Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Review??
RV Park Reviews Campground Discussion Forum > RV Park and Campground Discussions > RV Park Discussions
gilda
deleted

Texasrvers
There was a discussion a while back about whether or not people actually had to stay at a park before they could submit a review. (I can't find the thread now.) I don't think anything official was ever decided, but if I recall correctly many people thought it was OK to post a review if you had not stayed there IF you clearly stated that you did not stay. I remember one point of view was if a place looked so bad or if the staff was so unfriendly that you wouldn't stay there, then others should be warned. Now the review you refer to sounds like someone never got past the entry gate and wrote a review. That sounds a little unfair if they never even saw the place, but a lot would depend on exactly what they said.

I can't tell from your post if the problem with the staff was at the same place. Again there has been lots of discussion here about unfair reviews. Just remember if a place is really good, one disgruntled reviewer will not hurt it. If, on the other hand, several people mention an unfriendly staff (or any other problem), then the comments have merit.

You sound like you are familiar with the place that got the bad review and that you don't agree. I think your best course of action is to follow your own good advice and use this forum to give your opinion about the park. Course if you stay there (or at least get past the gate) you could write your own review and present the park as you see it.
gilda
deleted

Texasrvers
I think the most significant statement is "I can't rate this campground." The whole purpose of this site is to review/rate campgrounds. Even if someone just drives through a place they can at least give it a rating based on what they saw. This person admits they can't give it a rating and that doesn't seem right.

We can't even be sure why the "gate keepers" were rude. Possibly the reviewer got mad first because he couldn't go in. Maybe it was a membership park in which case their obligation is to protect the property and privacy of their clients. They do not want "sightseers" driving through or there wouldn't be a gate. We were refused entrance at a gated membership park one time, but they quickly offered to have a sales person take us around. We declined, and there were no hard feelings either way. In all honesty we weren't interested in a lot. We just wanted to see the park and that probably wasn't fair to the paying members. Anyway I hope we don't get a lot of reviews like this.
gwbischoff
I agree. It would be a completely valid review up until the "We would never, ever, ever, stay at such a snotty and rude place..." part. If they don't allow Lookey Lou's, we should be aware of that. It's unfortunate for them that they had to be the guinea pig to find that out. But sometimes no means no, even if you ask nicely.

Go drive through Bel Air and see how many gates you get past.
wprigge
As far as I can see, the park in question is Hunting Island State Park in SC. I know this park, have been there twice. It's a beautiful park, but the roads are a bit narrow in places. It's not very big, so one could easily park the car at the entrance and walk about to get an idea about it, and there is nothing wrong with a little walk... The people staffing the welcome booth are volunteers, most of them awfully nice and cheerful. Maybe they don't want to have people driving through the park all day long just to check it out, and in most state parks you need to pay just to get in. Or maybe they have seen many people telling them "Oh, we just want to check it out" and then go to the beach without paying the daily entrance fee for the day use area. Actually from the welcome station one can see a good part of the camping area near the beach.
Texasrvers
wprigge,

What you have said about having to pay at state parks just to get in is true. Most do have a day use fee. However, it seems a little unreasonable to charge that fee if you just want to drive through; however, you are so right about some people trying to beat the system by staying all day. The park may have been burned many times in the past so now they are strict. Now that I know the name of the park I looked at the reviewer's other reviews and they seem reasonable so I guess this incident just got really hit them wrong. Guess we've all had that happen. The rest of the park's reviews are 8-10's so I doubt this one will have much effect. Readers will understand it for what it is.
HappiestCamper
I've stayed there also and think this review is strange (and if you read their other reviews, their ratings aren't consistent). Since a lot of their reviews keep mentioning that they have a 40' motor home, that is probably why they weren't allowed to just drive through (the roads are narrow). If they had been in a car, they probably would've been fine (I've done that before at a SC state park).
RetiredFA
QUOTE(gwbischoff @ Nov 6 2008, 04:14 PM) *

I agree. It would be a completely valid review up until the "We would never, ever, ever, stay at such a snotty and rude place..." part. If they don't allow Lookey Lou's, we should be aware of that. It's unfortunate for them that they had to be the guinea pig to find that out. But sometimes no means no, even if you ask nicely.

Go drive through Bel Air and see how many gates you get past.


