Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: This Is Soooooo Wrong!
RV Park Reviews Campground Discussion Forum > RV Park and Campground Discussions > RV Park Discussions
Pages: 1, 2
Recently, a review on the KOA South in Pueblo, Colorado, was submitted in the RV Park Reviews section of this site. This review was extremely critical of this park. Having stayed at this park several times and knowing that it is a quality park, I e-mailed the owners and asked them to look at this review on RVParkReviews. They were appalled, and wrote me back immediately.

Just as those of us who are members of this site have an obligation to be fair and honest in our reviews, we likewise have an obligation to point out when someone is maliciously trashing a good park as is the case here. I have no connection with this park whatsoever, but I do know that we have to do something that stops people from attacking topnotch parks for false reasons.

The response from the campground owners is printed verbatim below. We at least owe them this much in an attempt to offset the damage done by some jerk:

"Thank you so very much for bringing this post to our attention. You are right, this can cause people to form a wrong opinion of us. Unfortunately, as campground owners, we are not usually allowed to go in and say anything. I would appreciate whatever you can do to help clarify the situation to the others out there reading this chatboard. I don't expect you to put everything in that you will see below, but I will address each issue and you can pick and choose. I think the first thing that needs to be pointed out was that these people were monthly, not nightly, and they did not pay $35.00/night but instead $13.00/night with free cable tv. I am sorry this is so lengthy, but not sure how else to let you know exactly what went on. We are not by any means perfect, but I don't think we were as bad as they made us out to be.

For example; everytime we used a credit card, about their transaction costs and even charged us extra on the checkout for their costs of KOA forced transaction fees (so we were told). We never charged them extra to use their DEBIT card, what we charged extra for was their electric charges. We are set up so that electric charges are made payable to San Isabel Electric. They did not have a check or the cash to pay their bill, so they wanted to put it on their credit card. I explained to him that we only charge the exact amount of electric they use each month. For us to put this charge, which was over $150, on a debit card would cost us about $5.00 to pay his bill for him. He agreed he would pay the fee. We also do not accept credit or debit cards for monthly rent as this costs us about $15.00, so we ask our monthly people to pay by check or cash. He must have felt I was complaining when this was explained to him.

Ownership complained about dirt getting tracked into their showers even though there were no mats to wipe feet on and their area was covered in melting snow and mud. (these were added after someone almost fell on the slick tile inside the door) First of all, there is a mat as you enter the restrooms where one can clean their feet. These people were building a house in an undeveloped area and had horses there they needed to tend to each day. Every night they would come in covered with mud. The wife indicated to me one day that when they stepped out of their truck, they would sink to their ankles, that's how muddy it was at their place. When they would come in, they would not even try to wipe the mud off by stepping in the snow or taking their shoes off before coming inside. They even had mud on the tops of their shoes which would fall off onto the floor as they walked. They always returned each night about the time we were closing. Everything was cleaned up and ready to go for the next eay. Every other night, they would need to do laundry. We always allowed them to be in the laundry after hours. After they would leave, we would have to later return to the office to clean the mud off the floors and the dirt and horsehair out of the washers and dryers so that it would be ready for whoever needed it the next morning. We would also check the restrooms as they would go in there to shower, and they too always needed re-cleaning. The mat I put in the restrooms was not because someone almost fell but because I felt the floor was slick when anyone entered with wet shoes and was trying to avoid someone falling. We had 5' of snow here, which naturally caused a lot of water and eventually mud. Theses people were the only ones who seemed to complain, everyone else realized that this was beyond our control (mother nature has the upper hand) and there was nothing more we could do to make things better. We kept people plowed out of the snow as best we could, but there was not much we could do about the mud.

Ownership tried to overcharge us on propane fill up by .59 cents per gallon and then complained when they got called on it (yep they had to pay those transaction fees again). After these people left here and moved out to their property, they came back the next day for propane. I naturally charged them the regular rate as they were no longer staying here at the park. She charged the amount, with no additional charges for using their debit card, and he came back in to complain. .59 cents is our regular rate--we discount our propane to our monthly renters. I explained this to him, and he argued that they still had one day left on their rent when they left so they should still get the rate even though they were not here. (The extra day's rate of $13.00 was just enough to pay for the electric they used that night after we read their meter, but we said nothing to them.) I agreed to give them the propane this one more time at the reduced rate, but I did not charge them any fee to use their credit card as, unlike the electricity, this was a regular transaction not us paying their bills for them.

