Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: How Do You Handle A Slanderous Review
RV Park Reviews Campground Discussion Forum > RV Park and Campground Discussions > RV Park Discussions
Pages: 1, 2
dalsgal
I now manage a campground and someone made a post about the campground that is nothing but slander. The people were told that because of their failure to follow campground rules they would have to leave when their rent was up for the month. Now they have posted totally libelous comments and that can be proven to be false. They claim their stay here was terrible but yet they even state they were here for 8 months. How can a situation like this be handled. Because their review is now in print we do have their claims in writing so we can sue them but I would prefer to handle this in some other way. Any suggestions?
John Blue
dalsgal,

Down at bottom of page you will see (contact us). Sent in your information to webmaster and see if he can help.
Florida Native
Back when we were in the lodging business, it was estimated that about 75% of the Bed and Breakfast reviews on Trip Advisor were bogus. I myself heard many owners bragging about writing good reviews on themselves and bad reviews on the guys down the street. It is very hard for a webmaster to screen these out. Lots of time here has been spent to ty to do this. You can present your facts to the webmaster and hopefully they can remove it. These jerks who lie about places can do a lot of damage.
FosterImposters
QUOTE(dalsgal @ Sep 12 2009, 07:00 PM) *

... but I would prefer to handle this in some other way. Any suggestions?


Hello dalsgal and welcome aboard...sorry it was prompted by the mean-spiritedness of another. Just by posting on the forum portion of this site: you have begun the process of unraveling the ugliness of an unfair and/or slanderous review of any park.

Thanks for adding your voice to the mix.
How was the summer season for the park you manage?

dalsgal
QUOTE(FosterImposters @ Sep 13 2009, 04:53 PM) *

[i][/i]

Hello dalsgal and welcome aboard...sorry it was prompted by the mean-spiritedness of another. Just by posting on the forum portion of this site: you have begun the process of unraveling the ugliness of an unfair and/or slanderous review of any park.

Thanks for adding your voice to the mix.
How was the summer season for the park you manage?


I appreciate the answers from you folks. I did find someone that had praised us and reminded her that she wanted to review us. I think she is going to give us a good review today. That will help.

We don't really have a summer season at this park. Until recently we were full of full timers from the construction business. We do have some snowbirds that pass through but most of our business is from the construction in our area. Until a few weeks ago we were full, excluding some sites we keep for over nighters, but now we have quite a few empty spots. We are small but a nice park. We have rules and I get to be the bad guy that makes sure the campers follow them. The hardest one seems to be the speed limit and the people with children are the worst. I enjoy this type of work and do many things that I am not required to do but I treat this park as though it was my own.
John316
Cat,

Why not post us a link to a map of your place? Who knows when we will be by, and where we will need to stop...

God bless,

John
RVRVRV
Dalsgal,

I own a park as well and my wife and I wonder when this will happen to us. We have had good reviews so far. But when you enforce rules some want to get even. We mostly get retired folks and have very little problems. But it still on our minds.
As a matter of fact we were just at a park that was rated very good but after the stay I checked their ratings and saw that a person had rated them as a terrible place. All other posts were good. That prompted me to write my first park review and 2 others so it is now posted. My post should help clear up the bad post. I can not see how the bad post could be true as I did not see any of the problems they mentioned.
abbygolden
QUOTE(pogoil @ Sep 16 2009, 03:11 PM) *

Dalsgal,

I own a park as well and my wife and I wonder when this will happen to us. We have had good reviews so far. But when you enforce rules some want to get even. We mostly get retired folks and have very little problems. But it still on our minds.
As a matter of fact we were just at a park that was rated very good but after the stay I checked their ratings and saw that a person had rated them as a terrible place. All other posts were good. That prompted me to write my first park review and 2 others so it is now posted. My post should help clear up the bad post. I can not see how the bad post could be true as I did not see any of the problems they mentioned.


And therein lies the problem. What is bad to me is good to you and vice versa. I think we all tend to take the numerical rating with a grain of salt and pay more attention to the descriptions. We all seem to have differing value systems.
Galli
PLEASE NOTE, I AM NOT OWING A RESORT, I AM JUST A CAMPER LIKE YOU rolleyes.gif

