QUOTE If my efforts will probably not be of any use, I would rather not get involved (I have better things to do and would rather keep my camping secrets to myself, anyway) I enjoy writing my review and do it for others. When I stop enjoying it, I will stop. jmo
There really needs to be a notation, catagory, or something to separate "PRIVATE / MEMBERS ONLY PARKS" from those that just any "ordinary joe' can pull into. Parks that are not open to the general public ought to have a web site of their own.
I am brand new to both this site and to travel trailer camping. I would have to say, as a newbie, that the more details, the better. For example, we will be traveling with four not-so-friendly dogs, so what is important to us is different than what is important to someone with furless children or someone who swims, fishes, etc. Our dogs are not aggressive, but they were abused and thus afraid of people. So for me, I want a campsite that is private, quiet, with lots of woods. So I would want lots of details. Thank you for asking. I think that was a good question.
Got to agree with Crittercove, the devil is in the details. A review, good or bad, does not really help if all the reviewer says is the they liked/hated the park and they will/won't stay there again. The more details someone can put into a review as to why the liked/disliked a park the more useful it will be to other RV'ers.
I'm going to join Cheryl in the "Reviews I don't understand" category. I just read latest the review of Buckhorn Lake RV Resort in Kerrville, Texas. It states: QUOTE This is by far the nicest park we have stayed at, and would deserve a 10, but the last two visits have demonstrated to us that management thinks they are doing you a favor letting you stay in their park. I have reviewed this park each of the 3 times I've stayed, and the numbers are going down. It is beautiful, the grounds are well kept, the facilities are great (although we all miss the Irish Pub), but I really notice the "attitude". And, as my wife says, if I notice it, it must be really bad. We camped here in a Motorhome. Some detail of managment's attitude would be helpful in letting me know what the writer is talking about, especially since the physical aspects of the RV park are rated highly.
I have noticed that in some reviews any detail would be helpful. I just read a review that was posted for Country Living Mobile Home and RV Park in Madera California that rated it as a 3 and read as follows QUOTE Major Dump, avoid if at all possible. We camped here in a Fifth Wheel. Granted that I probably would not want to stay in a mobile home/RV park but some detail as to why the reviewer thinks this place is a dump would be helpful. If this place is such a dump why didn't it get a 1 instead of a 3. Perhaps the reviewer thought it has some redeeming qualities where it didn't justify a 1 rating. This review just doesn't really give any information that I would find particularly useful.
Here's a review posted today, the reviewer gave the park an 8. QUOTE I know from personal discussions with members and comments made here that this park is highly rated (all most worshiped) but I'm less enthralled. It has a worn look; not enough monies going back into maintaining the infrastructure i.e. roads,sites,clubhouse,etc. The large number of park homes detracts from parks inherent treed campground ambiance. It's location is certainly very good. I was not impressed by the front desk person; rather solemn and certainly not one to lighten your day. Lack of wireless Internet was a negative as well. It's on my OK list if visiting area but not one to rave about and/or look forward to being there. We camped here in a Motorhome. Based on those comments, I would have given it a 2 or 3. Just another example why detailed comments (and not just the numerical rating) are very important.