Cable picture and electricity amperage were of poor quality (and water for some campers was improperly buried above freeze line causing many folks to have to move spaces). They are the only ones who complained about the cable. Problem was the snow had accumulated on their cord and he had not cleaned it off, so it broke the cable line causing it to not work properly. The people who are now occupying that same site have had no problems whateversoever. Our water lines were put in when the place was built about 30 years ago. We did not put in any lines above the freeze line. We have had a very cold winter here and even our heat tapes were not keeping up with some sites that were not occupied on a regular basis. These people were not in one of those sites, but always had water as this section was full and there was a constant pull on the water keeping the lines moving. We have been here for 11 years, and this is the first time we have had a water freeze up in our overnight section, and never have we had one in the section he was living in, so I'm sure why he is complaining about this. His trailer was not the type made to camp in the cold weather we were having. His trailer, not our water, froze up several times, and my husband always provided him what he needed to take care of his problem. Electric amperage was being maxed out because he was attempting to keep his trailer warm with electric heaters plus whatever he was running in his trailer on a normal basis. This was a 30/50 amp site, but he only had a 30 amp plug on his trailer which was causing him to max out the 30 amps he was using. An average trailer uses less than $3.00/day electric, he was using $5.60/day!

Laundry was the most expensive average per load of any KOA we have been to yet at almost $4 a load washed and dried. Our laundry prices are $1.25 to wash and 25 cents/8 minutes to dry. If you need an additional 8 mintues, you can add only one more quarter versus the full amount most places are now charging. (most campground, as was indicated at one of our last meetings, have now gone up $1.50-$1.75 to wash and $1.00 to dry for 20 minutes. If you need an additional few minutes, it still costs $1.00.) AND, we didn't charge them a clean-up the area and washers fee!!!

Well, there is the story. Hope you are not sleeping by now from boredom. I do appreciate that you care enough to point this out to us."


I tried to correct this malicious attack on the RV Park Reviews listing but, apparently, the Webmaster does not allow this, so I am making these comments in the discussion section.

I don't know how we can stop this from happening other than trying to correct it each time we see such a review, but I would be most interested in hearing suggestions from others.
Big Ben
I'm not sure that there is a way to stop this. In this case you where familar with the park. Imagine how often this happens when there is no one to defend the park. An isolated post will not stop me from staying at a park.
Jerry S
After reading Beastmaster's post I just had to read the review he called malicious. Then I had to read the post again and the review again. I immediately thought of some of the comments in the "Review Comments" string extolling the virtues of letting reviewers express their opinions and let us know what their experience was at a park. To me, that seemed to be what the reviewer was doing. Maybe the reviewer was an unreasonable customer, maybe there was a lot of miscommunication, maybe they exagerated some of the problems, or maybe he(she) was a jerk. The reviewer was giving an opinion and relating their experience. I hardly found the review to be malicious. I have seen a lot more scathing comments in many reviews. The reviewer gave the park a 6 and said it was OK for a night.

I took more than a little heat in the "Review Comments' string for suggesting that some reviewers use some strange criteria for rating a park low (bad weather) or high (free coffee). Now you want to ban negative reviews for parks you like.

Jerry S.
Cheryl Fuller
Beastdriver - thanks for calling this to our attention. Hopefully, people reading the reviews of this park would question why, in this reviewers opinion, the management is less than acceptable but the majority of the other reviews mention the helpfulness and quality of that same management. Just goes to show that we need to expound on the good qualities we find in a park so others can weigh all the reviews, and weed out what may be sour grapes. I will be more mindful to entail the good points of establishments in my review comments from this point forward.

For those of you who don't know my credentials, seven years camping in tents, 25+years camping in travel trailers and fifth wheelers, and 11+years camping in a motorhome, all 50 states, nineteen countries, and four continents (I am about to choke over my tongue chuckling as I write this--like years count for something in smelling a rat or justifying a post.) Since my original post, I have heard from several work campers at this campground regarding this poster, and have again heard from the management. Everybody went out of their way to help this miserable soul, and, in the end he screwed them all. If you don't see that as being malicious, then all "your years" camping, my friend, are for naught. The webmaster does indeed ask us to rate our experience, and be candid and honest. This guy was neither, and it doesn't take a mental giant to figure that out. And, Cheryl, thank you for your comments--as usual, right on target.
Wow, Beastdriver. You've been camping for longer than I have been alive. Don't mean to make you feel old or anything. I hope that some day I have the experience that you currently have. I have to agree with you that this person does sound like he was malicious when you look at all of the evidence you have put together. However, I would have a hard time finding a reason to remove his review from this site. This is not because I don't think he was being a jerk or being malicious, but he did stay at this park and he wrote a review based on his opinion of his experience. There are several reviews on this site where the reviewer has trashed a campground. Whether they were being truthful or malicious is up for the reader to determine for themselves. Removing this review could set a bad precedent. Could other bad reviews be removed because someone thought the reviewer was being malicious when they were actually being truthful and honest. The best place to dispute these reviews will be in the forum or in subsequent reviews by people who have stayed there after this incident. In the long run reviews like this will be shown for what they actually are, especially when a campground has several good reviews and one review from the so called "jerk". Looking at the reviews for this campground (even before looking at all of your evidence) I would not have given much weight to that review, especially when he is complaining about water freezing in winter. After looking at your evidence I would give no weight to that review. It is just something that the reader is going to have to decide when they read reviews. I also think that all the evidence you have brought about this review to the forum was the best thing you could have done and I would like to thank you for your effort.
Jerry S

I again re-read the review , my response, and checked the definition of malice (malicious is "having the nature of malice") - "1. The desire to harm others, or to see other suffer; ill will; spite." Definition 2 gets into the legal definition.

