Changes To Review Submittals, Everybody please read Options

[Webmaster]

We have found it necessary to add some more security to the website when it comes to approving reviews. All members will now have to submit a minimum of three (3) different campgrounds before any of their reviews will be posted on the website. If you have not seen a recent review you submitted posted on the website that is because it is in a holding queue until the three review quota has been met and then they will automatically transfer to the approval queue and will then be posted. Any member that has already posted three or more will see no change. Sorry we have to do this but some campground owner's/employees think they don't have to follow the rules of this website and continue to try to post great reviews about their campground. The "great" campgrounds will never have to do that as they will always receive positive reviews from their customers. We have caught several and will continue to do so to try to keep this website as it was intended.

[campinggirl1964]

It's too bad you have to do this to control who posts. However, I'd like to thank you for taking the extra time to ensure the reviews are legitimate before they get posted. It's too bad we (the people who read the reviews) didn't know which owners are trying to post their own reviews because they would be the kind of owner whose park I wouldn't want to stay at.

Keep up the great work - this is a great rving resource.

[BBear]

That is a shame because it's always the innocent who are hurt in the end.

I love this site, but I'm what you call a repeat campground attendee....I latch on to a campground and usually stay there numerous times during the summer, but don't feel the need to post the same review for the same campground over and over. When I do go to another campground, I have posted the review here....the lastest one being this morning, but I guess nobody is going to see it, because I don't think in total I have posted over 5 reviews.

I don't think a person should be penalized because of how few reviews they post...I don't know...just doesn't make sense to me....I'd be more inclined to think a person who posts a lot of reviews would be the one who possibly may be "inflating" for campgrounds, but that's just my opinion.

[gonefishin]

We have found it necessary to add some more security to the website when it comes to approving reviews. All members will now have to submit a minimum of five (5) different campgrounds before any of their reviews will be posted on the website. If you have not seen a recent review you submitted posted on the website that is because it is in a holding queue until the five review quota has been met and then they will automatically transfer to the approval queue and will then be posted. Any member that has already posted five or more will see no change. Sorry we have to do this but some campground owner's/employees think they don't have to follow the rules of this website and continue to try to post great reviews about their campground. The "great" campgrounds will never have to do that as they will always receive positive reviews from their customers. We have caught several and will continue to do so to try to keep this website as it was intended.

This is a shame. I submitted my first ever review today because I am just getting into camping and felt compelled to warn my fellow campers of a really bad site in New Jersey. It is a shame that noone will get to see this review until I've gone to 4 more sites and reviewed them.

If anyone is interested, I posted the main part of my review in the discussion area. Look for the green emoticon.

Thanks and keep up the great work. This website is a tremendous service to people like me who are just getting started.

[pjtjmn]

Just a thought..

Five different locations? Wow, I just started camping, and I thought we were doing a lot of different locations this year at 4!!! With all the good reviews in "pending" status, we will be missing out on valuable information..

I understand why you want to do this, but maybe there is another way to keep this honest??
The new way actually gives the dishonest folks incentive to not only try to pump up their place, but hurt others..

For example, if I were a dishonest CG owner, I could always give my own place glowing reviews and poor-to-middling reviews to nearby places...

I was wondering why my review from two weeks ago didn't post!

Maybe we could brainstorm a bit to think of another solution?

[BBear]

Just a thought..

Five different locations? Wow, I just started camping, and I thought we were doing a lot of different locations this year at 4!!! With all the good reviews in "pending" status, we will be missing out on valuable information..

I understand why you want to do this, but maybe there is another way to keep this honest??
The new way actually gives the dishonest folks incentive to not only try to pump up their place, but hurt others..

For example, if I were a dishonest CG owner, I could always give my own place glowing reviews and poor-to-middling reviews to nearby places...

I was wondering why my review from two weeks ago didn't post!

Maybe we could brainstorm a bit to think of another solution?

Great thoughts!

I've been on this forum for a long time and I just feel totally offended by this new rule...I think it's totally inappropriate and serves no real purpose.

[dgc_61]

Just a thought..

Five different locations? Wow, I just started camping, and I thought we were doing a lot of different locations this year at 4!!! With all the good reviews in "pending" status, we will be missing out on valuable information..

I understand why you want to do this, but maybe there is another way to keep this honest??
The new way actually gives the dishonest folks incentive to not only try to pump up their place, but hurt others..

For example, if I were a dishonest CG owner, I could always give my own place glowing reviews and poor-to-middling reviews to nearby places...

I was wondering why my review from two weeks ago didn't post!

