RV Park Reviews

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> Review Not Posted, I've read the rules ......
gritz
post Sep 25 2012, 04:10 PM
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Moderated
Posts: 3
Joined: 18-September 12
Member No.: 74550



I posted a review that was accepted on 9/17/2012 on Farewell Bend. (Huntington) but never published or posted to this review site. Since I included a lot of detail for accuracy in case an RVer' was looking for a site that could pickup up Verizon cell phone service, which means Internet with a smartphone, I was disappointed when the review was not published. In further checking, it seems that a lot of reviews are painfully old so I suspect you won't get much current information, at least in Farewell Bend. But in case you need the Internet, site #112 can do it, with a booster. My SS was actually -59 dBm ... which is a good as it gets.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
Texasrvers
post Sep 25 2012, 06:17 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 3605
Joined: 6-March 06
Member No.: 5452




I found a review for Farewell Bend that was submitted under a different username. However, I believe it is yours. The problem here is that our records show that you have submitted only one review. Our guidelines state that you must submit 3 reviews before they will be posted.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gritz
post Oct 22 2012, 09:06 AM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Moderated
Posts: 3
Joined: 18-September 12
Member No.: 74550



QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Sep 25 2012, 06:17 PM) *

I found a review for Farewell Bend that was submitted under a different username. However, I believe it is yours. The problem here is that our records show that you have submitted only one review. Our guidelines state that you must submit 3 reviews before they will be posted.


I guess I'm not understanding the value of denying a reviewer submission because he has not submitted 3 RV reviews. Seems like a real waste of valuable information and a downer for intermittent campers. We went twice this Fall and I spent a fair amount of time trying to be informative and helpful .... but to say you need 3 reviews?? Doesn't make sense. If I can't see my post online and re-edit if necessary, I won't be back. I will go where my views are appreciated. Life is too short to wait a year to see if your post went live. I encourage you to rethink your policy ... it could develop into a great resource.

Jim Lindbloom
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
docj
post Oct 22 2012, 11:32 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 819
Joined: 4-July 10
Member No.: 45503



QUOTE(gritz @ Oct 22 2012, 11:06 AM) *

I guess I'm not understanding the value of denying a reviewer submission because he has not submitted 3 RV reviews. Seems like a real waste of valuable information and a downer for intermittent campers.


I think this policy stems from the fact that there are two classes of reviews that the website would prefer to filter out.

One class of review comes from individuals who own or are associated with campgrounds and is submitted for the sole purpose of "pumping up" the CG's reputation and increasing its business. Such reviews typically come from people who aren't really RVers and have registered on the website solely for the purpose of submitting this one review. Although the policy of forcing them to submit two additional reviews of other CG's doesn't completely eliminate such folks, it does make it more difficult, especially if they don't happen to even own an RV.

The other class of review comes from individuals who aren't interested in using the website for sharing of reviews other than for one review they wish to submit about a particularly bad experience they have had at some CG. It's not that such bad experiences shouldn't be posted but I think the purpose of the website is to create a broadly-based sharing of park reviews, not just to flame a particular park because of one's perception of not having been treated well.

If the person submitting the review is, in fact, an RVer with an interest in the community, the requirement to submit two additional reviews shouldn't be such a burdensome one. Even casual RVers typically use their rigs a couple of times a season.

Those of us who rely on this website as our primary source of CG information, are accustomed to using our own "filters" for reading reviews and deciding their relevance to ourselves. However, having the website filter the most egregiously good or bad reviews improves the odds that those that are published better represent a true perspective of the park being reviewed.


--------------------
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

Posts in this topic
gritz   Review Not Posted   Sep 25 2012, 04:10 PM
Texasrvers   I found a review for Farewell Bend that was submit...   Sep 25 2012, 06:17 PM
gritz   I found a review for Farewell Bend that was submi...   Oct 22 2012, 09:06 AM
Denali   ...If I can't see my post online and re-edit i...   Oct 22 2012, 09:29 AM
docj   I guess I'm not understanding the value of de...   Oct 22 2012, 11:32 AM
rkw99   I think this policy stems from the fact that ther...   Oct 22 2012, 01:03 PM
rvingup   I thought I read a month ago, it was submit 2 revi...   Oct 21 2012, 11:52 PM
Texasrvers   It is 3.   Oct 22 2012, 12:30 AM
weighit   Another case of the rules don't apply to me. I...   Oct 22 2012, 11:12 PM
dog bone   If I can't see my post online and re-edit if n...   Oct 24 2012, 12:46 PM
RanMan   [b]I don't know why this is typing in bold p...   Oct 25 2012, 10:14 AM
fistymc   I understand the reasons for moderating posts, but...   Dec 26 2012, 04:27 PM
Texasrvers   I understand the reasons for moderating posts, bu...   Dec 26 2012, 08:27 PM
rkw99   I understand the reasons for moderating posts, bu...   Dec 28 2012, 01:57 PM
Texasrvers   Yet another example of inconsistency with followi...   Dec 28 2012, 04:35 PM
pianotuna   Hi, The admins are all volunteers and this is a f...   Dec 29 2012, 07:23 AM
FosterImposters   The wonder is that there are so many excellent r...   Dec 29 2012, 10:58 AM
cKarlGo   Have lost track of the number of years we have us...   Jan 10 2013, 08:13 PM
wprigge   Right on pianotuna! :)   Dec 29 2012, 09:29 AM
mdcamping   Right on pianotuna! :) X2 Mike   Dec 29 2012, 09:51 AM
Emma   X2 Mike X2 (for the "Right on pianotuna...   Apr 6 2013, 07:29 AM
joez   This site is really our only source to find a pl...   Jan 10 2013, 08:46 PM
RLM   I do a couple of small commercial websites and bus...   Jan 11 2013, 11:26 AM
jimnkaran   I am new to this website but really like any site ...   Apr 5 2013, 08:37 PM
DXSMac   Um..... I think you can't post on a campground...   Apr 10 2013, 08:25 AM
jimnkaran   Um..... I think you can't post on a campgroun...   Apr 10 2013, 10:13 AM
docj   FWIW, I never noticed that the "affirmation...   Apr 5 2013, 08:49 PM
Texasrvers   I will try to get a clarification from the webmast...   Apr 10 2013, 11:03 AM
Texasrvers   I think you will now find that this statement has ...   Apr 11 2013, 11:25 AM
Jerry S.   Back to the part of this thread that discussed the...   Apr 28 2013, 10:10 PM
docj   Back to the part of this thread that discussed th...   Apr 29 2013, 12:20 AM
jamarynn1   Speaking of odd reasons to downgrade a park, I was...   Apr 29 2013, 12:16 PM
Fitzjohnfan   Speaking of odd reasons to downgrade a park, I wa...   Apr 29 2013, 01:40 PM
HappiestCamper   I read that review also, and scratched my head as...   Apr 30 2013, 06:58 AM
RLM   This one got discussed a lot at rv.net, and it wa...   Apr 30 2013, 08:13 AM


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

 



Lo-Fi Version
RVParkReviews.com