What would it have taken for this person to rate this park a 2 or a 3? Perhaps being located in a mudhole, in the median of an interstate highway, with no hookups whatsoever, and a manager who looked like Frankenstein? Geesh. Comments are, indeed, so important as ratings tend to go off the scale. :unsure:
About the review of the park in Kerrville, I think I know the circumstances. It was at the time of the Datastorm rally, and I think that was a person who was asked to leave the park, which would explain why the reviewer didn't go into detail. I also would LOVE a separate category for membership parks. In fact, I wish there were a search function to allow them to be displayed separately. We have three memberships, but we don't use them all the time. On the other hand, when we do use them, we find that half of them are dumps. We'd love to be able to find that out ahead of time (and help others do the same.) J&J
I just registered on this site after several days and too many hours perusing comments - both reviews and discussions. I must admit that, in general, my impression of most of the reviews I read (maybe 100 covering about 25 different parks) was not favorable. The myopic view of most reviewers made many of the reviews worthless. Until I read some of the topics in the discussion sections, I wondered if anyone else had this problem with the reviews. Fortunately some of your members do recognize the main problem with most reviews: the inate subjectivity of the reviewer. Our personal opinions are controlled by our own needs/wants/likes, etc. I just wish more of the reviewers could be more objective. An area which could use some clarification is "what is a campground?". In today's world , an RV park is almost not a "campground". I spent 15+ years tent camping in state and national parks in the 70's and 80's. Those were campgrounds - natural setting, no utilities, campfires, etc. I have been RVing since 1990. I stay in RV parks - hookups, ammenities, civilization. Big difference. I enjoyed my years of tenting but now enjoy the creature comforts. Few RV parks can give you that back to nature, get-away-from-it-all experience. On the other hand, public campgrounds generally don't give you a pool, full hookups, cable, WIFI, cement pads, etc. Remember, RV park owners need to offer enough ammenities to draw enough customers. Just because you don't do laundry, use the pool, want cable, etc. doesn't mean the park can survive without these ammenities. Most northern parks that do/can not stay open all year need these facilities to draw vacationers who stay for a week or two every summer. A few of my pet peeves concerning reviews: Cost: Although I can see some merit in both the add on costs and I do not use the facilities complaints, most of it sounds like whinning. Don't go to those parks. Pets: Don't blame the parks or non-dog lovers, blame other pet owners. Noise: I have often camped near an interstate, a busy rail line, even several airports. Many parks are in this situation. If this is a problem for you, you need to be well away from these. Call ahead. 1-10: I liked the idea of starting at 5 as an acceptable rating. Adequate might be full hookups, good sites and access, and nice bathrooms. Subtract for the things you don't like and add for the things you do. Every little thing does not have to add or subtract a full point. Weather/Location: Rain, heat, or snow is no reflection on the campground. A great park in Nebraska can get a 9 or 10 without a mountain or ocean view. On the other side, a crummy park in the rockies doesn't get a 10 just because you can see the mountains. Experience: Take into account your level of camping experience. Mine: 16 years, 200, 000 miles, over 100 different parks, 49 states, all of Canada, 150 nights a year since 1995. Thanks for reading my rantings. Jerry S.
Jerry S, I agree with some of your comments. I have always believed that there is (or should be) a distinction between the terms campground, RV park, and RV resort. To me a campground is more natural. It definitely allows campfires. It might have hook ups at least in some sections, but there probably won’t be many amenities such as a pool or wifi. An RV park will have hook ups and might allow campfires. It will be a bit more landscaped and have some amenities. A resort will be a destination park with lots of amenities and activities and will be well landscaped with cement pads. Unfortunately owners do not follow my guidelines when they name their place. (Imagine that!) I also believe that how a person likes to camp affects his/her review. If someone likes a campground and ends up at an RV park or resort (or vice versa) they are not going to like their experience. Because of this some people will give the place a bad review, and I do not think that is fair. I also do not think it is fair to down grade a place because the weather was bad or for some other reason that was beyond the owner’s control. All that said I think you will find that most people on this forum do write fair reviews, and I also think most of us can see right through a “sour grapes” review. If you will take time to read all (or most) of the reviews for a place you will probably get a fairly accurate picture of what it is like, and then you can make a decision to stay there or not. Finally, since you are concerned about fair reviews, I’m sure that you will do a good job with yours and that they will provide good information for the rest of us.
