Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What???
RV Park Reviews Campground Discussion Forum > RV Park and Campground Discussions > RV Park Discussions
gilda
deleted
abbygolden
QUOTE(gilda @ Nov 28 2008, 12:42 AM) *

What the.......?? A 4/10 ???? unsure.gif


What the "What the"??? It looks live a perfectly valid review to me. If someone stays at a place where there is also a RV park, I appreciate whatever comments they may wish to make as it may help me in the future. If I'm really interested, I'd even ask which specific park they were referring to.
wpr
Hi abby,

The problem here is the discrepancy between the positive review and the low rating of only 4/10.
DXSMac
Just my opinion, but I feel it's a little rude to copy someone's review and post it publicly in the forum. Even though the reviews are "anonymous," it's still rude.

JJ
westernrvparkowner
QUOTE(DXSMac @ Nov 28 2008, 03:10 PM) *

Just my opinion, but I feel it's a little rude to copy someone's review and post it publicly in the forum. Even though the reviews are "anonymous," it's still rude.

JJ

Why is it rude, when it is posted one click away anyway? How else can someone make a comment regarding a post. I happen to agree that the score looks very strange. It is a couple of scores like this that might make me skip over that park and look at another in the area. When I look for a park I first scan the scores and then read the reviews of the highest scoring parks in the area. A four to me is a low score and in some ways worse than a 1 or a 2 (I always read the ones and twos because they are many times a personal conflict other than actual park deficency) A four is usually just a bad park. It is a shame that this park is saddled with a 4 when it sounds like the park was fine and the staff very attentive to any problem. This is a perfect example of why an option to allow the park to rsubmit a response to a post would be beneficial.
DXSMac
I agree the scoring was strange. But I don't feel we need to copy the review and post it publicly here. It's the equivalent of "talking behind someone's back" but it's possibly in front of them, if the person who posted the review happens to post here, too! We can discuss "Scoring" but copying a review and posting it here... well, what if it was YOUR review that was copied? Now, since you are a park owner, you can't do reviews. But taking a review and copying it here to discuss it, well, I feel it's a little rude.

But I agree on the scoring issue. Weird.

JJ
pianotuna
Hi Western,

It is rude because the person who made the post is unaware that it has been posted to the forum--and they can't reply to comments.

The reviews are anonymous to protect every one--so there is no way to let the reviewer know their comments are up for public discussion.

I'm sure Glida means well--but I still see this (and always will) as rude. It is the same as "talking behind someone's back". It is not about the content of the particular review, and it doesn't matter if one agrees with Glida's comment (I do agree it is an odd score to go with a glowing review). I don't think quoting reviews is appropriate unless you are directly involved in either the capacity of camper, or owner.

For example, I'd never give a KOA campground a 10--yet some folks love them. I'd also not give a campground with 1500 sites a 10--and I'd avoid one that size as if there were plague. Others love those sort of places and happily give them a 10 (or if they could an 11!). I do not pick campgrounds "numerically" though some folks may do so. I pick them because they are on my route and have the amenities I wish to use. (WiFi)

QUOTE(westernrvparkowner @ Nov 28 2008, 03:10 PM) *

Why is it rude, when it is posted one click away anyway? How else can someone make a comment regarding a post. I happen to agree that the score looks very strange. It is a couple of scores like this that might make me skip over that park and look at another in the area. When I look for a park I first scan the scores and then read the reviews of the highest scoring parks in the area. A four to me is a low score and in some ways worse than a 1 or a 2 (I always read the ones and twos because they are many times a personal conflict other than actual park deficency) A four is usually just a bad park. It is a shame that this park is saddled with a 4 when it sounds like the park was fine and the staff very attentive to any problem. This is a perfect example of why an option to allow the park to rsubmit a response to a post would be beneficial.
westernrvparkowner
QUOTE(pianotuna @ Nov 29 2008, 12:36 AM) *

Hi Western,

It is rude because the person who made the post is unaware that it has been posted to the forum--and they can't reply to comments.

The reviews are anonymous to protect every one--so there is no way to let the reviewer know their comments are up for public discussion.

I'm sure Glida means well--but I still see this (and always will) as rude. It is the same as "talking behind someone's back". It is not about the content of the particular review, and it doesn't matter if one agrees with Glida's comment (I do agree it is an odd score to go with a glowing review). I don't think quoting reviews is appropriate unless you are directly involved in either the capacity of camper, or owner.