I am very pleased to hear your concerns about what kind of review it is published on this forum, in my opinion people should not be allowed to write personal opinions, their comments should be only based on facts (i.e. Location, size of the lot, trees shade or not, facilities available and if proper, rates and if what's advertised in the writing promotion is there or not.).
My reason for limiting the campers' expression is not for their luck of honesty but because of perspective. It is almost 10 years that I am spending my Winters in Florida and I have been through pleasant and unpleasant places, in few of them I could have written negative reports because their sides were extremely small, because the staff was not gracious or the washrooms were not up to my standard. I have a sizable 5th W. and we are a retired couple and we prefer a place with not too much noise, however, if someone with 30 or 40 years less than mine, with smaller RV may fit nicely in that place.
Having said the above, my expectancy are different than...yours ? However and notwithstanding that it would not be rational for me to provide a positive comments of that place but for other campers it would be OK.
A power of writing reports is a very powerful weapon that if it is used properly is a good tools for the others if not, it is a slander that denigrates some good business.
The other side of the medal is that, there are resorts that are really a pit and don’t deserve to be in business and in this case a camper that was burned once by staying in those places is poisoned versus every places that not meets its expectancy.
Having stated the above and in order to be fair towards campers and/or resorts, how do you establish a guideline in providing information ?
In light of the above, I Recommend to this forum to eliminate the personal comments’ field in the report’s form and publish only what’s available as structure.
One thing in favor for the campers, on these days it is very common to promote the internet facility when actually the hardware is there but not operational or barely functional.
I say that it would be honest for the facility to advertise the real status of this service and if not available or barely available to be honest with the campers and/or in their pamphlets used to advertise the pace. .
IN closing and in order to avoid hardship to anyone, when you are planning to visit a new campsite, send a message on this forum regarding the place and what are your basic requirements, in general I do receive 3 or 4 answers and according to that I make my own decision.
PS = I am now ready to be skinned alive he, he, he ohmy.gif
dmwtex
Recently, a gentleman added a comment on this forum stating that he was in need of a "jump" due to a dead battery in his toad. He stated that he contacted a park staff member who told him that we could not jump his battery due to "insurance concerns." He also stated that he was ignored while staff zipped up and down the park in their carts while they were sitting in front of the laundry which was about 30 yards from his site. So that there is no misunderstanding, I was working at that campground during his stay there, and I was the staff member he contacted regarding a jump for his toad. As I explained to him, we did not provide that service due to the potential for damage to his vehicle, and or the parks. I told him that he was welcome to seek assistance from any other of the RVers in the park, which he replied that he might do. To imply that my (our) failure to come to his rescue forced him to call a battery service for a jump before he could drive to Auto Zone for a new battery is unfair. He had a variety of options at his disposal. His choice to call a battery service for a jump start was his and his alone. Likewise, his choice to frequent "mom and pop" RV parks is his as well. However, it must be said, that his misfortune was not the fault of me, other staff members or the RV park. He made his choices based on the information he had at the time. Hopefully, in the future, he will be better prepared for such situations. And, I hope, not attempt to place blame on hard working workampers, or RV parks that choose not to place themselves in jeopardy in today's lawsuit happy society.
Texasrvers
QUOTE(Galli @ Sep 16 2009, 07:32 PM) *

I Recommend to this forum to eliminate the personal comments’ field in the report’s form and publish only what’s available as structure.



I disagree. It is the comments that usually give the most useful information (if stated factually without any ranting; some do go overboard). Checking off that a place has a pool does not say that it was green and the size of a bathtub. A park may be pet friendly but that does not tell us that they have a wonderful off leash exercise area with equipment. Likewise you have stated that you not like too much noise. I do not think the form has a check for that so how will you know about the noise level unless someone says that it is either very quiet or 10 feet from a train track.

I hope people are honest when they describe a park, but at the same time we must remember that whatever they write is their opinion. The next reviewer may not agree, and that is why we have 1's and 10's for the same park. If we look at the check off boxes we will only know what amenities and services are available. If we read the comments we will get a better understanding of the quality of those things.
DocHolliday
Having been in business myself, I know that many individuals are more likely to complain than to compliment. Which is why some forums become areas inundated by complaint, with few compliments. That renders the purpose of the forum (especially this forum) less effective for those of us who want candid, unbiased reviews.

So, when reading a negative comment, I take into consideration the reviewer's motive. Most of the time I am able to sort out who is blowing off steam, verses who had a valid complaint.

I must say, however, that having the owner/managers of the park responding to the negative comments speaks loudly. Kudos to the park's management for taking that step.

The truth is the standard upon which a slanderous (spoken) review or libelous (written; published) review is defended or prosecuted. This is truly where the truth wins the case.

My thought is that you handled the negative reviewer as you should, by responding to the negative post. Plus, I agree with the previous comments, query the webmaster to remove the negative post based on the facts that you present to him/her.

An attorney can advise you if you decide to pursue legal action.

Galli
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Sep 16 2009, 10:22 PM) *

I disagree. It is the comments that usually give the most useful information (if stated factually without any ranting; some do go overboard). Checking off that a place has a pool does not say that it was green and the size of a bathtub. A park may be pet friendly but that does not tell us that they have a wonderful off leash exercise area with equipment. Likewise you have stated that you not like too much noise. I do not think the form has a check for that so how will you know about the noise level unless someone says that it is either very quiet or 10 feet from a train track.

I hope people are honest when they describe a park, but at the same time we must remember that whatever they write is their opinion. The next reviewer may not agree, and that is why we have 1's and 10's for the same park. If we look at the check off boxes we will only know what amenities and services are available. If we read the comments we will get a better understanding of the quality of those things.

.
Hi Texastvers, I agree 100% with you but where do you draw the line in order to take for granted what we read in the report ? I know that, before publishing the comments, the review officer must analyze the content on the letter but he/she does not have the tools to verify what's promoted. As I said in my previous message, I have been in resorts that I didn't like weather the facilities were barely clean, certain showers where loosing the cold or hot water handle, the recreation room was more like a grotto than a place to receive people but, this is my personal opinion; I could have made a report stating that the place is disgusting, not clean etc.. etc. etc.. which, according to my standard was true but for other people it could be acceptable. If the report form would only quote what’s available there, it would give an idea of what to expect and then asking comments on the forum you would receive the personal feeling by who was there and in this case you would have several opinions to evaluate not only one from a guy who may was pissed off for personal reason.
I am quoting part of the message just published before yours, namely, a guy stuck with a dead battery and notwithstanding that there was people closed by with capacity to help but they did not assist being afraid of liabilities. I tell you honestly that I would be very upset and if I had to write a report it would be blooming but, in final analysis I see their point.
I reiterate that writing is a very powerful tool, in which, unless you are trained in quoting facts, your words may be distorted by your actual feeling and provide a positive/negative idea to those whose reading your message.
Texasrvers
Galli,

You are correct when you say "the review officer . . . does not have the tools to verify what's promoted." They must rely on a person's honesty that they are telling the truth, and sometimes that doesn't happen. I remember quite a while back a park owner wrote in to say that his park had received a bad review because, according to the reviewer, his pool was nothing but green moss. He said he was pretty sure that was not true because his park did not have a pool. Now the reviewer may not have done this on purpose; they may have gotten their parks mixed up and made an honest mistake, but since there was no way for the checker to know that this was inaccurate information, it was posted.


