stay because I got the heebie jeebies," well, people would just think I was an idiot. JJ
QUOTE(MaineDon @ Dec 31 2008, 09:37 PM) [snapback]14676[/snapback] I have mixed feelings about the "didn't stay" issue for park reviews. Let me start by saying that I have never entered a review for a park at which I have not stayed. But I can think of one, where we did end up staying, that I think a review would be warranted had I not stayed. This was a park in West Virginia where, upon entry to the registration area, things looked bad, very bad. Had we not been exhausted from far too many hours on the road, we would have left immediately. But we stayed, to experience drug use on one side of our site; drug sales on the other side; a fist fight between 3 men behind us; gun fire at 2:00 a.m., and a truly frightening and unpleasant experience overall. Check my review of this place and you'll see that we stayed inside the TT, locked our doors, and left VERY early the next morning. Had we had a warning from others about how bad this place is, we may have (a) stopped earlier or (B) driven further. I don't know what the answer is to the "didn't stay" issue; but I think (unfortunately) there are RV parks that are dangerous and that should be avoided. And I think that sometimes these places are recognized by people who (unlike us) see the problem from the outset and bail out. Maybe the Webmaster could establish a special category of reviews for people who "didn't stay", but have a really negative first impression... and ask them to clearly specify WHY. I offer this only for the purpose of further discussion. I'd be interested in what others think about this topic. You hijacked a thread! This is tantamount to kidnapping! Your sentence will be decided at a later date.
Only one I have never stayed at that I pulled into was in southern Utah, and it was too rich for my blood I figured when I pulled in and saw everyone had a cement pad with trees and a brick bbq next to the sites and what looked like a indoor outdoor pool so figured it was either expensive, a private club type place or one of them types of places only for the stuck up rich, lol so we pulled around and right back out again and went to a park up the road.
I stayed at a park similar to what Lee described. It's in Oregon. Nice park, but at the time I had a 24 foot class C and EVERYONE ELSE had $200,000 and up Class A's, and most of the people had, what I call..... "perfect hair." I felt a little outclassed...... I NEVER have "perfect hair." JJ
One place we pulled into looked like a real dump and sites were packed in awning to slideout, but we decided to stay anyway. The overall experience there was decent so I am glad we didn't leave. On another occasion while on a long trip, I had a list of several parks in the area we planned to stay for a while. Pulling into the first one it just looked like a refugee camp, so we left since there were others on our list. That was probably the right decision to make. There are some areas where RV parks are few and far between. Maybe you can find a listing for one on the web but there is no review posted anywhere and no official web site so you have no idea what to expect. In those situations I'm up for people posting reviews if they don't stay, and even drive-by reviews just for the sake of making information available for those passing thru. Then maybe after someone spends the night there and posts a "real review", the others can be taken down. Christopher
Same here. Have never done a review on a "didn't stay" park. But then only had one "didn't stay" park. But if someone goes into a park and is nerious because of neighbors and gunfire and leaves, I'd like to know aobut it. Only have had one "didn't stay" park where we had a reservation. Wife did call and tell them what we had and how long of a site we wanted, was motorcycles okay. Was told "no problem". Showed up and the gal at the office said, "We don't have a site for anything THAT big!!" Ended up having to get on the phone and call other places. We have come into some campgrounds that looked like a dump, have never been reviewed and have thought, "oh boy" but have stayed and they have turned out to be just fine without any problems.
DXSMac: I like your term, "heebie-jeebies".....and it is exactly what I felt when I entered that place in West Virginia. And I am not certain that most people would think you were an "idiot" for writing that impression as part of a park review. Maybe if a number of people, having had the same first impression for a given park, entered it as part of an abbreviated "did-not-stay" review, it all would serve as a red flag to others considering that park as a place to stay. I guess I see some value in the "did-not-stay" reviews. Others may disagree. Abby...sorry. I did not mean to preempt your thread w/my earlier comments,
So what is an "acceptable" term for "heebie jeebies?" The particular park was an RV park in Spokane, WA on Sprague Street. So far, we don't have any reviews of THAT park on here (but there is a review of a park on the same street about four blocks down....). I turned into that park, and INSTANTLY got the "heebie jeebies." I turned around and left. Later, my brother-in-law told me that park was a haven for "pharmaceutical dealers" and "female entrepreneurs who prefer evening hours." So, later I "googled" the park, and yeppers, found a lot of newspaper articles and public information confirming my "heebie jeebies." JJ
QUOTE(DXSMac @ Jan 4 2009, 09:57 PM) [snapback]14728[/snapback] So what is an "acceptable" term for "heebie jeebies?" You could say you got an uneasy feeling or you felt nervous. But personally I think heebie jeebies describes it best.
QUOTE(MaineDon @ Jan 4 2009, 08:04 PM) [snapback]14727[/snapback] DXSMac: I like your term, "heebie-jeebies".....and it is exactly what I felt when I entered that place in West Virginia. And I am not certain that most people would think you were an "idiot" for writing that impression as part of a park review. Maybe if a number of people, having had the same first impression for a given park, entered it as part of an abbreviated "did-not-stay" review, it all would serve as a red flag to others considering that park as a place to stay. I guess I see some value in the "did-not-stay" reviews. Others may disagree. Abby...sorry. I did not mean to preempt your thread w/my earlier comments, I was just having some fun with you. No problem on this end.