The review: The reviewer basically states that he had problems (whether real, imagined,or of his own doing) with some of the facilities and the staff. No name calling , no "worst place ever", no "never recommend or stay again". Was he trying to hurt the reputation of the park - probably - but so do almost every reviewer who gives a 1 or a 2 and writes a much more nasty review.

My response: I suggested in my previous post that maybe the reviewer was unreasonable or even a jerk. I was trying to agree that this review was most likely unfair, but we should not deny him the right to post his story (COWolfpack said this much more eloquently).

Definition: Much of the truly negative criticism in this site's reviews is hurtful to the parks reviewed. In most of the 1 and 2 reviews statements like "worst park ever", "incompetent staff", surliest owners", etc. are all hurtful and meant to harm the park's reputation. If you agree that those reviews are malicious, then you are right - the review under discussion was malicious.

By using this interpretation of the word, I could say your were being malicious with comments like "are for naught" and "mental giant". Fortunately I come from the "sticks and stones" school of hurt. Your credentials exceed mine slightly in every category except tenting. That means you are probably older and definitely richer. Was that malicious?

COWorfpack: Thanks again for putting much of my position in a, hopefully, much more palatable way.

Until I come up with something new to tick off the little club that rules this site. Am I being malicious, argumentative, or a jerk? Should I be banned?

Jerry S.
Hello All: :-)

Just wanted to add my two cents worth here, as my wife and I have been living at the Colorado
City KOA for about .......since May of 2006.........went back to Oklahoma for three weeks, then
back out here........hmmmmmmmm......then back in December for two more weeks......
then back out here......oh about 7 months or so...."in country" so to speak.

I am aquainted with the family in question, who complained about this park and the way he
and his family were delt with. They seemed like a nice enough family....but they had little
experience with Rving. When they first arrived, it was VERY cold, snow all over the place and
he asked me to help him unhitch his trailer, because I was outside looking at all the snow we
had, (us flatland Okies don't get NEAR this much snow) he had broken the cotter pin on his hitch
and needed an awl or sharp instrument to push out the old one. By the time I got out my tool
box he had already taken care of the problem and unhitched his rig. Then he lowered his
front stabilizer jacks smack down into the soft earth and the rig promptly leaned to the right.
He said he would take care of it later, as he had to get out to the ranch were they were
building a home, since the ground out there was now frozen, they could get in and out.

(Fast forward to warmer weather and the ground out there is now a quagmire of mud)

I followed him into the laundry room one day, where my wife had just finished her laundry up,
and as usual he had just returned from the Hatchet Ranch area where he was building a new
home. His work boots were CAKED with mud, NOT from this park, but as usual from his
super muddy home site. Everyone one of the RVers that I know of here, wiped their feet on
the mats provided outside the entry ways to the restrooms, the laundry room and the front
office. Not this fellow. Nope, he just tracked in the heavy mud, after the workfolks had worked
hard to clean up the laundry. Soooooooo Elana, one of the owners asked him to start wiping
his feet like the rest of us do........his facial expression........well you know how a person can
grin from the "teeth out", but not his eyes. He was not happy at all.......

I cannot speak for everyone else, just my family.......we have NEVER been treated with
anything but courtesy and kindness while we have been here. We chat with other campers
and with the owners as we pick up a lot of info, opinions, and attitudes.

Tim and Elana are the third owners of this 1970's model park, they have turned it from
a overnight park 11 years ago to the destination park it is today. They put in the pool,
the game room, the mini golf course, the kids playground, etc. They have brought this
place up to rank 11th in the nation among the KOA campgrounds. That is in the TOP 2 to 3
percent of KOA camps. They are work-a-holics. When the blizzard hit so hard here, their
camp workers came around, in cold blowing wind, near dusk, and knocked on the door of
as many of the campers they could get to, just to check and see if they had enough propane,
if they needed anything, etc. They did NOT wait for us to go to them, they got out in the middle
of the storm and came to US!! Tim worked constantly to keep the road clear with his snow
plow.........and the man is not that well...........I guess you could say we are biased to some
degree, however, we have observed these owners over the 7+ months we have been here.

There was a mentally ill man here for almost two months, he was from out of state and
living in the tent area in his truck. The owners put him in a cabin, because of the cold,
charged him tent rates, and then, because his truck engine has frozen up, finally helped
him get an apartment in Colorado City that he could afford on his SS check and then
helped him out with donated furniture!!! These folks bend over backwards to help people.....