QUOTE
As I said in my previous message, I have been in resorts that I didn't like weather the facilities were barely clean, certain showers where loosing the cold or hot water handle, the recreation room was more like a grotto than a place to receive people but, this is my personal opinion; I could have made a report stating that the place is disgusting, not clean etc.. etc. etc.. which, according to my standard was true but for other people it could be acceptable. If the report form would only quote what’s available there, it would give an idea of what to expect and then asking comments on the forum you would receive the personal feeling by who was there and in this case you would have several opinions to evaluate not only one from a guy who may was pissed off for personal reason.



First, simply stating what is available does not give the big picture. Saying that a park has showers and a rec room does not tell about the condition of them. Saying that handles were falling off and describing the rec room as a grotto gives a far better idea what to expect. Yes, this was your opinion, and the next person may not agree (or the problems may have been fixed), but you have told the truth as you see it, and so has the other reviewer. Now I have to decide whose report is more accurate. If I had to judge from only these two opposite reviews I would have a hard time deciding. However, there are usually several other reviews that will generally be like one of these two. If the other reviews also mention these same bad things, then I can assume with a good bit of certainty that the park is disgusting. If the other reviews are mostly good, then I might suspect that the bad review was written because the reviewer was mad due to a personal reason, and I will disregard it. Either way the comments have been the most valuable part of the review.

Second, you say "asking comments on the forum you would receive the personal feeling by who was there and in this case you would have several opinions to evaluate not only one from a guy who may was pissed off for personal reason." This is exactly what the comments do in the first place. People who have been to the park are giving their personal feelings and by this method I will have several opinions. Besides asking questions on the forum will not stop someone from trashing the park if they were mad about something when they stayed there.

The bottom line is I still think the comments are good and are the best way to convey the true condition of a park.
rvp1997
My favorite review sites give the owners a chance to tell their side. I think that park owners should always get a chance to post a short rebuttal. That way no one has to read between the lines. Many campgrounds are small privately owned Mom and Pop places. I find it very sad that people get online and post lies or half truths. These reviews can be so damaging to small businesses. Let's face it, one bad review of Walmart isn't going to put them out of business. However, one bad review of a small privately owned campground could do a lot of damage. Food for thought!!

Galli
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Sep 17 2009, 10:43 AM) *

Galli,

You are correct when you say "the review officer . . . does not have the tools to verify what's promoted." They must rely on a person's honesty that they are telling the truth, and sometimes that doesn't happen. I remember quite a while back a park owner wrote in to say that his park had received a bad review because, according to the reviewer, his pool was nothing but green moss. He said he was pretty sure that was not true because his park did not have a pool. Now the reviewer may not have done this on purpose; they may have gotten their parks mixed up and made an honest mistake, but since there was no way for the checker to know that this was inaccurate information, it was posted.
First, simply stating what is available does not give the big picture. Saying that a park has showers and a rec room does not tell about the condition of them. Saying that handles were falling off and describing the rec room as a grotto gives a far better idea what to expect. Yes, this was your opinion, and the next person may not agree (or the problems may have been fixed), but you have told the truth as you see it, and so has the other reviewer. Now I have to decide whose report is more accurate. If I had to judge from only these two opposite reviews I would have a hard time deciding. However, there are usually several other reviews that will generally be like one of these two. If the other reviews also mention these same bad things, then I can assume with a good bit of certainty that the park is disgusting. If the other reviews are mostly good, then I might suspect that the bad review was written because the reviewer was mad due to a personal reason, and I will disregard it. Either way the comments have been the most valuable part of the review.

Second, you say "asking comments on the forum you would receive the personal feeling by who was there and in this case you would have several opinions to evaluate not only one from a guy who may was pissed off for personal reason." This is exactly what the comments do in the first place. People who have been to the park are giving their personal feelings and by this method I will have several opinions. Besides asking questions on the forum will not stop someone from trashing the park if they were mad about something when they stayed there.

The bottom line is I still think the comments are good and are the best way to convey the true condition of a park.


Right you are but where do you draw the line ? My reason for believing more about the comments from the forum is based on the fact that the answer is motivated by my request for input and not by an emotional reason arisen from a personal feeling.
I understand your point , namely, more details about the camp should be helpful in making a decision but if the report is malicious would really hurt the, let’s say, Pop and Mom camp that are honest but they don’t have the money and/or the education to fight back the slander or extremely positive because of special favors received .
This is why I insist in saying that a written opinion is a very powerful weapon and if it is used improperly because of not familiarity in writing the proper words or with willingness to hurt someone may not provide the readers with the right tools to make a proper decision.
I might be wrong but I am still opting to base my choice from a multiple feed back from the forum more than one written review provided by a motivated person
RVRVRV
I agree with rvp1997.
How would you like it if someone posted on the web that you or a family member were a bad person and it was not true. Reguardless of any effort to control a false post it can harm a parks business.
James C
QUOTE(pogoil @ Sep 25 2009, 06:22 PM) *

I agree with rvp1997.
How would you like it if someone posted on the web that you or a family member were a bad person and it was not true. Reguardless of any effort to control a false post it can harm a parks business.


The ability to add comments to a review would be a nice option. It would allow the owner or perhaps other campers that stayed at the park to rebut or clarify. To keep them out of the way of the other reviews there could be a "View Comments" link that showed how many comments were available on a link.

