QUOTE(abbygolden @ Nov 30 2008, 10:57 AM) [snapback]14225[/snapback] Actually, you are incorrect. This forum is three fold:, 1. Discussions, 2. Chat, and 3. Reviews. Since the reviews only show as reviews and not on the forum per se, that means discussions and chats relating to RVing are pertinent. These two topics (Discussion and Chat), in fact, are not about reviews, although narrative reviews would certainly be welcome here. I would suggest that before you critisize others you might want to review the topics of the forum. While RV Park and Campground Discussions are not solely about reviews, the topic does come up from time to time and is discussed. There's nothing wrong with that since if you read the description of that particular forum you'll see it says "Post ANYTHING to do with RV Parks and Campgrounds". And, the reviews would fall under "ANYTHING" with regards to discussions about RV Parks and Campgrounds.
QUOTE(BBear @ Nov 30 2008, 12:17 PM) [snapback]14227[/snapback] While RV Park and Campground Discussions are not solely about reviews, the topic does come up from time to time and is discussed. There's nothing wrong with that since if you read the description of that particular forum you'll see it says "Post ANYTHING to do with RV Parks and Campgrounds". And, the reviews would fall under "ANYTHING" with regards to discussions about RV Parks and Campgrounds. That's a very broad interpretation of the topic, espcially since the third subject is for RV park reviews specifically. However, if you would reread my post, you would notice that I mentioned that posting a narrative review in either chat or discussiion would be ok.
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Nov 30 2008, 02:12 PM) [snapback]14235[/snapback] That's a very broad interpretation of the topic, espcially since the third subject is for RV park reviews specifically. However, if you would reread my post, you would notice that I mentioned that posting a narrative review in either chat or discussiion would be ok. I hazard a guess that the webmaster made it a very broad interpretation intentionally. Especially, since the third subject is for submission of campground reviews and does not include an area where members can discuss reviews...that area is for posting reviews only.
At this time I will pretend that the only post in this thread is the original post. If I had been the first to respond to the initial post, it would have been something like this: When I first saw this post, my first thought was "Oh good, this is sort of like a thread I was thinking about starting." While I agree that the rating and the review narrative seem to be way out of sync, I read a review of a park (Durango KOA) I was at last summer that I found to be noteworthy. Not counting the "We camped here in a ..." line added automatically by this site's system, the entire review consisted of 3 words and gave the park a rating of "1". The 3 words were "This place blows!". This park has had numerous reviews and most were 8, 9, or 10. We have all seen this happen before - a park with lots of decent ratings suddenly gets a 1 or 2. Those reviews usually had some sort of narrative as to why they gave such a poor rating. This reviewer gave us just 3 words without any explanation. As many have said in past posts in this forum, the folks who help out on this site do a wonderful job. I don't want to appear to be disparaging about the job the folks who check the reviews before they are posted do, but I do wonder if any thought was given to rejecting this particular review. I've read many reviews here that were useless to me personally, but I would think this one would be useless to almost anyone who read it. While the review cited by Gilda was certainly confusing, it was informative. OK, that's what I would have posted before the battle ensued.
QUOTE(Jerry S. @ Dec 1 2008, 01:33 AM) [snapback]14243[/snapback] I do wonder if any thought was given to rejecting this particular review. I absolutely agree. This review you refer to never should have been posted. I imagine there are many that do get rejected for a variety of reasons, and this one probably just accidentally slipped by.
QUOTE(Jerry S. @ Dec 1 2008, 12:33 AM) [snapback]14243[/snapback] At this time I will pretend that the only post in this thread is the original post. If I had been the first to respond to the initial post, it would have been something like this: When I first saw this post, my first thought was "Oh good, this is sort of like a thread I was thinking about starting." While I agree that the rating and the review narrative seem to be way out of sync, I read a review of a park (Durango KOA) I was at last summer that I found to be noteworthy. Not counting the "We camped here in a ..." line added automatically by this site's system, the entire review consisted of 3 words and gave the park a rating of "1". The 3 words were "This place blows!". This park has had numerous reviews and most were 8, 9, or 10. We have all seen this happen before - a park with lots of decent ratings suddenly gets a 1 or 2. Those reviews usually had some sort of narrative as to why they gave such a poor rating. This reviewer gave us just 3 words without any explanation. As many have said in past posts in this forum, the folks who help out on this site do a wonderful job. I don't want to appear to be disparaging about the job the folks who check the reviews before they are posted do, but I do wonder if any thought was given to rejecting this particular review. I've read many reviews here that were useless to me personally, but I would think this one would be useless to almost anyone who read it. While the review cited by Gilda was certainly confusing, it was informative. OK, that's what I would have posted before the battle ensued. Jerry, great post and I totally agree with you.
QUOTE(BBear @ Nov 30 2008, 04:13 PM) [snapback]14240[/snapback] I hazard a guess that the webmaster made it a very broad interpretation intentionally. Especially, since the third subject is for submission of campground reviews and does not include an area where members can discuss reviews...that area is for posting reviews only. Why do I have the feeling you are toying with me??? I think we are saying basically the same thing, just different ways. In any event, it wasn't worth discussing after the first time anyway.
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Dec 1 2008, 11:04 AM) [snapback]14251[/snapback] Why do I have the feeling you are toying with me??? I think we are saying basically the same thing, just different ways. In any event, it wasn't worth discussing after the first time anyway. I'm not toying with you at all. If I were, I'd let you know. I just happened to disagree with the statement you made that said, "These two topics (Discussion and Chat), in fact, are not about reviews, although narrative reviews would certainly be welcome here." And, I just stated that while Discussion and Chat are not solely about reviews, topics concerning reviews do come up and are discussed and to add they don't have to be in the form of a "narrative review". In a way, I do believe we're on the same lines of speaking except for where you said Discussion and Chat are not about reviews, because in some instances they are. That's the only point I was trying to make.
One thing missing from this thread - I happened to stumble upon the review in question by clicking to look at someone's other reviews. This reviewer obviously needs some guidance, so if they see it here, maybe they can get their reviews fixed. 4 reviews - one 3, two 4's, and one 5. They loved the 4's and 5, and hated the 3.
Ok, I think I can figure out what is going on with these "glowing" reviews with low number ratings. I'm taking a wild guess that the person also provides reviews to another site that takes campground reviews. There are two other sites that I know of (however neither one is as comprehensive as THIS site....). On one of those other two sites, you actually do rate 1 to 5. The person probably gets mixed up between the two sites. They submit a review of "4" to that site, then repost the review here, and continue with giving it a "4." Just a wild guess..... JJ QUOTE(HappiestCamper @ Dec 18 2008, 08:49 AM) [snapback]14542[/snapback] One thing missing from this thread - I happened to stumble upon the review in question by clicking to look at someone's other reviews. This reviewer obviously needs some guidance, so if they see it here, maybe they can get their reviews fixed. 4 reviews - one 3, two 4's, and one 5. They loved the 4's and 5, and hated the 3.
I'm sure your guess is correct. However, since there are 10 numbers with little check boxes next to them all lined up in a row, and the word poor is next to 1 and excellent is next to 10, I would hope that people would be more careful. As always, don't just look at the numbers - look what people write, and what they write about other CG's.
