Texasrvrs, All those casinos and RV parks were buit in the early to mid-90's and I have bee going to thems regulaly since I retired in '95. That's why I remember what they were like from almost the beginning. Cutbacks in things like lodge and pool hours are obviously to save money on staff, etc. For a regular park I could accept that but not for a large casino complex that makes tens of thousands of dollars a day in profit. FYI: Coushatta and Paragon used to be Grand's in conjunction with the native american tribe involved. By agreement, the tribes took control maybe 5-6 years ago. So, in case you didn't know, you can expect the same kind of RV facilities at Paragon as are at Coushatta. For what it is worth, Paragon has no fishing pond, tennis courts, or basketball court. They do have a golf course next door that is part of the resort. Like Coushatta, there are also lots of chalets (and cabins) in the RV park. Even if the construction is not yet complete, the distance from the lodge to the casino is about half that at Coushatta. The resort is on the southern edge of Marksville(not much there) and there is a Super Walmart a mile south of the casino. Paragon is a smaller casino than Coushatta. I lose my share at the casinos but not enough for them to love me. I am a throwback to the "little old ladies" that helped make gambling almost national in the 90's. I play the "old fashion" nickel slots. You know, 1-3 coins, center line pays. None of this 9 line, 20+ coin machines for me. Unfortunately, my machines are a dying, if not dead breed many places. I don't mind losing $20, 40, even 60 a day if I can play 4-6 hours. Fortunately there is usually a day or two that I win a little or break even during a 5 day stay. It wouldn't be any fun or affordable to lose $50 the first hour or hundred's a day. These personally imposed restrictions are the only way I can afford to stay at and gamble 20 days each May and October. One other suggestion: either call ahead or check availability online for Bay St. Louis Isle of Capri. Back in October, they were fully booked each time I tried. So few of the coastal parks have reopened. Good Luck!
Thanks for all the info about the casino parks--especially at Bay St. Louis. It was always pretty full before Katrina and now that it is just about the only decent one in that area I imagine they are fully booked most of the time. Your gambling habits sound just about like ours. We used to play the single line quarter and nickel machines a lot. But then I discovered the penny machines, and found out I could lose a lot slower and therefore play a lot longer on them. I do like the penny 9 liners, but I very rarely bet over $.75-1.00 at a time and that's only when I get a little ahead. We look at gambling as entertainment, so if we play for 4-5 hours and don't lose more than a hundred (for both of us) then we feel like we have had a fun day. Course if we just happen to win that hundred it is even better. If we do head on over there I'll try to remember to let you know what I think of the Paragon and the new/rebuilt ones over on the Mississippi gulf coast.
Texasrvrs, Just reread my last post before reading your reply - 3 or 4 typos in the first few lines. I guess I shouldn't be writing after 10PM. Plus, for some reason, I called the Bay St. Loius casino Isle of Capri instead of Hollywood. Whenever I explain my gambling style/philosophy, I wonder whether or not the listener is thinking "This guy is either poor or cheap." I guess a little bit of both: relatively poor compared to your typical retired RVer and I definitely watch my pennies. It is the only way I can be on the road 5 months out of the year. For example, I averaged over 18,000 miles a year on my previous RV. I have average less than 12,000 miles a year on my current (4 year old) RV. That has saved me almost $2,000 a year since the big jump in gas prices the last few years. By driving 1/3rd less I am spending about the same amount on gas as I did 5 years ago. OK, I'm cheap. Take care. Jerry
Jerry, Wee all get ous fingures on tha wronj kez for time to tim. I knew what you meant--even the name of the casino at Bay St. Louis. Cheap (I prefer frugal) people are the ones that become millionaires because they know how to hold on to a dollar. At least that's what I've heard, and I sure hope it's true. You take care, too, and leave some $$$$ at those casinos for when we get there.
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Jan 20 2007, 09:27 PM) [snapback]5858[/snapback] Jerry, Wee all get ous fingures on tha wronj kez for time to tim. I knew what you meant--even the name of the casino at Bay St. Louis. Cheap (I prefer frugal) people are the ones that become millionaires because they know how to hold on to a dollar. At least that's what I've heard, and I sure hope it's true. You take care, too, and leave some $$$$ at those casinos for when we get there.