Another idea is to allow the "voting" of reviews by other users. Users that got high votes on their reviews would have a "karma" rating that could be used to judge their reviews. Obviously that could be gamed as well, but abusers would eventually be identified in the comments and down-votes.
Galli
QUOTE(James C @ Sep 25 2009, 09:36 PM) *

The ability to add comments to a review would be a nice option. It would allow the owner or perhaps other campers that stayed at the park to rebut or clarify. To keep them out of the way of the other reviews there could be a "View Comments" link that showed how many comments were available on a link.

Another idea is to allow the "voting" of reviews by other users. Users that got high votes on their reviews would have a "karma" rating that could be used to judge their reviews. Obviously that could be gamed as well, but abusers would eventually be identified in the comments and down-votes.

Ha, ha, ha, no matter what we decide there is always the reverse side of the medal.
In my opinion the most reliable report would be undertaken by an inspector, namely, an officer from the tourist office of the state or province or Hotel guidelines that gives you the level of the hotel and importance, the specific facilities (gym, swimming pool sauna etc...) and rating.
Since the above may be considered an utopia, the second best thing should be a factual comment regarding, namely, number of space available in the resort , if there is the SPA or swimming pool, club house, how far is from the near city, if there is internet, the cost per day or month or ??? etc.. etc.. etc..
This would give an idea regarding the place and the new person that is planning to spent time there will ask the forum's opinion and evaluate all responses received.
The advantage for having an input from several persons will encompass different the point of view of the place
I AM SURE THAT THIS LINE OF CHAT MUST BE FOLLOWED BY SOME RESOURT OWNERS, IF I AM CORRECT IN MY STATEMENT, WHY DON'T YOU PROVIDE YOUR POINT OF VIEW IN THIS DISCUSSION.
gilda
QUOTE
I AM SURE THAT THIS LINE OF CHAT MUST BE FOLLOWED BY SOME RESOURT OWNERS, IF I AM CORRECT IN MY STATEMENT, WHY DON'T YOU PROVIDE YOUR POINT OF VIEW IN THIS DISCUSSION.
HUH rolleyes.gif ???

I'm not sure that you understand this discussion. You want an inspector from a state agency to inspect and report to you? Or report here? Or ??? As for wanting specific information on parks....ALL decent parks have web sites. On websites, the info you are looking for is there. If it is not there, then call the campground and ask the question. What does any of this have to do with a slanderous review?



To be honest, regarding a slanderous review...nothing can be done, unfortunately. Just as everything in life, the web is available for ANYONE to post ANYTHING, good or bad about whatever they please. It's up to individuals to remember that there's a whole lot of idiots in this world who enjoy slamming and discrediting anyone they can. An inteligent person takes internet reviews with a grain of salt (for ANY business). Unless someone you know and trust tell you that Joe's diner is terrible, you should give Joe's diner the benefit of the doubt and check it out for yourself.



As for campgrounds being given the opportunity for a "rebuttel", I don't see how that could work. It would simply start a nasty "he said/she said", and an embarresment for all. It's a nobody wins situation. Just realize that ....JUST BECAUSE ITS ON THE WEB, DOESNT MEAN IT's TRUE.

Texasrvers
QUOTE(Galli @ Sep 26 2009, 01:03 AM) *

Ha, ha, ha, no matter what we decide there is always the reverse side of the medal.
In my opinion the most reliable report would be undertaken by an inspector, namely, an officer from the tourist office of the state or province or Hotel guidelines that gives you the level of the hotel and importance, the specific facilities (gym, swimming pool sauna etc...) and rating.
Since the above may be considered an utopia, the second best thing should be a factual comment regarding, namely, number of space available in the resort , if there is the SPA or swimming pool, club house, how far is from the near city, if there is internet, the cost per day or month or ??? etc.. etc.. etc..


We have this already. There are several RV park directories out there that list exactly what you have said. (There are even some on-line.) They are supposed to be factual and unbiased so there are no reviews by individuals, just a rating from the "inspectors" who are supposed to follow a specific procedure. Each park is measured against a standardized list of facilities, amenities, and services and is then rated based on the availability and quality of those items. The physical description of facilities and the list of amenities is generally pretty accurate. However, there is still a problem with the ratings, and not everyone who stays at the campground will agree with the inspector's rating.

As stated on this forum many times that is because campers want different things from a campground. Some want a more manicured resort type setting while others prefer a rustic, natural environment. It is unlikely that these two types of campers will rate a park the same way. But (and here's what makes this site so good) if they can make comments as to why they gave a particular rating, the rest of us will be able to easily determine if this is the type of place we would like or not based on our own preferences. The person who likes resorts may give a park a 9-10 and say how beautifully landscaped it was. The person who likes the wilderness may give the same place a 3-4 and say it was all concrete with no fire rings. If I only saw the ratings I would not know who to believe, but the comments tell me a lot, and I can make a much more informed decision.


QUOTE
This would give an idea regarding the place and the new person that is planning to spent time there will ask the forum's opinion and evaluate all responses received.
The advantage for having an input from several persons will encompass different the point of view of the place



This is what the comments do now. Members give their opinions which "encompass different the point of view of the place." Essentially they write about their stay one time, and they are finished. Following your suggestion ("the new person that is planning to spent time there will ask the forum's opinion and evaluate all responses received") would require members to continually rewrite and repeat their opinion many times (although I doubt that anyone would do that). That would get old pretty fast, and the result would be that no one would want to put that much time and energy into answering the same questions over and over again, and they would stop participating.

I have no problem if some members want to ask specific questions about a place they are considering staying at, and I am sure they will get some responses. However, I do not see that procedure as the best way to run this site.

(BTW I guess this response does not have anything to do with slanderous reviews either. Sorry to be off topic, but I wanted to reply to the previous poster.)


Galli
QUOTE(gilda @ Sep 26 2009, 07:44 AM) *

HUH rolleyes.gif ???