This mentally ill man would yell and curse, and shout at his imaginary friends and
enemies while he was here. Law enforcement checked him out and said that he was
OK, not a threat..........he even broke out the side window on his truck fighting with an
imaginary enemy.....any other owner would have had him and his broken down truck
hauled out of here in a heart beat!! The owners here took pity on him and did their best
to help him..................campers talk, and they all admired these owners for their kind now you know a little about these folks..........

The fellow that complained, while seemingly nice, had an "attitude" about being asked to
simply showing respect for others hard work. I suppose they finally got their water in, and electric out at their home site, then they left, and THEN they complained??????

We wil not stay here, for probably more than a year or so........once the doctors get
through with us.........who knows............but we could not let this complaint go unanswered
because we are here and we saw what was going on.....

Thanks for the opportunity to have our say on this matter

Cowolfpack: Don't apologize. I AM old. Older than rock and dirt and trees. But I keep on camping, and I am still young enough to recognize unfairness when I see it as was the case with this reviewer.

Jerry: You are right. I was malicious. I tend to be that way when dealing with dumbbutts.

Lou/Ferretman: Of all the comments on this subject, your's was, without doubt, the most convincing that the folks who run this campground are truly good people and run a truly good operation, and should not be put down by jerk like the one who wrote this negative review. Thank you.
Not much more to say, as the subject has been covered. BUT, would like to say, that this person(s), has a right to express his/her opinion/experience, wether one agrees or disagrees, right or wrong, with that opinion/experience. It's called, "freedom of speech". A court of law would have to determine if malice or slander exists.
Hello Beastdriver :-)

Still cannot get these comments to look right after I send it. It is
broke up like rock candy..........anyway....

Every RVer here should thank YOU for calling attention to this mess.

I only gave two of many examples my wife and I are aware of, concerning the
conduct of the owners of this KOA toward the folks who stay here.

This is our first KOA experience, we feel that we have been fortunate to have
stayed at one, where the owners truely care for people, not just in words,
but in action. The extent that they go to to keep people happy, in good
spirits, and safe within the limits of common sense and decency while at
their facility, is not only laudable, but speaks volumes about their personal
values, and their view of people in general.

Yes, this facility is their livlihood, and it is their business, but we can see WHY
it is ranked as high as it is among KOA's. It takes more than swimming pools,
mini golf courses, playgrounds, etc. to gain that type of recognition. It takes
a heartfelt concern for people, their welfare, and a sincerety to make the
RVing and camping experience as pleasurable to the greatest extent possible,
for the people who have chosen this facility to spend their time, and money

My wife and I can almost guarantee you, that if the other monthlys', and even those
whom we got to know who say they return here every year (and have done so for
years), knew of this complaint, that you have brought to the attention of this forum,
they would be just as offended, angry, and indignant as you and we are.

What concerns us, is that folks, like us, place a certain amount of trust in the
opinions and viewpoints of other, far more experienced RVers, in their reviews of
these parks. We trust that these reviews are unbiased, and are honest appraisels of
their experiences, without an "axe to grind". If I had read this one persons review
of this park, before arriving here, it may well have given us at the very least "pause"
to choose to stay here.

We really do not know what the answer is, other than RVer's like you, who have had
previous experiences staying the particular facility in queston, will call attention to unfair reviews, in a forum, because Webmaster will not allow the owners to tell their side
of the story, in the reviews section.

OK, I will shutup now..........get off of soapbox.........but thanks again...

May you have peace,

I would like to just add my 2 cents here for what it's worth. As I agree with Beastdriver that maybe this person's opinion of that place was wrong and maybe they aren't the nicest of people but do we start going after everyone that post's a bad review because we have stayed at that paticular park and don't agree or like what has been said. Just because someone has been doing something for along time doesn't make them right about everything. I haven't been RV'ing as long but I like to think I am pretty good at it as well. I am as honest as I can be when I right a review and I try and use my best judgment when choosing and if I have any real concers contact the place in question. COWolfPack and Butch are right, we cannot become the judge and jury, after all this truly is supposed to be our honest opinion, like it or not.

As alway this is just my opinion,
Big Ben
Unless this site is willing to contact every park that has had a very negative review, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about this.
As I see it the average person is quicker to complain than they are to praise. They can go on a 2 week trip and spend 13 night at good campgrounds and 1 night at a bad one. Guess which one we will hear about.
It would be nice if we lived in a prefect world but then we wouldn't need this site.
I would think that the vast majority that use RV Park Reviews never come on the forum section.
This be true , what the heck can any one do to correct the situation?

Regarding your response to Jerry , Thanks for the laugh! laugh.gif

I haven't been camping anywhere near as long as you, but I have been to 43 of the 50 states. I'm missing Louisiana, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Alaska and of course Hawaii. Kind of hard to get the camper there.
Cheryl Fuller
QUOTE(Jerry S. @ Feb 26 2007, 10:28 PM) *
Until I come up with something new to tick off the little club that rules this site.
Jerry S.