LOOKEY LOU??????? I once heard a park ranger use that phrase, and I thought the park ranger made it up!!! laugh.gif laugh.gif I didn't know it was a commonly used term! ohmy.gif

JJ
westernrvparkowner
At my park, we do not allow people to drive through. We will be glad to take them around on a golf cart, but for security reasons we do not allow people who are not staying with us to drive around unescorted. We have not had problems with theft or vandalism etc, but we feel our paying guests are better served by keeping traffic to a minimum and security to a maximum. Also, some of our sites may be unoccupied when the people are viewing the park, but are reserved for a later arrival and unavailable. We go with prospective guests to point out what sites are available, to prevent confusion if they choose to stay with us. We also require visitors to register at the office for security reasons and to make sure they are directed to available parking areas and do not encroach on other guest's sites. My park has had a couple of reviews that marked down the park for these reasons. It is my opinion that if a person doesn't want to have a staff member with them when they are on the premises or are upset that we try to keep tabs on who is on the property they probably have something to hide. Please let me know if I am way off base. I don't think a person should review a park they have never visited and think it is a shame that these reviews have to be sifted through to get a clear idea of what a park's rating really is.
Texasrvers
westernrvparkowner,

I do not think you are out of line. As it should be your procedures protect your paying customers. There are places that allow you to drive through without an escort, but almost all parks require you to at least stop in at the office first. I'm sure this cuts down on theft, vandalism, etc. While most people are honest and wouldn't be a problem, there are those that need to be watched constantly, and how do you tell the difference between the two just by looking at them?

Here's another thought about posting reviews when you haven't stayed there: I would hope that every review is based on staying overnight. However, I would not stay at a bad place just so I could write a review. But at the same time I think a review should be written so that I could get the word out to others. Assuming I am honest, my review might help others avoid a bad situation. Also it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that anyone can write a review whether they have actually stayed at a place or not. We just have to trust that the majority of reviewers are honest and stay overnight or at the very least get a really good look at the park and acknowledge that they didn't stay. If anyone can figure out a way to find out if the reviewer really did stay at a place, I'm sure the administrators of this site would like to know.
RetiredFA
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Nov 7 2008, 12:42 AM) *

westernrvparkowner,

If anyone can figure out a way to find out if the reviewer really did stay at a place, I'm sure the administrators of this site would like to know.


Put a "did you stay, yes, no" thingie to click on, but people could still lie about this.....

JJ
gwbischoff
QUOTE(DXSMac @ Nov 6 2008, 10:50 PM) *

LOOKEY LOU??????? I once heard a park ranger use that phrase, and I thought the park ranger made it up!!! laugh.gif laugh.gif I didn't know it was a commonly used term! ohmy.gif

JJ


I'm in Real Estate.

I'm very well acquainted with Lookey Lou's.... biggrin.gif
Lindsay Richards
In the other thread about a year ago, I believe I started it and it was about a park in the New Orleans area, that was in the “books”. We had a phone call hold about 30 minutes before arrival and when we got there it was it a very bad area with a barbed wire topped fence around it and junk trailers all around. Lots of rough looking characters roaming around also. No way was my wife going to come driving back there in the dark. I wrote up a review explaining my concerns so others would know before reserving. I stated we hadn’t stayed there and why and what other alternatives we had found. This area is in a huge change getting back together after the hurricane. I think it was a perfectly acceptable practice, but others said you shouldn’t review if you didn’t spend the night. When I see a dog scratching a lot, I don’t need to get too near to know he had fleas. In doing such a review, I think it should be spelled out right away you didn’t stay.
westernrvparkowner
QUOTE(Lindsay Richards @ Nov 7 2008, 07:31 PM) *

In the other thread about a year ago, I believe I started it and it was about a park in the New Orleans area, that was in the “books”. We had a phone call hold about 30 minutes before arrival and when we got there it was it a very bad area with a barbed wire topped fence around it and junk trailers all around. Lots of rough looking characters roaming around also. No way was my wife going to come driving back there in the dark. I wrote up a review explaining my concerns so others would know before reserving. I stated we hadn’t stayed there and why and what other alternatives we had found. This area is in a huge change getting back together after the hurricane. I think it was a perfectly acceptable practice, but others said you shouldn’t review if you didn’t spend the night. When I see a dog scratching a lot, I don’t need to get too near to know he had fleas. In doing such a review, I think it should be spelled out right away you didn’t stay.

I think that is a reasonable review. You are able to give valuable information to others based on actual observations. You do have a basis on which to post a review. I have a problem with reviews that give a park the lowest rating possible and the people never laid eyes on the park. They had a problem with reservation policies (deposits etc) and chose not to stay, or the park was full and could not accomodate their stay or they refused to be escorted around the park by an employee and then threw a hissy fit because they couldn't do what they wanted, rules be damned. The reviewer usually goes on and on about how they have never been so rudely treated and how evil the park is. The review usually also includes a personal note on how their word is their bond and they never have given a credit credit number as a deposit. How there were lots of unoccupied sites (never considering they may be reserved for later arriving guests) or how they were offended that they would be considered a security risk since they are obviously don't look like criminals. (I guess that means that criminals go around with those police numbers hanging from their necks like in the mug shots. I never knew) These are the reviews I find unfair to both the park and RVers looking for guidance. Maybe a good solution would be to assign a score of "0" to a park that the reviewer never visited, but had information on. This would allow a person reviewing the ratings ( I usually look at the rating string to get an idea which park I want to investigate further and a "0" would be a rating I could ignore regarding the actual park but could investigate if I was concerned about a policy etc.) Just a thought.
Lindsay Richards
QUOTE
I have a problem with reviews that give a park the lowest rating possible and the people never laid eyes on the park. They had a problem with reservation policies (deposits etc