I think I finally figured out why a lot of people disagree with the ratings in Woodall's and Trailer Life. Jerry S. wrote: QUOTE 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. What campground owner in their right mind, when they saw a toad with Woodall's emblazened on the side pull into their campground, would not send their employees out to get everything clean or to try and cover up problems. :wacko: Granted there are some things that would be difficult to cover up but there are also a lot of things that could be taken care off or explained away. In order to get a truthful review they should be doing them covertly. Driving in with the big Woodall's vehicle will all but guarantee that the campground is going to kiss their butt to try and get a good review. I also have to agree about making a distinction for private/member only parks. Perhaps a line under the Camp Information section on the review could be added to designate a park as such. It might even include information as to what discount clubs the park will accept. Just my 2 cents worth. I have another distinction that will separate RV Resorts from parks or campgrounds. RV resorts will probably never allow tent camping. Heck, there are some resorts that won't even allow you in if your rig is too old or shabby.
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Jan 19 2007, 09:38 PM) [snapback]5853[/snapback] Jerry, 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. . Don't know if you are aware that the bridge across Bay Of Saint Louis is not open and you have to go back to the I-10 to get to Biloxi
texasrvers wrote: > 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. You answered your own question--they're both right. And it points to the real value of the reviews on here--they can (and should) be more than just a numerical rating like is found in the big campground guides. Knowing WHY someone feels they way they do about a campground is invaluable. I have a 40-foot motorhome that is very tall. It's a deal-breaker if I can't fit in a campground's spaces, or if I can't maneuver this beast to the space in the first place. I will note any such difficulties in any review, with full knowledge that not everyone needs this information, but that those who DO need it will really appreciate it. And I have to admit that my rating of the campground will be influenced by vexing with getting into the space if I had reason to believe the campground was big-rig friendly. However, such a situation would never turn a campground that would otherwise be a 7 into a 3. Or wouldn't for me, anyway. Personally, I'd be in favor of doing away with numerical ratings entirely simply because they are affected by so many factors that may or may not be relevant to anybody else. Look at the big campground guides--they have all these supposedly objective considerations and standards for each of their categories, and still a lot of us wonder how in the world they came up with a particular rating for a campground we've been to. Of course, they have to have some sort of grading system, and it has to be succinct. But on rvparkreviews, anyway, there's a wonderful opportunity for people to explain why they feel the way they do about a campground, and thereby let the readers decide whether the reviewer's concerns or praise have any resonance for them.
ontheroad again, We just got back from a trip to Louisiana, but we didn't make it over as far as Bay St. Louis, MS. We did know the bridge was out, but thanks for the heads up anyway. We heard the railroad bridge across the bay has been replaced because it was done with private money. However, the vehicle bridge is using federal money so it is not done yet. (Have they even started on it?) Typical government bureaucracy! dbnck, Well said! (referring to your post on Feb. 18) Jerry S, Now would be a good time for you to go to the Coushatta and Paragon Casinos. Rumor has it a couple from Texas donated a lot of money to them and it's just waiting for someone else to take it back. Also now that we have been to both places we think we like Coushatta a little better. Both parks (and casinos) had some pluses and minuses in our book, but were generally very nice and we would (and probably will) stay at either one again.
Texasrvers, Fortunately, my geographic location does not allow for spur of the moment trips to Louisiana casinos. Coushatta via Tunica and Markville is a 2,000+ mile roundtrip for me. Throw Biloxi into the mix and there's an additional 400 miles. Plus, my rig has been in hibernation since early November and I don't start to wake it up until April. By then, the incidence of below freezing (
This is our first KOA experience ever, and it was a blessing for us that it is happening at the 11th ranked KOA in the nation, even though it is a 1970's model park. That being said, I have never really seen the Rocky mountains in earnest. We are on the east side of the Greenhorn mountains, on I-25, near Colorado City. My wife and I moved out here to Colorado for a variety of reasons, including health. My allergies were, and to some degree still affect my sleep apnea, as well as the efficacy of the treatments. I am on disability due to spinal problems, and although the rates for monthly rent is higher than in Oklahoma (Enid), it is still pretty reasonable all things considered. It is also a LOT drier here in the high desert, than in Oklahoma. We did seem to get a LOT of snow here, but the humidity stayed low (48%) two days after the snow fall, compared to Grove, Oklahoma (71% no snow) during the same period. So us flatland Okies have a lot to get used to out here. We plan to stay about a year or so. Then if finances permit, we may move on to another area in Colorado. A lot depends on the new doctor(s) evaluations and recomendations as well. Oklahoma seems to be about 10 to 20 years behind in the newer medical treatments, etc. Don't misunderstand, that is my home state, and while it has many attributes that are laudable, super advanced medicine is not always one of them. We have found that RVers in general are the NICEST folks we have ever met. We have been here since May of 2006, well, we did go back several times to Oklahoma during the year to visit the "inlaws and outlaws", and have to readjust to the altitude each time (from 800 to 1000 feet in Oklahoma to 6000 feet++ out here). THAT is a real Joy, especially with apneas. From what we have seen so far, Colorado is a BEAUTIFUL state for sure. Oklahoma has it's own beauty as well.............it is just different. We hope to do more traveling in Colorado, and might keep our "base of operations" here at this KOA, at least for a while. If other KOA's are like this one, we recommend folks stay at KOA's on their travels.......since this is our first, we may or may not find out differently. Well, that is about it. New to this website, and that is our two cents worth at this time. Happy RVing to you all, and take care......
