Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Review Rebuttals
RV Park Reviews Campground Discussion Forum > RV Park and Campground Discussions > RV Park Discussions
COWolfPack
I was checking out RV Park Reviews today and as I normally do I scanned through the recently submitted reviews on the home page. I came across a couple of reviews for Country Lane Resort in Kingston, Idaho. Although both were recently submitted one of them dated back to 07/10/2006. The first review was as follows:

QUOTE

Review Rating: 1/10
This campground is listed in the Trailer Life Directory, but certainly should be avoided. It is hard to find, hard to navigate in and lacks decorum you expect for a minimal family park. I left early for lack of cell phone or Internet access and could not get a refund from owners. We camped here in a Motorhome.


The second review submitted for this park was as follows:

QUOTE

Review Rating: 6/10
To me the OP sounds like he wouldn't be happy anywhere. Just because of no cell or internet doesn't make for a bad campground. Some people like the basics and are not living out of their Rv's so there is no need for those type's of services for us. We camped here in a Motorhome.


To me the second review just sounds like a rebuttal of how the first reviewer wrote their review. The second reviewer gives no indication that they have stayed at that campground but rather just seems to take offense to what the first person wrote in their review. Now I know that people will not always agree to what some people write in their reviews but I feel a better place to voice this would be in the discussion forums. If this website starts getting a lot of these rebuttal reviews it will quickly become a problem for the users to try and sort out these useless rebuttal reviews when looking for a campground/rv park. ph34r.gif The least the second reviewer could have done is indicate that they have actually stayed in this park and the reasons this park didn't rate such a low review in their opinion not just what was wrong with the opinion of the first reviewer.

Not wanting to preach or anything like that but I just thought that this was something that needed to be brought up.
Webmaster
No, thanks for pointing that out. It's been removed.
Beastdriver
Hooray for WolfPack and for the Webmaster. This site should be kept as honest, clean, and helpful as possible and argumentative discussions by people who have not actually stayed at a park don't belong in the review section.
rodman
Sounds to me like the second person was the owner or friend of the owner of the park. I have read many reviews of places I have stayed and not agreed with them but you are right, that isn't the place to get into a argument with them. That's what is so nice about this site, they are just 1 person's opinion, like it or not.

Just my opinion,
keepmotoring
I totally agree. Just because someone wants to stay in touch through cell phone or internet and another doesn't, that is not a reason for a rebuttal. All of us have our desires and wants for a campground so all of the reviews need to be read so that you can be the judge if the campground fits your criteria. There might be things going on in our lives when we are traveling that we must be able to be reach by cell. Thanks webmaster for removing the posts.
Butch
Just a short note to say "a big thank you to the Webmaster". Thanks for a well managed, clean web site.
gwbischoff
QUOTE(COWolfPack @ Feb 5 2007, 11:13 PM) *

I was checking out RV Park Reviews today and as I normally do I scanned through the recently submitted reviews on the home page. I came across a couple of reviews for Country Lane Resort in Kingston, Idaho. Although both were recently submitted one of them dated back to 07/10/2006. The first review was as follows:

QUOTE

Review Rating: 1/10
This campground is listed in the Trailer Life Directory, but certainly should be avoided. It is hard to find, hard to navigate in and lacks decorum you expect for a minimal family park. I left early for lack of cell phone or Internet access and could not get a refund from owners. We camped here in a Motorhome.


The second review submitted for this park was as follows:

QUOTE

Review Rating: 6/10
To me the OP sounds like he wouldn't be happy anywhere. Just because of no cell or internet doesn't make for a bad campground. Some people like the basics and are not living out of their Rv's so there is no need for those type's of services for us. We camped here in a Motorhome.


To me the second review just sounds like a rebuttal of how the first reviewer wrote their review. The second reviewer gives no indication that they have stayed at that campground but rather just seems to take offense to what the first person wrote in their review. Now I know that people will not always agree to what some people write in their reviews but I feel a better place to voice this would be in the discussion forums. If this website starts getting a lot of these rebuttal reviews it will quickly become a problem for the users to try and sort out these useless rebuttal reviews when looking for a campground/rv park. ph34r.gif The least the second reviewer could have done is indicate that they have actually stayed in this park and the reasons this park didn't rate such a low review in their opinion not just what was wrong with the opinion of the first reviewer.

Not wanting to preach or anything like that but I just thought that this was something that needed to be brought up.



But they did actually give it a 6/10 rating. I agree with you that they should at least support their arguement.
hdnelson
I think Person #2's submission would have worked for me had they spent less time worrying about Person #1 and more time telling me their thoughts about the campground.

As it is, Person #2 must think I'm an idiot because I'm not able to deduce for myself that cell phone/Internet inability at a site is a ridiculous reason to rate a CG a 1/10.
BBear
I believe reviews of parks should be just that, reviews of parks! Not reviews of those who have submitted reviews.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.