Yes, most of usual realize that there are a few nits out there and the internet gives them a voice. I usually read many reviews and throw out the outlying ones on both sides. In my old lodging business we had a problem with other owners posting glowing reviews about their own places and bad reviews about their competitors. This is just part of the world we now live it. I had a guy who I though was a honest competitor write a bad review about another friend and he was stupid enough to not change his email address and got caught. We stopped giving hi referrals which really hurt. If you get many goods and one bad, i figure it is to be ignored.
RLM
QUOTE(westernrvparkowner @ Nov 6 2008, 11:42 PM) *

Please let me know if I am way off base. I don't think a person should review a park they have never visited and think it is a shame that these reviews have to be sifted through to get a clear idea of what a park's rating really is.


In a circumstance where the review would be positive and no one else has submitted one, then it might be appropriate to post a review even tho the poster did not stay there. I personally would prefer some input rather than making an educated guess where no reviews exists.

But that's really not the reason I chose to reply to your post. I agree and appreciate your stance that requires drive thrus to be escorted. I'd much rather have the convenience of being driven thru your CG than unhook my towed to do so myself. Your system would allow me to ask questions while being driven around. The golf cart driver's attitude would provide me with an idea of how I might be treated by the rest of your staff. And just for your information, I have never been impressed with CG golf cart drivers. They generally tend to have an inflated opinon of their value and reflect very negatively on a park.

From your two posts, it appears that you have some issues to vent. Most of those make sense. But please do not paint every reviewer with the same negative brush unless you wish that we do the same for all camp ground owners.

I'd respectfully suggest that most of us who use this forum know the difference between BS and legitimate review info.









westernrvparkowner
QUOTE(RLM @ Nov 8 2008, 12:20 AM) *

In a circumstance where the review would be positive and no one else has submitted one, then it might be appropriate to post a review even tho the poster did not stay there. I personally would prefer some input rather than making an educated guess where no reviews exists.

But that's really not the reason I chose to reply to your post. I agree and appreciate your stance that requires drive thrus to be escorted. I'd much rather have the convenience of being driven thru your CG than unhook my towed to do so myself. Your system would allow me to ask questions while being driven around. The golf cart driver's attitude would provide me with an idea of how I might be treated by the rest of your staff. And just for your information, I have never been impressed with CG golf cart drivers. They generally tend to have an inflated opinon of their value and reflect very negatively on a park.

From your two posts, it appears that you have some issues to vent. Most of those make sense. But please do not paint every reviewer with the same negative brush unless you wish that we do the same for all camp ground owners.

I'd respectfully suggest that most of us who use this forum know the difference between BS and legitimate review info.

My imput was only intended to comment on the question raised at the beginning of this thread regarding posts on campgrounds where the reviewer never stayed at the park. The thread went on to cite an incident where a negative review was posted because the camper could not drive through a campground. I merely wanted to voice my opinion and offer a possible explanation. I am sorry that you feel that any campground employee on a golf cart has ego problems. Are you suggesting campgrounds not use golf carts, or, perhaps, not use employees who have a sense of self worth? And you talk about not painting with a broad negative brush.
gilda
deleted

Jerry S
I read 2 recent reviews for 2 different parks in western Pennsylvania that probably fit this topic. Both reviews (If they are not still on the current listing, check the PA listings.) were by the same person and were "1"s. The main problems seemed to be about the reviewer not getting what they wanted and not getting along with the park personnel with whom he or she was dealing. To me it was unclear as to what the reviewer wanted: a spot for his RV or to stay at the park, a great price, or something else. It seems to be clear that the reviewer did not stay (or park his RV) in either park. The rating was based on them not getting whatever it was they wanted/required/needed/demanded.

A couple additional notes: This was for "off season" camping in the winter and the reviewer has only one other review on this site - a summer stay in a state park cabin.
gilda
deleted

pianotuna
HI All,

I get disturbed by those 1 or 2 ratings. The last one that I thought unfair was because the park had a policy of no large dogs. I did not choose to own a pet as an adult (wife has allergies) but rating a park as a 1 because they don't allow animals past a certain size is, to my mind, unfair.

Yet the review was submitted. I'm sure if leaves the folks running the site in a quandary as to whether to allow such a review or not. It provides information--but the 1 *slams* the park to say the least.

Seasons Greetings to all
FosterImposters
cool.gif
Actually get a kick out of reading the 1, 2, 3-rated reviews when the rest are in the 7, 8, 9 range. The disgruntled reviewer usually articulates the problem...giving great insights. Generally it's office/reservation related. However dog provisions and rules enforcement play into this as well. Absolutely LOVE the ability to read the string of past reviewes to sort chaff from those grains of true warning about a park!
My beloved Rottie passed away years before I found this site...in those days we were mostly boondocking and national park camping. Big dogs meant you were left alone. laugh.gif
If she was still with us, those 'no big dog' reviews would be very helpful.
Cheers!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.