Jerry, I really do not believe there is a "little club" that rules this site. The Webmaster is the only one here who does that. Of course, as with any forum, there are members who are more active than others. There are also members who are very knowledgeable in almost all matters of rv'ing, as they have been doing it for a long time, and so naturally, their opinions are respected, such as Beastdriver, John Blue, Big Ben and Butch. When I receive advice from any of them, I know that it is sound and based on personal experience. I truly hope that you did not mean the above comment to be taken in the manner which it came across, which is that you purposely look for ways to cause distention and "tick off" people. I think that on every forum I am a member of, there is a group of people that others perceive as being a "clique", but in reality, it is just that we have been on the forum longer and have gotten to know each other a little better. Not to belabor the point - but there truly is not a club here.....
Cheryl: I have no idea where Jerry came up with that "little clique that rules this site" crap. If you will look at the statistics provided by this site, as of yesterday, the top five contributors (I suppose the clique) are Cheryl Fuller, John Blue, Beastdriver, Cheryl, and Butch. When you look at the posts per day record for these top five, plus Jerry, you will find the following:

Member Posts Per Day
Cheryl Fuller 0.7
John Blue 0.3
Beastdriver 0.3
Cheryl 0.3
Butch 0.3
JERRY S. 0.8

I, of course, can't speak for the rest of this all-powerful"clique" that Jerry refers to, but, in reviewing the average posts per day, perhaps we should invite him to join since he posts more than anybody else on the site!
Motorhome Madness
Hi Guys, I've been pretty quiet for a wile, and decided to chime in about a few things:

I agree with most of you in that this review shouldn't be removed from the site, that just goes against the spirit of the site.

If you have suggestions on ways to deal with these issues, I'm open for discussion. I just don't want to open the door here to something that becomes unmanageable. As of now, I still read edit and approve every review that gets posted, talk about cross-eyed some days!

I do defer quite a few reviews, and sometimes hate to do so as they are really good reviews, but they violate the rules and I don't have the time to edit them. ( NAMES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN REVIEWS ) Anyway, we've implemented a deffered review feedback system, that will allow me to note why I'm not approving the review from a list of reasons, then the system will send an email back to the reviewer with a link that will allow him to edit and re-submit the review.

Jerry, I run the site. You guys make the site what it is!

Thanks as always for ALL your input, reviews, and opinions!
Big Ben
Mr. Webmaster, I don't always agree with every thing that you decide, but you are always fair. This has gotten totally out of hand. I'm not sure I would call it a club but there are times that some try to intimidate others on here.
It is the nature of what we do that throws people from all walks of life together. A tent camper next to a $300,000 MH. Some more educated than others, not better, just able to express themselves more forcefully.
As I see it it should make any difference weather you stated last week or 20 years ago. I participate on 4 other web sites and find this one to be far and away the most clannish. I well see where Jerry is coming from.
This is by far and away the best review site that I have come across and dose one heck of a lot of good helping a great number of people. Did you every wonder why the forum doesn't have more participation?
I'll give the soap box up now. By the way Jerry called it a club not a Clique.
Mr. or Mrs. (or Ms.) Webmaster:

I think you do one heck of a job. I have reviews that don't get accepted from time to time for one reason or another, and sometimes you do things that I don't necessarily like but, heck, somebody's got to be in charge. I think you have demonstrated an even-handed fairness over the years and, like you said, you run the site. Those who think that a few monopolize it have the easiest solution in the world: Post more comments and reviews. Thank you for all you do!
Good Grief !!!

Okay children, let's play fair ! Clannish, NOT !!! I feel that there are those who are interested in others, as to their general well being, health, travels, experiences, knowledge, etc, and share activities of everyday life, good or bad. As Cheryl Fuller stated, we have all been posting material for some time, and therefore are comfortable with those individuals. Clannish, and or clique, NO, just RVing people who have some things in common. Are you welcome to join in ?? You bet !!! The postings are made, in the open, for all to read.
I will have to admit that as I read through the forum postings that I have not agreed with all opinions. I think that is the great thing about a forum is that you can express your opinion. I have not always agreed with each review either, but again, that is someones opinion. What I do know is that anytime I have had a question about a campground or need some camping advice, the people who are active participants in this forum have always responded quickly with some great information. I do think we should respect each others opinion without making comments about individuals. This forum is a great place for information about a hobby ( in my case ) that we all have a similar interest in.

