RV Park Reviews

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Deferred Reviews
mdcamping
post Apr 22 2014, 06:50 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 189
Joined: 3-July 07
From: CT
Member No.: 14145



Sounds like were starting to split hairs... are talking about deferring a review because of a causal mention of a certain type of ownership or deferring a review because most of the review is the focus on the ownership.

This all said I guess I'm in the minority, I'm looking for stuff like security/enforced policies, level sites, ease of access to sites, clean restrooms, hookups in good working order, professional staff, etc etc... rolleyes.gif

Mike
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Andy R
post Apr 22 2014, 11:28 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 69
Joined: 21-September 09
Member No.: 37395



PM sent with my email address.

I see your point with the campground ownership info. Unfortunately at this point, that is not a policy we are planning to change. Maybe at a future date we will reconsider that policy but for now we need to remain focused on building & going live with the new system. We'll have lots of training to do, it's going to be a busy couple months. Once settled we'll be in a better position to consider a request like that.

Andy
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GandJ
post Apr 23 2014, 05:35 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 28-October 11
From: Northern Virginia
Member No.: 64530



QUOTE(Andy R @ Apr 23 2014, 12:28 AM) *

PM sent with my email address.

I see your point with the campground ownership info. Unfortunately at this point, that is not a policy we are planning to change. Maybe at a future date we will reconsider that policy but for now we need to remain focused on building & going live with the new system. We'll have lots of training to do, it's going to be a busy couple months. Once settled we'll be in a better position to consider a request like that.

Andy


So for now, it's "Censored Knowledge" instead of "Social Knowledge".


--------------------
It's always the batteries!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Andy R
post Apr 23 2014, 07:31 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 69
Joined: 21-September 09
Member No.: 37395



Cute one!

The fact we have guidelines in place to define what we allow does not constitute censorship. That's our prerogative as extended to us by the First Amendment provisions for Freedom of Speech.

Censorship happens when a person is denied the right to self-publish. A person who submits a review to our service is not self-publishing. Instead they are putting their review into our system to publish (or not) on their behalf. According to our rules we might choose not to publish a review, but censorship didn't occur because you still have the right to self-publish.

No private citizen, including me, has any capability whatsoever to "censor" another person, because I can't stop someone from going else where to publish. If a newspaper chooses not to publish your letter to the editor, you haven't been "censored." If you're denied the ability to start your own newspaper, then that is censorship. It's the same thing online.

From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
Censorship differs from editorial selection. For example, a publisher cannot usually publish all books presented to it, and a library cannot usually contain all books published. Consequently, they choose what to accept, either for its potential profitability, in the case of a for-profit book publisher, or according to its materials collection policy, in the case of a library.

It sounds like the issue at hand regarding our policy to not allow reviews to include certain ownership information is actually our right to editorial selection, not censorship.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
USMCRET
post Apr 24 2014, 08:11 AM
Post #20


Newbie
*

Group: Moderated
Posts: 1
Joined: 24-July 11
Member No.: 60490



Andy, I absolutely applaud you and the direction you are taking this valuable service. As you know, you are not going to be able to satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time, so there will always be a few casualties along the way. Their loss.

I think this site has a very bright future ahead of it, and I do not foresee any competitor gaining a substantial foothold in your market. This site has been around too long and we as travelers and reviewers have too much equity in it to allow that to happen.

Best of luck with the roll out! Can't wait to see and experience it!

//Ed//
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Andy R
post Apr 24 2014, 09:25 AM
Post #21


Advanced Member
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 69
Joined: 21-September 09
Member No.: 37395



Thanks Ed!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DXSMac
post Apr 24 2014, 04:55 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2093
Joined: 12-September 07
From: Pacific Northwest
Member No.: 16651



QUOTE(dalsgal @ Apr 19 2014, 05:54 PM) *

The only complaints I have seen are from people that are new here and didn't bother to read the rules first and then come and complain about that. IMHO this is the best ratings site out there.


I recently worked for a park that would get all hung up over comments on Trip Advisor. Trip Advisor has NO STANDARDS. I kept telling them not to get hung up over Trip Advisor. The SERIOUS RV travelers use this web site.


--------------------
JJ from Pacific Northwest

Check out my blog on TOADLESS RVing!
http://rvingtoadless.blogspot.com/

Feel free to leave me some suggestions.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
docj
post Apr 24 2014, 05:22 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 741
Joined: 4-July 10
Member No.: 45503



QUOTE(DXSMac @ Apr 24 2014, 06:55 PM) *

I recently worked for a park that would get all hung up over comments on Trip Advisor. Trip Advisor has NO STANDARDS. I kept telling them not to get hung up over Trip Advisor. The SERIOUS RV travelers use this web site.


Even though I don't use TripAdvisor for RV Park Reviews, we do use it quite a bit for "Things to do" and restaurants. Despite the repeated criticism of that site on this forum, we have yet to be disappointed by places we have selected in either of those two categories. I recognize that there have been accusations of false reviews, but maybe those are less likely in the "things to do" section and we probably don't patronize fancy enough restaurants to encounter those that would either plant false favorable reviews or be harmed by false negatives.

As for the language of the reviews, I find nothing objectionable in those that I have read. I read them the same way I do with RVPR, I look for the average sentiment of the reviews posted. I am more concerned about restaurants that have a large number of negatives than I am with those that have but a few. Everyone ticks someone off once in a while!


--------------------
Joel Weiss
2000 Beaver Patriot Thunder--Cat C12
2014 Honda CR-V EX-L toad
WiFi Ranger Ambassador
RVParkReviews.com Administrator
Share our adventures at: Weiss Travels
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version
RVParkReviews.com