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Jan 10 2007, 12:01 AM) [snapback]5762[/snapback] Jerry S, I agree with some of your comments. I have always believed that there is (or should be) a distinction between the terms campground, RV park, and RV resort. To me a campground is more natural. It definitely allows campfires. It might have hook ups at least in some sections, but there probably won’t be many amenities such as a pool or wifi. An RV park will have hook ups and might allow campfires. It will be a bit more landscaped and have some amenities. A resort will be a destination park with lots of amenities and activities and will be well landscaped with cement pads. Unfortunately owners do not follow my guidelines when they name their place. (Imagine that!) I also believe that how a person likes to camp affects his/her review. If someone likes a campground and ends up at an RV park or resort (or vice versa) they are not going to like their experience. Because of this some people will give the place a bad review, and I do not think that is fair. I also do not think it is fair to down grade a place because the weather was bad or for some other reason that was beyond the owner’s control. All that said I think you will find that most people on this forum do write fair reviews, and I also think most of us can see right through a “sour grapes” review. If you will take time to read all (or most) of the reviews for a place you will probably get a fairly accurate picture of what it is like, and then you can make a decision to stay there or not. Finally, since you are concerned about fair reviews, I’m sure that you will do a good job with yours and that they will provide good information for the rest of us. Texasrvers, Thanks for the agreement with some of my points. I've waited a few extra days to see if anyone else would comment. I was happy that you mentioned a further distinction between RV parks and Resorts. Since I did not want my first posting so long as to overload any readers, I left that point and some other issues out. It is bad enough when we are comparing apples (public) and oranges (private) parks. Now we have to consider cherries (resorts) too. Somebody might suggest more subsets such as overnight and destination parks. In general, these could just be other names for regular RV parks and Resort RV parks. For now, let's leave it at three categories: campgrounds, parks, and resorts. Back to the problem: How does a new/inexperienced RVer understand the substantial differences when each potential destination is getting all 9's and 10's from reviewers. I've read enough of the reviews on this site to lead me to believe that there are a lot of people out there who do not know know the three diffent categories. Another issue I would like to expand on is the apparent ease of getting a 9 or 10. A lot of reviews start with stayed overnight, first time at park, there just one day, etc. Then they rave about everthing and give the park a 10. Ever had a first date that went downhill from there? I checked a number of review of parks that I have stayed at numerous times over the years. Because I have seen most of these parks at their best and worst, I sometimes chuckle at review that call some of these parks perfect 10's. Basically, I don't see one night at a park can justify a high rating. As noted in the previous paragraph new/inexperienced RVers will think these parks are flawless. One "sour grapes" review is easy to overlook, but 5 reviews with 9's and 10's from "too easy" reviewers can be very misleading. Getting late. That's it for now.
Jerry S, You have some valid points. Here’s more of what I think (my opinion only). You are right. While you and I (and probably many others) recognize a difference in the terms campground, RV park, and RV resort (along with some possible subsets), these are not widely standardized terms so a new RVer will have trouble understanding the distinction. That is how this site can be helpful. If a review is nothing more than a number then none of us would have a true idea of what a place is like. Fortunately this site provides a comments area which allows a reviewer to describe the place and give reasons for his rating. Hopefully these comments will make the distinction. Additionally you asked, “How does a new/inexperienced RVer understand the substantial differences when each potential destination is getting all 9's and 10's from reviewers.” It sort of sounds like you think some of the categories of places should never get a 9 or 10 simply because of their category. If I’m hearing you correctly I do not go along with this. I believe each category is equally capable of having places rated as 9's or 10’s. For instance a “campground” should not be rated lower or higher on just the fact that it is in that category. There are both good and bad campgrounds just as there are good and bad RV parks and resorts. Any place regardless of its category should receive high marks when it meets its intended purpose and low marks when it doesn’t. Furthermore what a person expects from a camping experience will greatly affect his rating as to whether or not a particular place provided that experience. As I stated before, the problem comes, for example, when someone stays at an RV park and is not allowed to have a campfire or thinks there is too much concrete. Because their expectation of camping is not accommodated by this place they will tend to give it a lower rating. I have read several reviews when someone with a 40’ class A gave a place a low rating because the roads were narrow and the sites were not level and too small for the rig while someone with a smaller unit (trailer or pop-up) gave it a high rating because it was heavily wooded and had “natural” campsites. Who is right? They each gave an honest review that reflected their expected experience. Although I try to be fair when I write a review I have probably shown some bias. I know there have been times that my review did not agree with the others, but it was based on our preferences and experience. That is how one place sometimes (but not always) winds up with both 10’s and 2’s. None of us is a professional reviewer. We are not trained to look for certain characteristics and then provide a point value based on the presence or absence or quality of those things. This, however, does not make our reviews any less accurate or honest—just less standardized. Also your analogy of a first date is great (been there, done that many years ago), but if someone had an easy, courteous check in; was provided a nice, level, long enough spot for a descent price; and if the park was clean and safe, and the person’s needs were met, doesn’t that warrant a high rating regardless of the time spent there? (Besides I wonder just how long the professional reviewers actually spend at a place.) Overnight needs are different from those of a long term stay. Some places are good at meeting one type of needs, but not necessarily the other. If a reviewer states that he was there only one or two nights, it simply lets the reader know that the rating was based on a particular set of circumstances. In some ways (right or wrong) it’s not the place that got the 10, it is the experience that was a 10. Either way the reader has gained information. There will always be disagreement over the ratings of some places. Some ratings will be fair and some won’t be. For sure they will not all be the same. Quite frankly I don’t think that will change, and maybe we really don’t want it to. We can all read the cookie cutter listings in the well known directories which list all the basic facts, but they do not give the personal information and experiences which I find far more valuable. Again thanks for allowing me to express my opinion.