A thought that might help solve the problem of unfair or malicious reviews. If, in the opinion of the Webmaster, and that person alone, it appeared that a good case had been made, either by an RV Park Review member, or by a campground, that a particular campground has been possibly treated unfairly, as was the case with the KOA in Pueblo, the Webmaster could place a note adjacent to the offending review that said something like "It appears that there is reasonable doubt that this review may be completely accurate, and the reader may wish to give greater weight to other reviews" or, as an alternative, the Webmaster might insert a note in that particular review that invited readers to review the discussion forum, and gave a specific string or address. I think this approach should be used very, very sparingly, and there should be sufficient evidence, in the Webmaster's sole opinion, to warrant such action. I would not imagine seeing such notes more than a few times a year.
So you would like to be able to dispute a review and put up a case for the owners or have them do the same and have the webmaster become the judge and decide if they are telling the truth. I like everyone else have gone and read that review of the park in question. Like it has been stated by others it really was not a terrible review and for the most part everything said was true based on the response of the owner, of course there was an explanition for everything that was complained about. You can read all the other reviews of that park and tell it's probably a very nice place. There is always going to be 2 sides to every story and I believe that the people that use this site are smart enought to figure out sour grapes. I don't think the webmaster has the time to put on a court with all the other duties they have of running a wonderful website.

Again, just my opinion
Big Ben
I'm sorry, so we heard both sides. Who makes the judgment call Beastdriver? Just because some one knows and likes a particular own , that park should get special treatment? I certainly hope not.
If the review was really terrible remove it. It just wasn't that bad.
Jerry S
Dumbbutt here,

At least it gave Cheryl a laugh.

As for Cheryl F: How does "a small number of people (who seem to know each other through this site) make a dispropportionate number of postings to this Forum" sound"? A bit wordy? Let's try "small, familiar group that dominates postings". Is there really that big a difference between those what I wrote. Do I need to be overly literal? Secondly, I used the phrase "tick off" because when I disagreed with Beastmaster he got ticked off and when I used "club" and "rules" others got upset. Beastmaster didn't like my opinion and the rest didn't like the words I chose to state a fact. See below.

Webmaster: I did not say they "run" the site.

Beastmaster: Loved your misleading statistics. Let's look at the big picture. You, the two Cheryls, and Butch (all participants in this string) have about 1200 posts accounting for about 20% of the total postings on this site. Add John Blue and the numbers rise to 1500 and 25% of all postings. I have 40 posts. The only reason my rate is .8 is that I just joined in early January and have been very active poster as a new member. I'm certain that will slow down once the "newness" wears off. 5 memebers (out of thousands) making 25% of the posts is a dominating (ruling) group of posters.

To others upset: I did not use the words "clique" or "clannish". "Me thinks thou doth protest too much." I think that is a Shakespeare quote. Feel free to correct me.

The usual goal in making posts is to make people think and discuss. I think I've achieved that once again. I've even enjoyed the venom. It has strengthened my beliefs about some people.

Thank you to those of you who supported my basic premise that the review should have been allowed to be posted.

Jerry S.
Dominate - The word is derived from the Latin dominus, meaning master or lord, as an owner versus his slave.
Wikipedia, encyclopedia - look it up.
Since anybody can post as often as they wish on this site, I don't see how this applies.

If you look at my join date, you will see it has been (2 weeks short of) 3 years. Counting this post, I have 295. Not very many in 3 years. You, however, have 41 in less than 2 months. Logically, you post way more than me. You also seem to go out of your way to "stir things up". Most of us on here try to be helpful to each other not harmful.

I usually try to stay out of these kinds of "discussions", but you brought me in by basically calling me a bully.
The real "Bully" on this site (or should I say attempted Bully) is Jerry. He appears to be the sort of guy who takes his last stand in quicksand, and who enjoys taking ridiculous and unsupportive positions simply for the sake of angering people. We have a name for people like that but I think my previous characterization will do nicely. If we simply do not respond to people like Jerry, then we win. If we do, then he wins. It's simple as that. Let him rant and rave, but pay no heed to him.
Big Ben
Jerry has a valid point. Beastdriver was the one that started playing the numbers game. Jerry simple pointed out how he got those numbers. Why is there a problem in that? After all this whole thing started with Beast drive trying to defend some one. Jerry was defending himself.
Beastdriver was simply pointing out facts on who posts and how many. Information readily available to anyone that cares to look at it. Jerry was being a bully.

Bully, an individual who tends to torment others, either through verbal harassment, physical assaults, or more subtle methods of coercion. Wikipedia.

Jerry is the one who started with the accusations of clubs and domination. You don't defend yourself by bully others. I merely pointed out that I have a smaller percentage of post per day then he does. Hard to dominate with an average of less than one post every 3 days.
I'm sorry, what was the original discussion here
QUOTE(rodman @ Mar 1 2007, 04:17 PM) *

I'm sorry, what was the original discussion here

I don't know, I joind this forum in order to reply to the original topic, and now, I don't remember what that was, or even if my thought was relevant. tongue.gif

Is this the "average" friendlieness of threads on this forum?
Big Ben
Hi welcome to the forum. Hope you hang around for a while. It is usually nicer that this. Ben