QUOTE What a pleasant comment. Gilda, I might be new to posting here, but I've been lurking for a while and have seen your postings. You are a very bitter and snotty person from what I see here, sad really. I was wondering if you would mind pm'ing me or posting up your campground. The reason I ask is not to be nasty with you, but merely so we can avoid each other. Neither of us would like me staying at your campground. As for the original posting, I like it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck. If something is posted without the emotional content and is factual, then there is validity to it.
QUOTE(languiduck @ Jan 6 2009, 10:19 AM) [snapback]14742[/snapback] Gilda, I might be new to posting here, but I've been lurking for a while and have seen your postings. You are a very bitter and snotty person from what I see here, sad really. I was wondering if you would mind pm'ing me or posting up your campground. The reason I ask is not to be nasty with you, but merely so we can avoid each other. Neither of us would like me staying at your campground. As for the original posting, I like it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's probably a duck. If something is posted without the emotional content and is factual, then there is validity to it. I'm amazed that I would be defending Gilda here, but I absolutely agree with her comment. Cooments in the post to which she referred were uncalled for and she responded appropriately. Her response was certainly MUCH milder than many I've seen here and on other forums. Lurk all you want and jump in whenever you want. However, your attack on Gilda is both unnecessary and unwanted. We all would be better off if we stayed away from personal attacks and just kept the comments to RV matters.
Forgive me for jumping back onto subject, but in my opinion, posting a review where you have not stayed is only appropriate when your review gives some insight into the actual park. "I didn't stay because they wouldn't let me drive around, didn't accept personal checks, priced too high, didn't have any availability, didn't allow pop ups, or the park is a member only park etc etc" and then give them a low rating is in my opinion inappropriate. Price, availability, and simple policies are easily available and do not rate a negative review on this website. It would be like giving Augusta National Golf Course a 1 and saying the golf course is crappy because it is only for members or saying a Bentley is a terrible car because it costs more than most people make in a year. Cost of a Bentley and Members only at Augusta are issues, but you should know about them before you show up to buy the car or play the golf course. On the other hand, a review that describes the park as dangerous appearing, inaccessible due to roadway conditions, or you checked in only to find the facilities were not as described and you left before a full night, that is a legitimate review in my opinon. I would also prefer reviews that limit the personal comments regarding park staff and guests. Posts about individuals who people like and do not like belong on MySpace and Facebook, not this site.
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Jan 6 2009, 01:57 PM) [snapback]14745[/snapback] I'm amazed that I would be defending Gilda here, but I absolutely agree with her comment. Cooments in the post to which she referred were uncalled for and she responded appropriately. Her response was certainly MUCH milder than many I've seen here and on other forums. Lurk all you want and jump in whenever you want. However, your attack on Gilda is both unnecessary and unwanted. We all would be better off if we stayed away from personal attacks and just kept the comments to RV matters. Well said. Asking someone to PM you - not to be nasty, though they just called you snotty - instead of PM'ing first and keeping this off the public boards was uncalled for. No, I don't agree with everything Gilda says (or for that matter anybody), but this board is better because of her experiences that she shares. Online conversations don't necessarily match what a person is trying to say (remember that one poster that butchered up the english language?). Online I'm 6'3", 190 lbs., 29 years old, retired at 24 after my 15th million. Offline, well I am 190 lbs.
QUOTE(HappiestCamper @ Jan 12 2009, 10:08 AM) [snapback]14806[/snapback] Online I'm 6'3", 190 lbs., 29 years old, retired at 24 after my 15th million. Offline, well I am 190 lbs. Ok, "Online" I am 120 pounds with luxuious dark hair and a robust yet svelte figure, and I'm 26. Offline, I'm 150 pounds. That's about it. JJ
We have only had one park where we stayed and wished we hadn't on the Outer Banks and I did a review. The park was scary so we actually pulled our camper over into a wooded area away from the "crowd". Can't say we slept much and wished we'd had a weapon since it was likely everyone else did :unsure: We do have barking dogs and an alarm on the Roadtrek so at least we might have been alerted. Yikes!
QUOTE(DXSMac @ Jan 1 2009, 11:00 PM) [snapback]14694[/snapback] I stayed at a park similar to what Lee described. It's in Oregon. Nice park, but at the time I had a 24 foot class C and EVERYONE ELSE had $200,000 and up Class A's, and most of the people had, what I call..... "perfect hair." I felt a little outclassed...... I NEVER have "perfect hair." JJ I have a 200,000 plus MH My wife and 3 boys fulltimed in for the last 5yrs I hope people don't snob us as you did the people in that park . Without at least letting us say Hi.
QUOTE(adult117 @ Jan 26 2009, 06:56 PM) [snapback]14965[/snapback] I have a 200,000 plus MH My wife and 3 boys fulltimed in for the last 5yrs I hope people don't snob us as you did the people in that park . Without at least letting us say Hi. Lighten up - JJ doesn't "snob" anyone. She was making a joke about herself, not the other people in the park.