I'm not sure that you understand this discussion. You want an inspector from a state agency to inspect and report to you? Or report here? Or ??? As for wanting specific information on parks....ALL decent parks have web sites. On websites, the info you are looking for is there. If it is not there, then call the campground and ask the question. What does any of this have to do with a slanderous review?



To be honest, regarding a slanderous review...nothing can be done, unfortunately. Just as everything in life, the web is available for ANYONE to post ANYTHING, good or bad about whatever they please. It's up to individuals to remember that there's a whole lot of idiots in this world who enjoy slamming and discrediting anyone they can. An inteligent person takes internet reviews with a grain of salt (for ANY business). Unless someone you know and trust tell you that Joe's diner is terrible, you should give Joe's diner the benefit of the doubt and check it out for yourself.



As for campgrounds being given the opportunity for a "rebuttel", I don't see how that could work. It would simply start a nasty "he said/she said", and an embarresment for all. It's a nobody wins situation. Just realize that ....JUST BECAUSE ITS ON THE WEB, DOESNT MEAN IT's TRUE.


Hi and yes, I appreciate your point, however and from your words you are assuming that people, in general, knows where to look and how to evaluate what's published on the webpage of a specific campsite.
Second issue, I personally don't need an inspector or an organization in order to find out a given camp status but several persons are not familiar in this field and they need some thing to relay on .
Now and without offence, if you are a camp owner, I am pretty sure that whatever you put on your website may be accurate up to a certain extent since you “will not” publish, as a promotion, some thing detrimental to your own business.
Back to the original subject, if you read my message, I made a “preamble” that it is an "utopia" to believe that an inspectorate system will materialize, notwithstanding that and in my opinion it should be a sure way to take for granted an inspector's evaluation.
In closing the subject, the inspector is no going to report to a single person but its findings would be published on an RV campsite manual which will not be subsidized by camp owners but part of the State, Country or County that have an interested in promoting business in their part of the world; as an indication, some thing like it is done by the hotels in all N. America.
I hope that my words are now clearing any doubts from your part.
Galli
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Sep 26 2009, 10:13 AM) *

We have this already. There are several RV park directories out there that list exactly what you have said. (There are even some on-line.) They are supposed to be factual and unbiased so there are no reviews by individuals, just a rating from the "inspectors" who are supposed to follow a specific procedure. Each park is measured against a standardized list of facilities, amenities, and services and is then rated based on the availability and quality of those items. The physical description of facilities and the list of amenities is generally pretty accurate. However, there is still a problem with the ratings, and not everyone who stays at the campground will agree with the inspector's rating.

As stated on this forum many times that is because campers want different things from a campground. Some want a more manicured resort type setting while others prefer a rustic, natural environment. It is unlikely that these two types of campers will rate a park the same way. But (and here's what makes this site so good) if they can make comments as to why they gave a particular rating, the rest of us will be able to easily determine if this is the type of place we would like or not based on our own preferences. The person who likes resorts may give a park a 9-10 and say how beautifully landscaped it was. The person who likes the wilderness may give the same place a 3-4 and say it was all concrete with no fire rings. If I only saw the ratings I would not know who to believe, but the comments tell me a lot, and I can make a much more informed decision.
This is what the comments do now. Members give their opinions which "encompass different the point of view of the place." Essentially they write about their stay one time, and they are finished. Following your suggestion ("the new person that is planning to spent time there will ask the forum's opinion and evaluate all responses received") would require members to continually rewrite and repeat their opinion many times (although I doubt that anyone would do that). That would get old pretty fast, and the result would be that no one would want to put that much time and energy into answering the same questions over and over again, and they would stop participating.

I have no problem if some members want to ask specific questions about a place they are considering staying at, and I am sure they will get some responses. However, I do not see that procedure as the best way to run this site.

(BTW I guess this response does not have anything to do with slanderous reviews either. Sorry to be off topic, but I wanted to reply to the previous poster.)



quote =We have this already. There are several RV park directories out there that list exactly what you have said. (There are even some on-line.) They are supposed to be factual and unbiased so there are no reviews by individuals, just a rating from the "inspectors" who are supposed to follow a specific procedure. Each park is measured against a standardized list of facilities, amenities, and services and is then rated based on the availability and quality of those items. The physical description of facilities and the list of amenities is generally pretty accurate. However, there is still a problem with the ratings, and not everyone who stays at the campground will agree with the inspector's rating Unquote.

Your answer is somewhat incomplete, you state DIRECTORIES plural, do you mean that each state or province has one and who's financing it/them ?, if it is supported by camp owners...well my credibility regarding what's on it is somewhat reduced. If you do refer to some thing like WOODHALL, well, if you pay for it they will advertise a tend as a castle.. Unless is recently changed, the only thing reliable there is the fact that, there is a campground in that place
gilda
Reviews by Woodalls and Sams are basically "bought" by the campgrounds. The bigger your ad, the better the rating. What other sites are you referring to?
Texasrvers
Yes, I was referring to Woolalls and Trailer Life (and their on-line versions), and yes, I have heard that the bigger the ad the better the rating, but remember I said that these are good for the basic information--number of sites, paved or gravel, size of sites, utilities, pool, cable TV etc.--not for the rating, which can be influenced.

The idea that there would be "an RV campsite manual which will not be subsidized by camp owners but part of the State, Country or County that have an interested in promoting business in their part of the world" is a utopian thought. In traveling I have run across many state, regional, county, and city publications that list campgrounds in their area, but the fact is these are still produced by some organization that is trying to get you to stay in their area, and therefore, they may be biased. Even if the individual campgrounds are not actually rated in these publications, their write up could be influenced by the ad they bought or by who they know, so again these are good for the basic information only.


QUOTE
some thing like it is done by the hotels in all N. America.