Let me also welcome you to the forum. I assure you that the vast majority of posts on this website are civil, helpful, and useful. Occasionally, there are folks who enjoy stirring things up, but, fortunately, they are few and far in between and, for the most part, are dismissed. Look forward to hearing your thoughts and views in the future.
I sympathize with the original poster but what are you going to do about it ??? You can whine until you are blue in the face but, unfortunately, the anonymity of the review process makes it difficult for us to self-police the abusers. The inherent problem with this website (I would go so far as to say the 'fatal flaw') is that all reviews are 'anonymous'. If we 'knew' who was posting the useless posts (or otherwise trying to sabotage the process) we could easily discount the dubious 'contributions' of these posters. The fatal flaw, here, is that we (generally) can't tell 'which member posted what'. This makes _all_ the posts subject to suspicion -- whether they say nice things or bad things.
Jerry S
I know this has gotten off the original topic, but in a small way it hasn't. Once Beastmaster and I disagreed over our differing understandings of the word malicious, a sort of "semantics" hell broke loose. So many words in our language have multiple meanings, change meaning depending on the context, and are subject to a wide spectrum of interpretation. Once I took exception to the implications of "for naught" and "mental giants" (which Beastmaster admitted were being used maliciously), some people took almost every word I wrote negatively. My comment about " tick" was evidently a poor choice of words that allowed some people to assume the comment was offensive. I have already tried to clarify that comment once.

That attempt at clarification lead to more "semantics" hell. The word "dominate" is in our modern usage is not automatically negative as has been implied:

Michael Jordan and the Bulls dominated the NBA in the'90's.
The saguaro cactus is the dominate plant of southern Arizona.
Democrats dominate Chicago.
Mormons dominate Utah.
Lions are the dominate predator of the Khalahari.
The moon dominates the night-time sky.
McMansions dominate the home building boom.
Evergreens dominate the forrests of Washington state.

While some will not find any of these statements inherently negative or positive, others will assign positive or negative feeling to some of them.

Next, my comment about "think and discuss" is interpreted to mean I want to cause dissension and trouble. I started the "Light My Fire " string which got people thinking about the consequences of fires and led to some interesting discussions. I also believe my postings in the "Review Comments" string added some good points. Those two strings contain more than half (21) my postings prior to the start of this string. Most of my other postings have been rather inert chat, simple questions, and hopefully positve advice (Big Bend and Campground Map strings). The only comments I regret are in the "Thugs" string. Once Cheryl F. explained the situation, I apologized immediately.

In closing, I'll just close.

Jerry S.
Good. smile.gif
If you are going to police the bad reviews are you also going to police the good reviews that are far too glowing? What's to keep someone who is a buddy with a campground owner from writing an over the top positive review even tho the campground is a dump and the management are duds?
Big Ben
It may not be perfect but it has help a lot of folks enjoy there RVs. It would be a shame to start tampering with it now.
The decisions should lay in the hands of the Webmaster and he alone.
Beastdriver, I think you did the right thing with bringing this information to our attention.

Not too long ago, I saw what was a horrible review about a campground and I contacted the owners about the review and they sent me an e-mail about it not being true, that this person was disgruntled and very hard to please...I posted that information in the forum here.

I think that's the best we as members of this forum can do when we see such things occurring...submit a rebuttal here and attach any and all information that the owners of the campground have to say about such.

It would be nice to have such rebuttals "attached" to said reviews, so when one looks at the review they can also see the rebuttals, if any...but that's just an idea and perhaps something the Webmaster can take into consideration.
It would be nice to have such rebuttals "attached" to said reviews, so when one looks at the review they can also see the rebuttals, if any...but that's just an idea and perhaps something the Webmaster can take into consideration.

That's a good idea. Wonder if it is possible without giving the webmaster a lot of extra work to do? Of course to be fair, the original reviewer should be able to rebut the rebuttal.
not getting into the personalities of the people involved. -There are miserable and cheap people everywhere. My question concerns debit card charges. This doesnt seem right. I have used my debit card all over the country for all kinds of things and never had a big charge added to the bill for using it. I recognize that there is generaly a 3-5% charge by the bank to the merchant but most consicer this the price of doing business. We had a retail business for many years and i have never heard of such big fees. Also have used several credit cards for campground fees with no problem.
Talking about, soooo wrong.

We had a incident some time ago as to the additional fee charged for use of credit/debit card when paying for our campground fee at the Lake Placid, New York KOA. We complained to the owner, and we must not have been alone in our complaint, and the charge was not used again, at least not to us.

NOTE: Gasoline has jumped 27 plus cents per gallon in the last ten days. Go's up nickels and dimes of increase, and drops pennies, when that does happen. Can't wait to hear their lame brain reason for the increase--what a joke, but it's not funny !!! 3\03\07 gas was $ 2.679.
Butch: I know what you mean about gasoline and diesel prices. At the first sign of warm weather, they jumped about ten to fifteen cents a gallon here in Florida. Another example of the Best Congress Money Can Buy. And, every night, I'm sitting here watching tv commercials on what good friends to American the Venezuelans are, giving us reduced price oil and helping out our people, etc. etc.