For example, I'd never give a KOA campground a 10--yet some folks love them. I'd also not give a campground with 1500 sites a 10--and I'd avoid one that size as if there were plague. Others love those sort of places and happily give them a 10 (or if they could an 11!). I do not pick campgrounds "numerically" though some folks may do so. I pick them because they are on my route and have the amenities I wish to use. (WiFi)


Maybe my moral compass is spinning a little off kilter, but I still don't consider it rude. I guess my former backround has me a little jaded in that I was in High Tech and realize that once something is posted on the internet is is available to everyone and anyone and you have lost all control over it.
Browzin
Personally I pay little attention to the score, and more to what the reviewer has to say.

One persons 4 could easily be another persons 10 depending upon their own personal standard that they use for giving a rating.



What you say in words describes better than any number score ever could.

Texasrvers
I can see JJ's and pianotuna's point. A reviewer may not read the forum, and therefore would not know that their review has been copied without their permission and is being discussed, and that makes it sort of behind their back.

Also, even if they do read the forum they cannot reply if they wish to keep their identity anonymous. So they may want to reply and explain their review, but don't wish to reveal their member name.

But I can see western's point, too. The person did post his review in a very public place leaving it wide open to criticism or praise. And that raises another thought. This whole situation seems rude because the review (actually the rating) is being criticized. Would it also be rude if the review was copied but praised? It's still behind their back and without their permission.

I suppose anyone has the right to discuss and/or question someone else's review. But maybe it would have been better if the OP had just cited the review and then made comments? If readers were interested or curious they could have looked up the original review and then no copying would have been done. Just a thought.
gilda
deleted

abbygolden
I, just this week, sought permission from westernrvparkowner to use his multi-pointed list about campers on another forum that is FAR more frequented than this one. I thought it prudent to ask his permission as the thoughts, although I wish they had been mine originally, were his. While I don't necessarily think it rude to quote someone else, I think it wisest to at least attribute the quote to whomever made it originally.

Regarding not rating KOA as 10...It has been years since I've stayed in a KOA that I personally would rate above a 7. KOA used to be the campground one would go to if one wanted the best. It used to be the same way with Holiday Inn regarding motels. Now, both are somewhere in the middle of the pack. That is a generalization and may not be true for all but it certainly is true for those I've used in the past 10-15 years. I've gotten to the point that I choose not to use a KOA if I have a choice.

When I'm getting ready to go on a trip, I use this web site in combination with the web site of the RV park in which I plan to stay to make a decision. I've never been disappointed yet (I'm knocking on my head right now!)
pianotuna
Hi Gilda,

Well, my style of camping is not well suited to commercial campgrounds. I've not done a huge number of reviews but I rarely go higher than a 7 on any campground. Give me 15 amp power, a nice treed location and wifi and I'm satisfied. That being said I did rate one KOA at 9--the highest number I've given to any campground. I've rated one campground at 1--because it is permanently closed and I wished to make that information public. If you wish to see my reviews in detail go here:

http://www.rvparkreviews.com/regions/Saska...s.html#CGID9508

and click on the user link.

Some of my camping is parking outside a Church and using 15 amp power with permission in return for a donation from me. I'm fairly expert at load balancing and rarely "blow a breaker" at the supply source. I'm a bit of a rolling stone, rarely staying on one location more than two nights.

I'm quite happy to stay in City and Regional Parks or locations that provide few or even no amenities. I must admit to enjoying a nice long shower or having flush toilets available--but those are bonus--not a requirement.

I will downgrade a park that is noisy or dirty or overpriced and upgrade one that is spacious or ultra clean. I doubt that I will ever give any campground a ten--and unless it is permanently closed probably the lowest score I'd give is a 2.

I've boondocked at -27 C in the City of Calgary for 5 days with no hookups in blizzard conditions so my (tiny) solar panels were of little use (they tend to not work under a blanket of snow). My RV happens to be a Class C diesel so it must be plugged in at those temperatures for it to start. But that's why I have a nice Kipor 2800 watt electric start generator, which gives me freedom to stop anywhere that I feel is a safe location.

