Jan 14 2008, 02:18 PM
What's everyone's guideline for how often you review a park?
Do you review a park every time you stay or only if there is something new to report?
I see the benefits of each. One the one hand, assuming nothing changes between visits, what's to report? On the other hand, are you being fair to the CG if you don't give the review? If a CG gives consistantly good service why not reward them with a good review every time?
Does time play a factor? Does it make a difference if it's been a year since the last review or if it were 3 months?
Jan 14 2008, 02:49 PM
I always review a park again when I stay there again. It gives a more recent evaluation. Some times parks are a bit worse--other times a bit better. I also might mention new things I've found about a location.
Jan 14 2008, 03:08 PM
I wondered about that myself, whether the webmaster "allowed" us to do that. I can't find a rule on here saying we can't.
I haven't done it yet, but if I do, I will preface my review with a "this is an updated review."
Jan 14 2008, 05:40 PM
I know I have read somewhere that you cannot post a review for the same campground within a certain time period. I think it is a month or two, but I can't remember for sure, and now I can't find where I read it. It may have been in a post because I cannot find it in the "rules." Wherever it was I think it said the reason for this is to keep one person from "flooding" the reviews with either praise or blame. Course that was before you could click to see other reviews by a particular person. Now we can easily see if someone is stacking up the reviews for a campground.
If a CG has lots of recent reviews that I agree with I might add a short one stating that I agree, or I may not post one at all. If there is something I don't agree with I always post a new review. If I went to the same CG frequently I would probably not post every time unless something had changed. We very rarely visit the same place twice in one year so I haven't really had to think about it. Also I like JJ's idea of stating that it is an update.
I may have just remembered where I saw the time period limit. One time I made a mistake on a review I wrote. I tried to write a second review to correct the first one, but when I tried to post the second one a message came up saying I had to wait 1 or 2 months (or whatever time) before I cold post another review for that CG. Now this was a long time ago so I'm not sure about this, but I think I'm correct.
Jan 14 2008, 09:25 PM
Basically, I take the "only if it matters" attitude mentioned in other replies. If you are interested, I have a much lengthier explanation of my thoughts on this subject in the "Review Comments" thread (last post as of now was 12/23/07). My posts are #s 57 and 59 on page 4.
As Texasrvrs has indicated, the only restriction on second (or more) reviews is that you have to wait XX number of days before you can review a park again. As Tex noted, if you try to review a park you reviewed less than XX days ago, warning comes up on the screen saying that you have to wait XX days before reviewing the park again. I did so many reviews early last year when I first joined this forum that I would occassionaly lose track and try to submit a second review. I remember the restriction being 60 or 90 days before you could submit another review. I suppose the reason for this is that somebody could post numerous reviews(good or bad) for a single visit to a park. I have three usual travel periods: May, July/Aug, and Oct. I normally don't review a park until after the trip unless I am sure I won't be revisiting that park on that trip. That way, if I stay at the same park at the beginning and end of a trip, I do one review at the end of the trip so that I don't have do one review for the first stay and then wait a month or two to write the review for the second stay.
Sort of on this topic, I recently read a review of Ft. Wilderness at Disney World that had an unusually low rating - I think it was a 5. This reviewer said that they had stayed at the park earlier in 2007 and gave the park a high rating (a 10 I think) and were disappointed on their recent visit. Now there are a lot of reasons people can do a turnaround on a park, but I thought their was rather interesting. On their second visit they now had a dog. They were now limited to the "pet" loop and were restricted as to where they could go in the park if they had the dog with them. They could no longer take long walks or bike rides with the kids around the campground because they now have a dog. Another example of how a camper travels (big/small RV, with/without kids, pets/no pets, etc.) can effect how thay rate a park.
Jan 14 2008, 09:31 PM
I just read that review of FT. Wilderness too. I can understand reviewing again to share something like that. It's true, many outside factors affect how you review a park. I've been to a couple that had good reviews and for the life of me I can't understand how that's possible...LOL.
I would probably not review more than once or twice a year, to keep it current, unless something significant occured.
Jan 15 2008, 07:49 AM
As others have stated, we advise that the review is an update, and proceed from that point. We surely appreciate any updates, especially if we were in the process of making our plans that may include that establishment. All pertinent information helps one make an informed decision.
Jan 15 2008, 01:39 PM
I have review several parks a second or third time depending on circumstances. I think you should review a park again if something has changed in that park. A couple of the parks that I usually rate highly would not have that rating right now because they are parks on a lake in which the lake is the main attraction. When lake is down 22 feet, it changes the amnities of the park and might possibly change the camping experience. I have reviewed a park a 2nd time on a couple of occasions because I forgot I reviewed it the previous year. With the new format only showing the most recent reviews, you should review a park if your review is different to give a different point of view. Again, this is all my opinion.
Jan 15 2008, 10:16 PM
I try to review a place each time I use it. The way some of us travel back and forth, the 90 day waiting period is too long I think. Since my last review on a park in November, we just went back the opposite direction, and there has been a significant change. Perhaps the moderator could comment?
Jan 20 2008, 09:34 PM
If one submitted an original campground review that considered various rigs- and left out the personal opinions -then another review isnít necessary unless there is a measurable difference between reviews.
Jan 21 2008, 12:00 AM
I usually only do subsequent reviews on campgrounds if there's actually something that differs from my original review.
There's a particular campground I go to at least 5 to 10 times in a season and it would get rather monotonous to keep submitting a review for the same campground and including the same things 5 to 10 times.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here