Jerry, Since a lot of my reply to your last post does not fall under the RV Park Discussion topic, I am replying in the General Chat forum. See you there.
I'm a WOODALL'S user. As a practical matter, there isn't much else around that is easy to wrap one's hands around. To WOODALL'S credit, they try to be _objective_. Unfortunately, RV/Camping isn't an entirely _objective_ pastime. Anyone who has ever bothered to read the "How To Use This Directory" section in the front of WOODALL'S would realize that it isn't about the 'view from the campground' or the 'disposition' of the employees or one's fellow campers. I'm also drawn to using RV PARK REVIEWS when I'm doing research. Basically, the appeal of RV PARK REVIEWS is that it is almost completely _subjective_. When faced with a lot of alternatives in WOODALL'S, RV PARK REVIEWS can help one zero-in on issues that would likely 'break ties' rather than likely to confirm or refute more 'bricks and mortar' kinds of criteria. But, with WOODALL'S, I can at least see who the reviewers were. With RV PARK REVIEWS, I can't be sure if the reviewer is a one-time wonder with a beef against a particular campground or maybe someone with a financial interest in the campground. There is no way for me to see trends -- if the reviewer has a consistent approach or if their ideas would mostly be expected to clash with my opinions and needs. A big barrier to me becoming involved with RV PARK REVIEWS is knowing when to 'call it a day'. I could exhaust myself (...and probably everyone else) trying to include something for everyone but when it comes down to assigning a rating -- there are a lot of stars to give away (which implies precision that really isn't there) but no generally agreed upon criteria to justify the 'awarding' of those stars. Thinking about it for a few months, I have come up with a simple rating system (for my own use) whose results seem to make sense to me. I feel that I can now assign stars based on campground facilities, neighborhood appeal, campground appeal, accessibility, and staffing. I feel that between this objective approach and some subjective rationalization, that I can now assign a fair rating with some economy of words. Don't look for my reviews, however, the only one I have submitted was kind of a shot-gun approach that no one is ever likely to see (because of the website's policies). My review style was not entirely inconsistent with everyone else around here, but it was exhausting and probably useless to anyone. I've come to the conclusion that putting forth the effort to post other reviews is a waste of my (and probably everybody else's) time. The bottom line is that there is just practically no accountability among review submitters (in the aggregate) that would warrant much reliance on what they have to say.
Testudo, I, for one, appreciate the thought and effort you put into this post. That fact that you are so aware of the issues of objectivity and subjectivity and whether or not your reviews would be of any use to readers, makes me believe your reviews would be worthwhile. Our loss. Jerry S.
When posting a review of a campground, Rv park, resort, or by whatever name, I start every review at the number 5, and adjust either up or down as to: amenities, facilities, overall conditions, experiences, and as my opinion warrants. I never assign the top, (best) classification to any facility, as they all have something that precludes them from being the "perfect" establishment. At the other end of the spectrum, I never assign the lowest, (worst), as all have at least one or more items on the plus side, (acceptable). The problem is that not all Rvers are looking for the same provided services, and at this point, differences of opinion exist. Different needs for different people result in a review that may or may not be favorable for the establishment, but is that person's opinion of that experience.
I wanted to resurrect this thread for 2 reasons: 1. It has a lot of comments pertinent to some recent hot topics ("What do people expect in a campground?", "Experience vs. review", and "Observation regarding reviews"). Newer members who were interested in those threads may enjoy this old thread also. 2. Now that I have been part of this site since the beginning of the year and have 80+ reviews (covering 7/06 to 10/07) posted, I re-thought the way I write a review. As someone in one of the above noted threads mentioned, I don't see much point in reiterating specifics (pool, cement pads, WIFI, etc.) about a park that numerous previous reviews have already mentioned. Unless you have a a different take on these specifics (WIFI is $5 a day) or have something new to add (WIFI is now free and reaches the sites), there is not much point in saying the same thing 5 other reviewers already wrote. Exceptions to this include parks with no or only a few reviews and parks that have not been reviewed for a while. Additionally, won't re-review a park I go to often unless something has changed that I think may be of importance to some campers.