My brother has a KOA Kard and will drive farther in a day to get to one. He broke even on the card the first year--but last year did not stay at a KOA once.

I have a Good Sam membership because of the ability to buy health travel insurance when traveling south of the border. I think I have broken even on it camping wise--but only just barely.

QUOTE(gilda @ Nov 29 2008, 11:40 AM) *

Just curious.....Why would you never give a KOA a 10? unsure.gif

DXSMac
QUOTE(westernrvparkowner @ Nov 28 2008, 10:15 PM) *

Maybe my moral compass is spinning a little off kilter, but I still don't consider it rude. I guess my former backround has me a little jaded in that I was in High Tech and realize that once something is posted on the internet is is available to everyone and anyone and you have lost all control over it.


Doesn't mean we have to participate in that "game." We don't have to "talk behind their back" on here.

JJ

QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Nov 29 2008, 12:44 AM) *

But I can see western's point, too. The person did post his review in a very public place leaving it wide open to criticism or praise. And that raises another thought. This whole situation seems rude because the review (actually the rating) is being criticized. Would it also be rude if the review was copied but praised? It's still behind their back and without their permission.


In my opinion, yes. We may still have commented about the rudeness, but not as vehemently.


QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Nov 29 2008, 12:44 AM) *

I suppose anyone has the right to discuss and/or question someone else's review. But maybe it would have been better if the OP had just cited the review and then made comments? If readers were interested or curious they could have looked up the original review and then no copying would have been done. Just a thought.


That would be better. Maybe just refer to "a review I read of such and such a park in whatever state, from June 2004......" and let people go see it for themselves.

Ok, I know it's kind of the same thing.... but at least it's not BLATANTLY posting it on here.

JJ
pianotuna
Hi Tx,

It would be the same if the review was positive. It's still the equivalent of quoting "out of context" (no other reviews to balance the equation a bit) and still does not give the person making the review a change for rebuttal.

QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Nov 29 2008, 02:44 AM) *

I can see JJ's and pianotuna's point. A reviewer may not read the forum, and therefore would not know that their review has been copied without their permission and is being discussed, and that makes it sort of behind their back.

Also, even if they do read the forum they cannot reply if they wish to keep their identity anonymous. So they may want to reply and explain their review, but don't wish to reveal their member name.

But I can see western's point, too. The person did post his review in a very public place leaving it wide open to criticism or praise. And that raises another thought. This whole situation seems rude because the review (actually the rating) is being criticized. Would it also be rude if the review was copied but praised? It's still behind their back and without their permission.

I suppose anyone has the right to discuss and/or question someone else's review. But maybe it would have been better if the OP had just cited the review and then made comments? If readers were interested or curious they could have looked up the original review and then no copying would have been done. Just a thought.

gilda
deleted

pianotuna
Hi Gilda,

You are missing the point. The issue is not the 4 out of 10 rating which appears to be out of line with the glowing review. It is about whether the reviewer has a chance to reply to the posting in the Forum or not. I'm sure many folks don't even bother with the Forums--so the chances are that the original writer doesn't even know they are being quoted.

I didn't think it appropriate when you quoted a review on another thread--but held my tongue. This time, as this is an open forum, I felt I should mention that my reaction was negative.
Texasrvers
QUOTE(gilda @ Nov 30 2008, 12:58 AM) *

Did no one read the post?? It was a comment regarding giving a GOOD review and then giving it LOW numbers.


Yes, people read the post and understood it, and I personally agree that there is a big discrepancy between the comments and the rating. (Not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last.) I believe others have indicated that they think that is weird, but apparently some feel that the way you chose to call attention to this review was inappropriate. However, there are others who, like you, see nothing wrong with copying and re-posting something that has already been posted. It also seems the "rub" comes from the reviewer not being able to defend or explain his review without giving up his anonymity.

Obviously there is a big difference of opinion here. I have no idea why the reviewer gave the rating he did. Maybe he just accidentally hit the wrong key, but I am guessing that by now he wishes he had never posted a review at all.
abbygolden
QUOTE(gilda @ Nov 30 2008, 12:58 AM) *

Did no one read the post?? It was a comment regarding giving a GOOD review and then giving it LOW numbers.

Why would anyone care about a review that they posted, being posted?? They posted it. Good grief!!