I am unfamiliar with this. What is it called? If it is truly unbiased and lists only the facilities then it may be pretty good for helping someone locate a hotel. However, without some kind of a rating system how would a person know the quality of the place, and because any time people are involved with ratings there will be bias and subjectivity, and this brings us full circle.
gilda
QUOTE
without some kind of a rating system how would a person know the quality of the place, and because any time people are involved with ratings there will be bias and subjectivity, and this brings us full circle.
You are so right. And hence, here we are with rvparkreviews.com. Too bad, no other resources. It is a fine site for what it is, and I know the hard work that goes into it. I would love to see a forum tied in to the review site, where you could add a comment regarding what was posted. (such as a rebuttal)
Insider info
Slander works both ways in my experience (ref; original thread post)
The campsite we worked at this summer was continually making up stories to get people evicted, & they went through campworkers like a donkey can eat strawberries!!!
They also lied about campworkers hours worked to Corporate, & had them looking after their residence when they should have been doing more neccessary site related jobs.

The managers are not always right, & let's be honest, many campground managers are just ordinary campworkers with the ability to pull the wool over corporate's eyes & promote themselves as efficient to get the manager's job!
kcmoedoe
QUOTE(Insider info @ Sep 28 2009, 04:16 PM) *

Slander works both ways in my experience (ref; original thread post)
The campsite we worked at this summer was continually making up stories to get people evicted, & they went through campworkers like a donkey can eat strawberries!!!
They also lied about campworkers hours worked to Corporate, & had them looking after their residence when they should have been doing more neccessary site related jobs.

The managers are not always right, & let's be honest, many campground managers are just ordinary campworkers with the ability to pull the wool over corporate's eyes & promote themselves as efficient to get the manager's job!
Sorry you had a bad work experience. I am curious why you did not just leave? Regardless of your work experience, a campground review should be a review of the campground experience, not the work experience of an employee. At the very least, if you feel you must post a negative review, be truthful and disclose the fact you were an employee posting the review. Don't pretend to be a camper.
meatwagon45
I've been camping for 5 years now and just started adding reviews. I usually go on weekends for 2 nights and try to review the campground Sunday morning while packing up. We write our review as a group so we can be very percise while it is fresh in our minds. To us, (6 adults and 6 kids), the review is something we look forward to and talk about all weekend. We never tell the staff about our reviews and try to remain open minded.

Our personal rules to reviewing are to remember that we are camping. We are not at a hotel. There are no walls to block noise, light and smell. Remember that lies can hurt the owners (good lies and bad). Leaving a review is the same as tipping a waiter - good service = good review = more income
And bad service (unkept grounds, rude staff, failure to enforce THEIR rules etc...) = bad review = less income.

Slanderous reviews should not be tollerated. I honestly have avoided campgrounds with multiple bad reviews and I may be missing out on the time of my life.

Remember, it's a campground, not the Ritz-Carlton. People need to come with low expectations and leave wowed

Galli
QUOTE(meatwagon45 @ Sep 29 2009, 08:33 AM) *

I've been camping for 5 years now and just started adding reviews. I usually go on weekends for 2 nights and try to review the campground Sunday morning while packing up. We write our review as a group so we can be very percise while it is fresh in our minds. To us, (6 adults and 6 kids), the review is something we look forward to and talk about all weekend. We never tell the staff about our reviews and try to remain open minded.

Our personal rules to reviewing are to remember that we are camping. We are not at a hotel. There are no walls to block noise, light and smell. Remember that lies can hurt the owners (good lies and bad). Leaving a review is the same as tipping a waiter - good service = good review = more income
And bad service (unkept grounds, rude staff, failure to enforce THEIR rules etc...) = bad review = less income.

Slanderous reviews should not be tollerated. I honestly have avoided campgrounds with multiple bad reviews and I may be missing out on the time of my life.

Remember, it's a campground, not the Ritz-Carlton. People need to come with low expectations and leave wowed

Hi meatwagon45, if what all of you are doing with competence and honesty, I think it is a proper way to evaluate campgrounds, my problem now is, how we identify your group versus the general review on this forum ?
Furthermore and now is more a matter of criteria, how do you choose the campground, is it in accordance to your preference or any campground in a specific area ?
Mind you , I agree 100%, namely, a group of people with different requirements and age combining their feeling and put them down in a report but your impact on this market will be so minimal that shall not make a dent on the system; on top of that, your group of 5 or 6 persons (I am just quoting a possible number of people) go each week in a different place, in all year it will be 52 campsites evaluated only, what we need is an organization financed by the state, province, county..etc… NOT BY THE CAMP RESOURS to build up some thing reliable .
In my opinion the state, province..etc…are receiving a revenue from campers that spend time in their area, therefore and in order to increase this revenue, they should monitor and evaluate the places that provide this service.
Honestly, I am not too familiar in how the system works but, I am sure that a good system can be built for the benefit of both part involved.
Texasrvers
QUOTE(meatwagon45 @ Sep 29 2009, 10:33 AM) *

I honestly have avoided campgrounds with multiple bad reviews and I may be missing out on the time of my life.


But here's the thing: if a review is libelous with the intent of hurting a campground it will probably be the only bad one among several other good reviews. If there are "multiple bad reviews" as you've stated then they are probably accurate and truthful and you may not be missing out on much after all.
RVRVRV
QUOTE(gilda @ Sep 26 2009, 01:17 PM) *

Reviews by Woodalls and Sams are basically "bought" by the campgrounds. The bigger your ad, the better the rating. What other sites are you referring to?