On the original subject of this site, doesn't anybody find it unusual that the person who posted the originial very critical post on the KOA in Puebo (which has resulted in almost 1,000 viewings of this discussion site), has yet to come forward and try to defend his or her position? He or she has not once said "Yes, I posted this comment and I stand behind it" or "Yes, I guess I overreacted a bit." I have no way of knowing for sure, but I suspect this person joined this site, made one post (a torpedo), and shall never be heard from again. This is Soooooooooooo wrong.
We try and get out once a month or every couple of month's depending on work and i have reviewed the places I have gone to and so far haven't been to anyplace really bad yet, in most part thanks to this site. But I'll tell you, I sure hope if I ever do post a bad review of a park you don't think I'm going to come back and defend myself or my review, I shouldn't have to. I try to be honest weather you like it or not.

Again just my opinion,
This has been an interesting thread. On one hand, you have an unhappy, vindictive, venomous individual who is out to character assassinate, ruin a business, and do all in their power to destroy a families livelihood. They had a bad experience therefore, (in their opinion) all things about the campground and people are evil. On the other hand, you have an owner or manager that posts a favorable review about their own camp. Although both of the above are wrong, I have a hard time considering them equal. Nobody should post a review about their own business. If you do things right, the reviews should speak for themselves. However, if a harsh review filled with nothing but lies or half-truths is posted I understand the need to respond.
Is there a way to read other reviews posted by the same reviewer? If you read a bad review, and could check the "attitudes" of the poster's other reviews, that might help authenticate the review.

For instance, if I read a really "bad sounding" review, and I see that that poster always leaves really "bad" reviews, then I know that that review may not be reliable (or the poor guy has terrible luck! tongue.gif ). However, if I read a really bad sounding review, and look and see that the poster's other reviews seem fair, then I would know that this review is probably accurate. happy.gif

I do like the fact that the reviews are anonymous, however. I don't want to be flamed for having a bad expirence at someone else's favorite park... mad.gif

Cheryl Fuller
As for the rise in gas prices, ours has gone up about 40 cents a gallon in the past 2 weeks. We went for a fill-up at the Conoco Breakplace last night, and I went in to get a Diet Dr. Pepper and was telling the clerk how sad it is that we are being gouged when the oil companies are making record profits. He said that the oil companies are getting out of the retail business and that they have actually been sold to Circle K and will be changing their signs as soon as the new ones come in. He acted like that explained everything. Doesn't explain to me why we are paying an exhorbant price per gallon and the oil companies are lining their pockets. Of course, it would help us out if the government would do away with the 46 cents per gallon tax that we pay here...
Hi Cheryl,

I guess you folks would not like Canadian fuel prices. Currently the tax on a US gallon of diesel in US funds is about $1.07 per gallon and the retail price where I live is $3.02 (US dollars). The price in Minot is about 0.50 cents cheaper per gallon.

I hope everyone is aware of At least we can search for the lowest price in an area. I wish there were a similar web page for propane.

QUOTE(Cheryl Fuller @ Mar 5 2007, 02:12 PM) *

As for the rise in gas prices, ours has gone up about 40 cents a gallon in the past 2 weeks.
Doesn't explain to me why we are paying an exhorbant price per gallon and the oil companies are lining their pockets. Of course, it would help us out if the government would do away with the 46 cents per gallon tax that we pay here...
Big Ben
QUOTE(denbroncs @ Mar 5 2007, 09:14 AM) *

This has been an interesting thread. On one hand, you have an unhappy, vindictive, venomous individual who is out to character assassinate, ruin a business, and do all in their power to destroy a families livelihood. They had a bad experience therefore, (in their opinion) all things about the campground and people are evil. On the other hand, you have an owner or manager that posts a favorable review about their own camp. Although both of the above are wrong, I have a hard time considering them equal. Nobody should post a review about their own business. If you do things right, the reviews should speak for themselves. However, if a harsh review filled with nothing but lies or half-truths is posted I understand the need to respond.

The reviewer gave the campground a 6. There are a lot of reviews far worst . That is hardly venomous. May be they real felt that they had trouble and were trying to do us all a favor by posting it the way they did. This has been blown totally out of proportion.
Out of the 5 other reviews two were 7s. Should we track them down also? How about the person that gave them a 10. The 6 is more in line with the other reviewer than the 10. Was the 10 reviewer being honest? Who put the 10 score on there?We need to track them down too.
There is more than one way of looking at it.

As has often been stated, the pen is mightier than the sword. Let us say the person gave the campground a "10" but, in his or her review, said it had unlevel sites, poor management, problems with electricity, a dirty swimming pool, and untrimmed branches. Which would you go by in considering this site--the 10 or the narrative? Many, many folks, on this site have said repeatedly that they pay more attention to what is written as versus the numerical ranking, and I think that is true. In the review in question, irregardless of the numerical score, the reviewer trashed these people in a malicious and misleading fashion.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.