Why are you even reading this forum if you have a prob;em with discussing anything? This forum is about review's folks.


Actually, you are incorrect. This forum is three fold:, 1. Discussions, 2. Chat, and 3. Reviews. Since the reviews only show as reviews and not on the forum per se, that means discussions and chats relating to RVing are pertinent. These two topics (Discussion and Chat), in fact, are not about reviews, although narrative reviews would certainly be welcome here. I would suggest that before you critisize others you might want to review the topics of the forum.
BBear
Gilda has given a perfect example of why I give little credence to a "rating" as opposed to the review itself.

And, I also don't have a problem with Gilda posting the review.

I really like this website and I get a lot of information from it, but one thing I could never understand about it from the beginning is having "anonymous" reviews.

All the other review sites that I frequent list the screen name of the reviewer so if you may have a question concerning the review you have the opportunity to PM the reviewer, whereas, here since we have no idea who the reviewer is, we don't have that opportunity, so in some cases the only way to get any input about it and maybe hopefully the reviewer reads the boards is to post it in the forum.

I posted a questionable review a long time ago on the forum and no one got upset that I posted it. Those who did respond to it responded about the topic of a questionable review and not whether we were talking behind someone elses' back.

The way I see it, the review once posted is fair game to either criticism or praise.
BBear
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Nov 30 2008, 10:57 AM) *

Actually, you are incorrect. This forum is three fold:, 1. Discussions, 2. Chat, and 3. Reviews. Since the reviews only show as reviews and not on the forum per se, that means discussions and chats relating to RVing are pertinent. These two topics (Discussion and Chat), in fact, are not about reviews, although narrative reviews would certainly be welcome here. I would suggest that before you critisize others you might want to review the topics of the forum.


While RV Park and Campground Discussions are not solely about reviews, the topic does come up from time to time and is discussed. There's nothing wrong with that since if you read the description of that particular forum you'll see it says "Post ANYTHING to do with RV Parks and Campgrounds". And, the reviews would fall under "ANYTHING" with regards to discussions about RV Parks and Campgrounds.
abbygolden
QUOTE(BBear @ Nov 30 2008, 12:17 PM) *

While RV Park and Campground Discussions are not solely about reviews, the topic does come up from time to time and is discussed. There's nothing wrong with that since if you read the description of that particular forum you'll see it says "Post ANYTHING to do with RV Parks and Campgrounds". And, the reviews would fall under "ANYTHING" with regards to discussions about RV Parks and Campgrounds.


That's a very broad interpretation of the topic, espcially since the third subject is for RV park reviews specifically. However, if you would reread my post, you would notice that I mentioned that posting a narrative review in either chat or discussiion would be ok.
BBear
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Nov 30 2008, 02:12 PM) *

That's a very broad interpretation of the topic, espcially since the third subject is for RV park reviews specifically. However, if you would reread my post, you would notice that I mentioned that posting a narrative review in either chat or discussiion would be ok.


I hazard a guess that the webmaster made it a very broad interpretation intentionally. Especially, since the third subject is for submission of campground reviews and does not include an area where members can discuss reviews...that area is for posting reviews only.
Jerry S
At this time I will pretend that the only post in this thread is the original post. If I had been the first to respond to the initial post, it would have been something like this:

When I first saw this post, my first thought was "Oh good, this is sort of like a thread I was thinking about starting." While I agree that the rating and the review narrative seem to be way out of sync, I read a review of a park (Durango KOA) I was at last summer that I found to be noteworthy. Not counting the "We camped here in a ..." line added automatically by this site's system, the entire review consisted of 3 words and gave the park a rating of "1". The 3 words were "This place blows!". This park has had numerous reviews and most were 8, 9, or 10. We have all seen this happen before - a park with lots of decent ratings suddenly gets a 1 or 2. Those reviews usually had some sort of narrative as to why they gave such a poor rating. This reviewer gave us just 3 words without any explanation.

As many have said in past posts in this forum, the folks who help out on this site do a wonderful job. I don't want to appear to be disparaging about the job the folks who check the reviews before they are posted do, but I do wonder if any thought was given to rejecting this particular review. I've read many reviews here that were useless to me personally, but I would think this one would be useless to almost anyone who read it. While the review cited by Gilda was certainly confusing, it was informative.

OK, that's what I would have posted before the battle ensued.