Maybe we could brainstorm a bit to think of another solution?

Great thoughts!

I've been on this forum for a long time and I just feel totally offended by this new rule...I think it's totally inappropriate and serves no real purpose.

I am another vote for there otta be a better way. I reviewed at least one other park that got listed right away. Now my latest review is held up pending who knows how long. I even sent in a correction to another park listed in error but I suppose that can't be released either. Why don't you ask for references from new people before you allow them to review? Rv.Net or Escapees would be good sources.

[Zig]

I think we should be able to rate the reviewers. "Was this rating Helpfully?" I have seen this on other opinion sights. If it is just one or two reviews that are out of line, people will know to disregard those as somebody with a ax to grind, or somebody affiliated with the campground.
I am not going to fill out 5 reviews, due to the fact that we don't go to that many in one year. We do stay at one park for a week at a time, but, just do not go to that many campgrounds. This is a bad policy.

[boater]

We are new campers -one year, and have visited several campgrounds, maybe7 or 8. most came recomended from reviews on this site. it would seem to me that it would be very fair to ask for a little resume when one joins the site that has a history for the person. from this it woud be easy to tell who was posting for themselves.
As the policy stands now we would not be able to post for campgrounds because like most everyone else now we are staying longer at fewer campgrounds and chosing the ones we stay at very carefully from the existing reviews.

[stonybirch]

I too think the new policy is a bad idea. I don't always post if I concur with a campground that has several reviews. I have referred numerous RVers and campers to site and they have told me how much it has helped them. Several have left posts, using pretty much the idea as I do. I really don't think the policy will prevent 'owners' from 'loading the reviews'--they'll just have more time on their hands with less business!!!! Let's all do some thinking about how the problem can be 'fixed. One major problem--there will always be dishonest people doing very ugly things!
Every trip we take--long or short-I use this site as much as possible! Love the forums, too. Have gotten some great ideas along the way!!!

[Webmaster]

We are new campers -one year, and have visited several campgrounds, maybe7 or 8. most came recomended from reviews on this site. it would seem to me that it would be very fair to ask for a little resume when one joins the site that has a history for the person. from this it woud be easy to tell who was posting for themselves.
As the policy stands now we would not be able to post for campgrounds because like most everyone else now we are staying longer at fewer campgrounds and chosing the ones we stay at very carefully from the existing reviews.

We have lowered the quota for new reviewers to 3 different campgrounds. This is a temporary solution to this problem and we will have a better solution soon.

[johnwadams]

I moderate and approve new members to an outdoor forum. I will not approve anyone who fails to answer each of 3 questions when they register and they must have a verifiable (normally USA) e-mail address. I found that I had about 2 people with Russian e-mail addresses try to join each week. All they probably wanted was access to the members e-mail address. I have followed this forum for years and made numerous posts to it. I would hate to stay at a campground that got a terrible review but I was not allowed to see it, just because the reviewer wasn't "approved yet". There has to be a better way to verify that the person posting does not represent a campground.
John Adams
Memphis, TN

[pjtjmn]

We have lowered the quota for new reviewers to 3 different campgrounds. This is a temporary solution to this problem and we will have a better solution soon.

Thanks for listening to our concerns!

Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I understand WHY you want to enforce a new policy, but 5 did seem excessive....

This site has been valuable for me, (I'm new to camping), and I wanted to be able to give back by posting my reviews...

(And now I'll complete my third.. I wasn't going to bother until I read your new guidelines.)


Now that I've got your attention... I do have one more suggestion:

If only we could have an OPTION to switch back to the old format where you could see ALL of the reviews for an entire state listed one directly under the other.. It was more conveint for me to check out the whole state "at a glance". I know that others enjoy the new format due to slow computer speeds, but again, the OPTION to switch to "all at once" would be greatly appreciated!!



Thanks again....

[Johna Kaye Lane]

I think that I may have made the same review of the same campground, When I get to my 5 reviews will it post the same one twice

[blomquir]

I'm with them. Even at 3 reviews it's a bad deal for the users.

Our family only stays at a formal "campground" once or twice a year....the rest of the 10 trips a year we make is dry-camping out in the boonies. Basically, we hate campground camping but when we choose to camp in a campground it's critical to see reports from folks in order to make our stay as less-irritating as possible......and the more folks and the more reports the better. This new policy stiffles that. It also puts a clamp on us being able to submit reports for a couple of years (until we meet the new threshold for reporting)

There's got to be a better way, especially for those of us that have already been published 1 or more times on the site.