Now there is a statement that I do not agree on. When they come to our park they have a pre set criteria and from what I have seen they stick to it. I am speaking of Good Sam. We even had a follow up visit from a Good Sam rep. after the regular inspection to check to make sure it had been done properly. Do I agree with all of their rating system? No. But it is theirs and that is how they do it. If you have any question as to how they arrived at a particular rating. I believe that they still put the actual form in the Trailer Life book you buy each year. As any it is a guideline. Buy the way my park is rated the same regardless of the ad I may or may not purchase. The problem is that we as individuals have different ideas as to what is good or bad based on what we may need or not need. Some people should just stay a expensive motor coach resorts period. Some need lots of open spaces. Some want 50 amps only. Some like to socialize and some want to be left alone and some cannot even tolerate having a neighbor. I can go on and on. We all see examples of this when we travel.
HappiestCamper
I don't want the government doing CG reviews. I think we can figure it out without another bureaucracy.
RVfan
As an RV Resort manager, I have written to the moderators on more than one occasion to protest false and slanderous reviews. I have never once heard back. One reviewer posted TWO false reviews in the same month for a total of FOUR reviews ever on their account. Both have lies and mis-represent what really happened. No rebuttals allowed. Also, I read in the rules on here that a reviewer may not review the same park/resort within 90 days.

Now, that being said, we get stellar reviews and treat people with respect. The good reviews out-weigh the bad 20 to 1. In time, her FALSE reviews will be way down stream from all the great reviews. tongue.gif

Review sites like these must be too busy to follow up on items like complaints & slander. In fact, our business (and all rv parks) is the reason this website even exists. Therefore, I feel websites like these are compelled to follow up on complaints and enforce their own rules. It keeps the system honest.
Texasrvers
RVfan,

You are correct that the rules prohibit anyone from posting a second review for any given park within a 90 day period. The system is supposed to automatically catch and reject these so I cannot say why this happened in your case. However, if you will send me a personal message with the name and location of your resort, I will have an admin look into it.
RVfan
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Oct 13 2009, 06:54 PM) *

RVfan,

You are correct that the rules prohibit anyone from posting a second review for any given park within a 90 day period. The system is supposed to automatically catch and reject these so I cannot say why this happened in your case. However, if you will send me a personal message with the name and location of your resort, I will have an admin look into it.



1 review has been removed. Thank your for the assistance.
Texasrvers
QUOTE(RVfan @ Oct 16 2009, 05:21 PM) *

1 review has been removed. Thank your for the assistance.


I'd like to take credit, but since you never sent me the name of your park I guess one of the admins found it by accident. As I said there should not have been two reviews by the same person within a 90 day period so I guess someone just caught it when they were checking for errors and changed it. Either way I'm glad the error was corrected.
John S.
I will say that any one review can be bad and it does not matter but if the majority of them say the same thing and then you read the reviews that person wrote on other campgrounds you can get a feel for the reviewer and the review. I know I have written reviews of campgrounds that were not very good and others that were pretty nice. It was in relationship to the campground and the experience not any vindictiveness.
jobob
What are interesting are the bad or good reviews, worded very much the same, that appear at three month intervals for the same parks, but written by different reviewers or so we are to believe. It certainly seems like a personal vendetta or a park owner or manager writing them. EVERY three months is stretching the rules of coincidence.
Denali
QUOTE(jobob @ Oct 17 2009, 07:33 PM) *

What are interesting are the bad or good reviews, worded very much the same, that appear at three month intervals for the same parks, but written by different reviewers or so we are to believe. It certainly seems like a personal vendetta or a park owner or manager writing them. EVERY three months is stretching the rules of coincidence.
If you would cite a few of these parks, maybe the site admins would look at these suspicious reviews.

--
Dave Rudisill
Dunsmuir, CA
RVfan
Rebuttals Anyone? Experience a Libelous or false review?

It seems all too easy to add a "Rebuttals" or "Comments" feature for park owners & operators. Negative comments are too easy to post.

My recent favorite revies states: "only landscape are trees and grass. No flowers. Stark looking."

My Rebuttal would be simply stated as: "We have TONS of ornamental shrubs, trees and grasses within the Resort. We have flower pots, planters and hanging flower baskets in the common areas."


Rebuttals. Rebuttals. Rebuttals. Anyone else interested?
Galli
QUOTE(Denali @ Oct 19 2009, 10:54 AM) *

If you would cite a few of these parks, maybe the site admins would look at these suspicious reviews.

--
Dave Rudisill
Dunsmuir, CA

In my opinion every thing should be taken with a grane of salt that's why in the pat I have suggested to the moderator to build up a form with the esential items for a park, I. E. size of lots, washroom at reasonable distance, if or not a swimming pool, recriation area and a blank space to put on your on comment
Texasrvers
RVfan,

Rebuttals are made all the time--by the next reviewer (and in comments by previous ones). If there really are flowers and attractive landscaping then someone is going to dispute the reviewer's comments, and in my opinion it is more credible if this comes from another reviewer rather than the park owner. You also need to consider the possibility that there are no grounds for rebuttal. There may actually be no flowers, and if the reviewer thinks this makes the place look stark, well, that is his opinion.

QUOTE(Galli @ Nov 11 2010, 04:32 PM) *

I have suggested to the moderator to build up a form with the esential items for a park, I. E. size of lots, washroom at reasonable distance, if or not a swimming pool, recriation area and a blank space to put on your on comment



Galli,

Isn't the review form already like this? It lists the essential utilities and amenities on a check list and then provides space for the reviewer's own comments.
lauriefla
How about don't mess with a system that works, and instead, encourage people with what they are doing, and realize that everyone's views are different. There are lots of resources available to find good campgrounds, and if one relies on only one website, and it makes that HUGE of a difference to one's plans, then it's their fault for relying on only one website.

This is not a paid website, we pay no dues to participate, reviewers are volunteering their time and their resources to help someone out.