QUOTE(Jerry S. @ Nov 30 2007, 07:33 PM) [snapback]9298[/snapback] I wanted to resurrect this thread for 2 reasons: 1. It has a lot of comments pertinent to some recent hot topics ("What do people expect in a campground?", "Experience vs. review", and "Observation regarding reviews"). Newer members who were interested in those threads may enjoy this old thread also. 2. Now that I have been part of this site since the beginning of the year and have 80+ reviews (covering 7/06 to 10/07) posted, I re-thought the way I write a review. As someone in one of the above noted threads mentioned, I don't see much point in reiterating specifics (pool, cement pads, WIFI, etc.) about a park that numerous previous reviews have already mentioned. Unless you have a a different take on these specifics (WIFI is $5 a day) or have something new to add (WIFI is now free and reaches the sites), there is not much point in saying the same thing 5 other reviewers already wrote. Exceptions to this include parks with no or only a few reviews and parks that have not been reviewed for a while. Additionally, won't re-review a park I go to often unless something has changed that I think may be of importance to some campers. Jerry, So what you're saying is that if you stay at a reviewed park and agree with the previous posts then don't bother to submit a review. Just wondering,
Rodman, Not quite. If it my first stay a this park and I agree with most of the previous reviews, that is what my review will say. For example, if most of the previous reviewers have described and critiqued that park's sites, facilities, amenities, etc., and I concur, that's what my review will say. I see no point in writing that "the pool was great, the WIFI good, the utilities modern, the people helpful," etc., if that has already been said numerous times. More often than not, I end up adding a "but ...., additionally ...., and /or during my stay .....". If I have stayed at (and reviewed) the park previously, I will re-review the park if there something has changed or an intervening review says something I don't believe is accurate. For example, I stayed at a park in May and couldn't get the WIFI at all during my 5 days. During my next stay in October, I got it 4 out of 5 days. In a review between those stays, a reviewer stated that there was nothing for children. I commented that the park has a great pool, playground, fishing pond, volleyball, horseshoes, etc. and thus, could not understand the "nothing" comment. I think that there were only two parks that I visited in both May and October that I didn't re-review. I believe I reviewed every park (25 or so) I visited during my summer trip our northwest. Some of them were first visits but most were repeats from 2-5 years ago. I streamlined many of them per my previous post since I see no need for my review of a park to "stand on its' own" if there are a lot of other reviews.
QUOTE(Testudo @ Sep 5 2006, 01:41 PM) [snapback]5009[/snapback] I was trying to update my RV log and used the RV PARK REVIEWS site to recall basic information. I have used the site before but as a lurker -- not a member. I decided it was time that I joined and started submitting reviews if I was going to earn my keep. I have submitted one review which you might not see for a while because of the recent policy changes for posting reviews. I didn't note any guidelines with repect to the character length of comments so I made what I thought were terse comments regarding what I thought were useful observations concerning the RV park in question. I tried to avoid editorializing. The result undoubtedly exceeds this post in length by two or three times. After completing the review, I went back to my log entry project and noted that most review comments, here, are _very_ terse (usually one short paragraph) and tend to editorialize rather than giving useful information. My concern is that I am going to put significant effort into contributing to this site and then my efforts are going to be rejected or highly edited. In the best case, I'm wondering if my extensive comments will be unappreciated by the rank and file members who might be looking for a more simple formula approach (like 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down'). I can't help but note that reviews are often subjective to the point that parks will receive both '10's and '1's -- without any clear differentiation as to the reviewer's point of view. 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). So my question to the members, is, in your experience, do you think my lengthy comments are likely to be highly edited because of that length, or, do you think extensive observations are unwanted by the members, anyway? TESTUDO, I would like to read your report when published, I have to agree with you that the reports published are generally too superficial (i.e. choose from 1 to 10 from the worst to the best) and if you do have a chance to review more than one reports regarding the same station, the comments are so different that's impossible to establish actual status of the RV camp. Unfortunately most of the comments have been written under certain state of emotion, therefore, they are hardly reflecting an analytical fact, I understand some RVers don’t read the condition published by the resort or expect some service free when it should be available as an option and some resorts are really scrappy and deserve to be criticized publically. :angry: Since it is impossible to train every one in how to properly evaluate a given place, it would be interesting to forward a copy of a given comment, no name attached, to the resort and ask it to reply and present its angle; at the end of this exchange, both comments should be published in this forum for every to make up their mind. :lol:
