Considerations When Rating A Park, what do you consider? Options

[RLM]

From reading all of the comments, it is evident that there are differing opinions on what makes a good review. My opinion is not intended to change anyone else's. But, a good review is obvious because it is well written with proper grammar and sentences so that one does not have to guess at what is being said. First and foremost, it also focuses on the facilities, services, and amenities of the campground.

It would be most helpful if reviews were done as Texasrvers said, where they focus on the whole park and not just limited to what's around one's RV site. The reviewer should always keep in mind that the prospective user could be in a different RV or even a tent. Therefore; doing a review in first person perspective saying what one personally did or saw does not help as much as a facts-based review that gives a general idea of what those other RV users can expect to find at the campground.

In other words, I'm looking for a reviewer to either confirm or deny the facts of what the campground website is trying to sell me. After that, perhaps a short well-chosen factual comment about the hook-ups, site, or accommodations that aren't obvious might be helpful. An example is good (or bad) utilities, cell coverage, access in and out, TV/Sat signals, dog run, etc. Even if you don't use them, how hard is it to walking over to the bath house facilities and make a note on their cleanliness and include that check mark in the review? A lot of reviewers don't.

A good review is written so that it is not "all about me" but rather is "about us."

[DXSMac]

When I rate parks, I don't do the "It didn't have WiFi so give it a 2" thing. I rate on, as RLM said, "what is the park trying to sell me" and I rate it against other parks selling the same "experience."

I would give a rustic Forest Service campground a 10 even it it was all boondocking if there was good spacing between sites, lots of trees for shade, easy to get in and out of, etc.

[FosterImposters]

We also rate parks based on their own advertized standard.
One park may be marketed as a safe overnight stop. Long pull through sites so one does not have to unhook. Perhaps a clean cool pool to take a refreshing swim after a long day on the road, clean laundry, fresh air and a good night sleep, etc.

Another park may be marketed as a destination. It is set up for folks to stay awhile, either with advertized 'in park' activities, or perhaps near a national park, historical area, river rapids, fishing lake, etc., which comes with it's own set of activities.

Those I find, are easier to rate.

Parks blessed with overnight AND destination location, therefore market to BOTH worlds, have a challenging task. Trying to please multiple markets. Those are the parks that I see the greatest range of numerical values. Thus the need to articulate in the body of the review.

This site has done a great job of keeping the rants, personal name-dropping, vulgar language, and slang-language to minimum. Thanks so much!