If a campground has a bad review and think that they are being 'picked on', then maybe they can work harder to be 'better' and the one 'bad apple' will just be forgotten. Pay for a good website, post good pictures, tell the size of the campsites, what ammenities are available, take personal reviews on your own website, and prove that your campground is a good one. Personal interaction on forums, turning into arguing, resolves nothing. I have participated in forums for years, and you cannot please all the people all of the time.

The truth will come out, and if you only focus on negatives, then you will miss the gems that come around. Stop trying to change something that has worked for years, worry about your own business, and look forward.

If a lot more people followed the Golden Rule..... this world would be alot better place. Be the better person and get over it. This thread is 3 pages, I think that the point you wanted was made. This site is what it is, you had the chance to read the rules when you joined. Move on, and try to do something productive, within the guidelines that you agreed to when you signed on.
dalsgal
I am curious about something. Other than writing similarities how would the reader or moderator or campground owner know the reviews were written by the same person? The names of the poster don't show up (at least when I checked). I know that sometimes it is easy to know who wrote something but if you get lots of reviews how do you know for certain it is the same person.

The mods here do respond when we contact them about problem reviews. There was one written by someone that had stayed with us and the review was so obviously vindictive that they agreed and removed it. (Thanks bunches for that one)
Galli
QUOTE(dalsgal @ Nov 14 2010, 08:19 AM) *

I am curious about something. Other than writing similarities how would the reader or moderator or campground owner know the reviews were written by the same person? The names of the poster don't show up (at least when I checked). I know that sometimes it is easy to know who wrote something but if you get lots of reviews how do you know for certain it is the same person.

The mods here do respond when we contact them about problem reviews. There was one written by someone that had stayed with us and the review was so obviously vindictive that they agreed and removed it. (Thanks bunches for that one)


Well, I agree that the review should be anonymous for obvious reasons tongue.gif but, in my opinion, the moderator or ??? should review the allegations in advance and eventually, ask some proves before publishing the commentary ph34r.gif . I don't know what kind of liability may be subject the RV PARK but it would be interesting to know huh.gif ; let's say someone write some thing very demeaning and the person or company or organization slanted wants to take action, is the RV PARK obligate by law to identify the writer of the accusing document or, the RV Park is personally liable for publishing it wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif ?
Il would be interesting to hear a line from the moderator too.
Texasrvers
QUOTE(dalsgal @ Nov 14 2010, 09:19 AM) *

I am curious about something. Other than writing similarities how would the reader or moderator or campground owner know the reviews were written by the same person? The names of the poster don't show up (at least when I checked). I know that sometimes it is easy to know who wrote something but if you get lots of reviews how do you know for certain it is the same person.



It sounds like there are two issues here. 1. Anyone, even members and owners, can click on the link at the bottom of each review and see other reviews by this same person. However, the username of the reviewer is not given out. 2. Now without giving away our trade secrets let me just say that there are ways admins can determine who submitted a review and if different reviews are written by that same person. I could tell you how this is done, but then I would have to shoot you. laugh.gif


QUOTE
Galli wrote: in my opinion, the moderator or ??? should review the allegations in advance and eventually, ask some proves before publishing the commentary .


We get well over 100 reviews a day--and that is in the slow season. In the warm months it can be double or more that number. Admins do read all reviews before they are posted, but it is impossible to check out every bad comment. (By the same token we would need to check out every glowing comment also to be sure it was accurate.)

That said we do try to reject reviews that are vindictive or malicious in nature. However, it is important to keep in mind that much of what a reviewer writes is his opinion--not necessarily the facts. Take the example a few posts back. Someone said a campground looked stark because there were no flowers. The fact is there may or may not have been flowers, but how the place looked was his opinion even though other reviews state how pretty it is. Should his comment be removed because his opinion was different from the other reviewers? This may not be a nice comment, but it appears to be an honest opinion.

QUOTE
Galli wrote: I don't know what kind of liability may be subject the RV PARK but it would be interesting to know ; let's say someone write some thing very demeaning and the person or company or organization slanted wants to take action, is the RV PARK obligate by law to identify the writer of the accusing document or, the RV Park is personally liable for publishing it ?
Il would be interesting to hear a line from the moderator too.


Here's my line: I am not a lawyer, and the answer to this (if I actually knew it) is way above my pay grade.
lauriefla
If you read the terms and conditions (which you agreed to abide by when you joined this forum or submitted a review), it might answer some of your questions.

http://www.rvparkreviews.com/terms.html


Admins of ANY forum, if they are good admins, are able to tell who posts what where and when. It's one of the advantages and one of the headaches of being an administrator.
dalsgal
I know the Admins can tell. I was questioning how the poster knew when he was complaining about the same posters comments.(RVfan). I administrate and moderate another site (not RV's) and understand how admins see things others don't but on this site I can't read a comment about our campground and know who posted it as he said he could.
Fitzjohnfan
QUOTE(lauriefla @ Nov 13 2010, 11:31 PM) *

How about don't mess with a system that works, and instead, encourage people with what they are doing, and realize that everyone's views are different.


Hear Hear Lauriefla!! I'm with you. The system works, and there's really no way and no reason to inprove it. The admins have responded to all my questions and concerns promptly and I'm very inpressed with the work that they do.

I say the major reason there are bad reviews here are either from bad attitudes of the employees/owners of the parks, or parks that are not truthful about their amenities, either on their website or on the phone when the reservation is being made. So many people come in asking for "Big-rig friendly" sites and are dissapointed. So many come in expecting good working wi-fi but get intermittant or non-existant service. Many ask for 50amp service, but are given a 30 amp site when they arrive.

I my reviews are mainly dependant on my expectations of the park and if those expectations are met, then it should get a high rating.

just my 2 cents.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.