Texasrvers, Last time I responded by choosing "Reply" at the end of your post which resulted in your post being repeated before my reply. This time I chose "add reply" at the end of the topic string to see how that would work. I am guessing that your post will not show up before my reply. The downside is that I now don't have your post to easily refer to as I respond. Forgive me if I do not remember perfectly your comments as I respond without your post in front of me. Now, back to our discussion. I really think the category issue is important enough that everybody who uses this site should be made aware of it. Would it be possible for the webmaster to add this to the list of choises at the beginning of each review page. Right after the reviewer answers the question about "I camped here in a", there could be a question along the lines of "This park is a". The choices could be campground, rv park, rv resort, or other. There could be a brief, general description of each category. For example, Campground: Usually public, natural setting, limited facilities, few ammenities. Since all reviews end with "I camped here in a" from the choice the reviewer at the start, maybe the review could start with, "This park is a" based on the reviewers choice of one of the above categories. The rest of the discussion really centers on what the 1 to 10 scale means. Personally I am a firm believer in the 5 means average concept. If you expect full hookups, a decent site, a pool, etc. and that's what the park delivers, that's a 5 not a 10. If there is also cable and WIFI, the sites are roomy, and the pool is huge, then the rating goes up several points. Inadequate utilities, lousy site, dirty pool and the rating goes down. I know many of these reviewers think they are being honest, accurate, informative, etc. Honest -probably, accurate -maybe, informative - too often, not. This is where I have a problem with so many 9 and 10 ratings. In my book, a park would have to be exceptional in every way. Used in conjunction with the categories noted above, any camground could all get high ratings if it left little to be desired for that type of park. Even allowing personal expectations and experiences into the picture, how many of these reviers who give a 9 or 10 so easily don't leave a place saying they could have had this or that was quite right. If there are a few things lacking or wrong, then it is definitely not a 10. We both know that, in the RV world, there is no such thing as the perfect park. Somethings that many excellent parks have (cement pads, no fires, lots of kids) turn off some people. I have read enough reviews to where these issues were positives to some and negatives to others. I even saw one whre a women basically said that she did't care about cable or WIFI, but she gave a high mark because they offered coffee in the morning. Is that really a good reason to give a park a 9? Unfortunately, I don't see her as an exception. Two asides: Dating is also in my distant past. I just though it was an appropriate, easily understood analogy. Secondly, I have actually seen Woodall's reviewers at two parks over the years. It's dinner time - until next time.
Jerry S: A quick question about the two times you actually saw Woodall's representatives in a campground. Tell me, were they walking with white canes, or did they have big seeing-eye dogs with them?
QUOTE(Beastdriver @ Jan 16 2007, 08:19 AM) [snapback]5826[/snapback] Jerry S: A quick question about the two times you actually saw Woodall's representatives in a campground. Tell me, were they walking with white canes, or did they have big seeing-eye dogs with them?
Hi Beastdriver and Cheryl, I'm glad to see that there are others following this string. From reading other posts the the Forum, I know both of you are regular contributors. Unfortunately, I can not come up with a witty response to your question. I understand the joke/complaint concering commercial campground directories. Seriously, though, I think the pros do a credible job of letting us know the basics of a park. I've been pretty much a Woodall's Directory (WD) user for 15+ years. I've occasionaly used Trailer Life in park offices, but I feel more comfortable with WD. All of us who have camped at a lot of different parks have had some problems with WD's rankings of park facilities and recreation, but they usually get the basics right. It would be nice if they could review every park (at least the commercial ones) every year. I don't know how many reps WD has, but they would probably need 10 times as many to meet that goal. Additionally, to supply the specifics many of this site's readers sometimes want, the size of the actual campground directory would probably triple at the very least. For example, WD shows just two words (fire rings) on the subject of campfires. From reviews and posts I have read on this site, some customers are also concerned with: What is the ring made of?, Where is the ring located on the site?, How many and which sites have rings?, Are the any restrictions? And so on. To cover all these interests, WD would have to go from 2 words to what? 20, 30, 40? Do this with every item in the listing and you have a half page listing for each park. The first time I saw a WD rep was years ago and the second was 7/06 at the KOA in Bismarck, ND. I saw not canes or dogs, but their toad was white with Woodall's emblazened on the side of the vehicle. They have a checklist for the physical aspects of the park and try to rate the subjective items such as cleanliness of the bathroom. Not easy to do in just one or two days. Later, Jerry S.
