"experience" Vs. "review" Options

[gwbischoff]

After reading a wide variety of campground "reviews" I was hoping to get a consensus on what constitutes a review.

If you had a noisy neighbor, or if the weather was lousy, that was your experience. That's not necessarily the park's fault.

If your noisy neighbor is a full time resident. That is useful.

If the park is split by a railroad line, near a nuclear facility or is located within 100 yards of Paris Hilton, *that* should influence your review.

I read so many that seem to be influenced by bad weather. If you want to include it in your comments, that's fine. Or if you've gone to the same park 157 times in July and it has snowed every time, that's fine too.

Review the park, folks.

[RLM]

For those of us who are full time or extended travelers, a good review process is the difference between a pleasant or not so pleasant stay. It is also a money issue in that we don’t want to pay for the substandard.

The list associated with submitting a review here is thorough, but most of that generic info can be obtained from a CG directory. What I want to know are the details of what’s on the list. A reviewer must use adjectives and adverbs to accomplish that. As an example, ‘excellent’ voltage and water pressure, “lots of” cable channels, ‘free’ wi-fi with ‘strong’ signals, ‘wide’ pull-thrus, etc.

Another method for getting enough detailed information is for the separately listed items in the review process to have some discriminators. Example: Cable TV – Yes/ No/ Good/ Fair/ Poor. Wi-Fi – None/Pay for Use/Free/Strong signal/Weak signal. 50 Amp – High voltage/Low voltage. That’s a Webmaster issue.

A reviewer’s experience factors into my decision process unless someone whose only objective is to vent frustration does it in a negative way. I can discern the useful stuff from the garbage.

Perhaps a rating for the reviewer is appropriate. One website I use has a block to check that indicates, “This review was helpful.” That could be factored into a rating system for those who submit reviews. Again that’s a Webmaster issue.

I think we are preaching to each other’s choir. Gwbischoff hopes for a consensus, but that’s not going to happen due to our differing expectations of a campground. The best we can achieve is to continue to do the reviews in a professional manner so as to set a higher standard.

Webmaster, in addition to your instructions on submitting a review, I would respectfully suggest that it might be helpful for reviewers to be able to read what a good one looks like. Pick one or two and display them prominently.

[DXSMac]

Webmaster, in addition to your instructions on submitting a review, I would respectfully suggest that it might be helpful for reviewers to be able to read what a good one looks like. Pick one or two and display them prominently.

One place I post reviews has "featured" reviews section. The "featured" review shows what they are looking for. I hate to brag, but one of mine made the "featured reviews" list. However, it was posted as "anonymous" because that web site does allow "anonymous" reviews. I started "signing" my reviews (by logging on!) after that happened! If my review is going to be "featured," I WANT CREDIT! (On that particular "featured" review, I had commented that the "pull throughs" were shaped in a steep "half circle" and I had to "bend" my RV to fit! I think they got a chuckle out of "bending" my RV!!!)

JJ