Texasrvers
QUOTE(Jerry S. @ Dec 1 2008, 01:33 AM) *


I do wonder if any thought was given to rejecting this particular review.


I absolutely agree. This review you refer to never should have been posted. I imagine there are many that do get rejected for a variety of reasons, and this one probably just accidentally slipped by.
BBear
QUOTE(Jerry S. @ Dec 1 2008, 12:33 AM) *

At this time I will pretend that the only post in this thread is the original post. If I had been the first to respond to the initial post, it would have been something like this:

When I first saw this post, my first thought was "Oh good, this is sort of like a thread I was thinking about starting." While I agree that the rating and the review narrative seem to be way out of sync, I read a review of a park (Durango KOA) I was at last summer that I found to be noteworthy. Not counting the "We camped here in a ..." line added automatically by this site's system, the entire review consisted of 3 words and gave the park a rating of "1". The 3 words were "This place blows!". This park has had numerous reviews and most were 8, 9, or 10. We have all seen this happen before - a park with lots of decent ratings suddenly gets a 1 or 2. Those reviews usually had some sort of narrative as to why they gave such a poor rating. This reviewer gave us just 3 words without any explanation.

As many have said in past posts in this forum, the folks who help out on this site do a wonderful job. I don't want to appear to be disparaging about the job the folks who check the reviews before they are posted do, but I do wonder if any thought was given to rejecting this particular review. I've read many reviews here that were useless to me personally, but I would think this one would be useless to almost anyone who read it. While the review cited by Gilda was certainly confusing, it was informative.

OK, that's what I would have posted before the battle ensued.


Jerry, great post and I totally agree with you. smile.gif
abbygolden
QUOTE(BBear @ Nov 30 2008, 04:13 PM) *

I hazard a guess that the webmaster made it a very broad interpretation intentionally. Especially, since the third subject is for submission of campground reviews and does not include an area where members can discuss reviews...that area is for posting reviews only.


Why do I have the feeling you are toying with me??? I think we are saying basically the same thing, just different ways. In any event, it wasn't worth discussing after the first time anyway.
BBear
QUOTE(abbygolden @ Dec 1 2008, 11:04 AM) *

Why do I have the feeling you are toying with me??? I think we are saying basically the same thing, just different ways. In any event, it wasn't worth discussing after the first time anyway.


I'm not toying with you at all. If I were, I'd let you know. I just happened to disagree with the statement you made that said, "These two topics (Discussion and Chat), in fact, are not about reviews, although narrative reviews would certainly be welcome here."

And, I just stated that while Discussion and Chat are not solely about reviews, topics concerning reviews do come up and are discussed and to add they don't have to be in the form of a "narrative review".

In a way, I do believe we're on the same lines of speaking except for where you said Discussion and Chat are not about reviews, because in some instances they are. That's the only point I was trying to make. smile.gif
HappiestCamper
One thing missing from this thread - I happened to stumble upon the review in question by clicking to look at someone's other reviews. This reviewer obviously needs some guidance, so if they see it here, maybe they can get their reviews fixed. 4 reviews - one 3, two 4's, and one 5. They loved the 4's and 5, and hated the 3.
DXSMac
Ok, I think I can figure out what is going on with these "glowing" reviews with low number ratings. I'm taking a wild guess that the person also provides reviews to another site that takes campground reviews. There are two other sites that I know of (however neither one is as comprehensive as THIS site....). On one of those other two sites, you actually do rate 1 to 5. The person probably gets mixed up between the two sites. They submit a review of "4" to that site, then repost the review here, and continue with giving it a "4."

Just a wild guess.....

JJ


QUOTE(HappiestCamper @ Dec 18 2008, 08:49 AM) *

One thing missing from this thread - I happened to stumble upon the review in question by clicking to look at someone's other reviews. This reviewer obviously needs some guidance, so if they see it here, maybe they can get their reviews fixed. 4 reviews - one 3, two 4's, and one 5. They loved the 4's and 5, and hated the 3.

HappiestCamper
I'm sure your guess is correct. However, since there are 10 numbers with little check boxes next to them all lined up in a row, and the word poor is next to 1 and excellent is next to 10, I would hope that people would be more careful.

As always, don't just look at the numbers - look what people write, and what they write about other CG's.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.