Jerry S, All I can add is that in a perfect world not only would there be perfect RV parks, but also everyone would write a perfect review, and everyone's rating and opinion of a park would be the same. But that is not (and never will be) the case. Even though RV park directories have an extensive standardized point system to determine their ratings the best they provide is a basic listing of the features and amenities. They do not really describe the overall atmosphere of the place or what it's like to stay there. The reviews on this site usually do provide insight into that even if the actual ratings are different. A good example of this would be how many reviews mention if the staff was friendly and helpful. Likewise road, train, or airplane noise is sometimes mentioned. You won't find those things mentioned in a directory, and yet this is something that can have a big effect on the quality of someone's stay. Also remember that we each have different ideas of what makes a perfect RV park. You said it best when you talked about what one person sees as a positive may be seen as a negative by the next person. Each person rates a place on how well it meets his needs. If a free cup of coffee, or a pool, or playground equipment, or wifi or whatever is important to someone and if a park provides that amenity then that person will rate that park higher. The best we can do is read the comments and try to decided if this park provides the type of experience we would like. Some standardization is nice. However, if we take it too far we will be no better than the directories. This site lets people say what they really feel about a place and that, more than anything else, is what makes it good.
Texasrvrs, I have enjoyed our discussion and hope more than a few people have followed it and gotten something out it. After all, the site is called RVparkreviews. Facilities. amenities, atmosphere, customer service, etc. are all part of what we should be reviewing. Again, we seem to agree that there is no such thing as a perfect park. I guess it would have to have at least three separate sections: a rustic,woodsy campground, an overnight area with just the basic hookups, and the full amenity resort. Even then, somebody won't like it. On a more personal note, I noticed reading some other topics that you are from San Antonio and have been to Las Vegas a number of times. Based on these facts, I was wondering if you have ever been to Coushatta or Paragon Casinos in Louisiana. If you have, I have posted reviews on both RV parks and am curious as to what you think of my reviews. Did I "walk the walk"? Ditto the three parks in Tunica, Mississippi if you have been there. Recognizing my reviews should be easy. They all start by mentioning that I have been going to these parks for 10 years. Finally, I'd really like to hear from other members concerning my three main issues: the three categories of parks, the 5 is average concept, and misleading, over-inflated ratings.
Jerry, I had read your reviews on the Coushatta and Paragon parks and the ones in Tunica even before I knew they were yours (although I could tell they were by the same person.) I always keep tabs on places we like to go. However, we have not been to Paragon yet, and we only drove through Hollywood and Sam's Town in Tunica b/c we stayed at the Grand Casino Park. I do think your reviews of the parks we have been to were right on the money. The only one that did not match our rating was the Grand. You were lower, but you mentioned why, and so your rating seemed justified. We were there last May over the Memorial Day weekend and did not notice any of the reduced services you mentioned. We also stayed there about 2 years ago, and I honestly can't remember if the services were any better then or not. From what we saw at that time I still think I would choose the Grand, but the others would probably accommodate us just fine also. Funny you mentioned this. I think we just might head over to Lake Charles, Kinder and Marksville in February. From there we are thinking of going on over the the Hollywood Casino (formerly Casino Magic) in Bay St. Louis, MS. From there we'll hit the casinos that are open in Biloxi. If we don't go that way we'll probably head to Shreveport. But we were there recently so we need to spread our money around a little. We have gone to Las Vegas in January five times since 2001, but decided not to make the trip this year. Maybe we'll go in the fall. I don't suppose you had any luck at the casinos you visited? We think there should be a box just as you start to go in to a casino so that you can just drop your money in and get it over with. :lol: But then that wouldn't be as much fun would it, so we'll just keep on giving it to them the regular way.
