I submitted 4 reviews of parks we had visited in the last 2 weeks. One was a new park that had not been reviewed yet. Two of the reviews were accepted, 2 were not. I got emails for all 4 but two needed to be corrected and resubmitted. I reviewed those 2 and could find nothing wrong or incorrect with either. Message was "Lacks information" and on the review page it was to "Write 2 or 3 sentences about park" or something to that effect. I had written a small paragraph on each already.

What gives? I tried several changes with no good results.

You should have received an email with the text "Your review has been deferred because you have not provided enough information about the RV park. Please elaborate by writing at least 2-3 sentences which contain information about the facilities, services, and amenities provided at the park."

To be accepted, a review must include information useful to other readers. If your review does not provide information about the "facilities, services, and amenities provided at the park", it is not included in the database.

I encourage you to resubmit those reviews, including facts about items like the campsites, interior roads, utilities, bathrooms, and similar factors that we all consider when selecting a campground we haven't previously visited. That is particularly important when adding a new park to the database, since your input will be all that the rest of us have.

I had already written a couple small paragraphs about the parks. More than many of the reviews I've done.

I don't know about how you prepare for posting a review, but I have to get into the 'zone' so to speak. I try not to post when I'm sitting in the park. Learned to give things a day or two.

However, once I've got all my ducks in a row (price we paid, and specific notes from our experiences), I generally read the other reviews from that park first. Also, refresh myself with that park's website.

Then I try to outline what we found, or experienced, (without making it a travel blog), in order to help the next person make a key decision.

I am generally the co-pilot on our travels. I am reading YOUR review, in advance, in order to determine whether I can direct my DH and pilot, into this campground/park, or not.

Are the sites long enough to pull in overnight? Are there ANY amenities, or do I need to prep to boondock for the night? For heavens sake, did you find the electricity MISWIRED ???

Are the surroundings such that we could stay a while, or do we need to shower, sleep and bolt down a cup of coffee before hitting the road quickly the next morning?
Can a dog be walked without harrassment?
Is it a destination park, or a destination area?
Was there entertainment for children...how about adults?
Were you treated with respect at check-in?

That's what I'm looking for when I look at reviews.
I skip over the " We had a good time, we will be back" I'm glad, but no help.

PDDeen,

Let me to jump in here.

Denali and ForsterImposters are both correct, and they have given you some good tips. For a review to be “good” it must contain factual information that would be useful to another person who is trying to choose a campground. People’s preferences are different, and when they write reviews they tend to include those things that are important or meaningful to them. Sometimes this information may not amount to a hill of beans for the next camper. For instance, a reviewer may mention pet friendly services while a traveler without pets couldn't care less if this is included in reviews. However, almost all campers want to know about the condition of the park and what its sites are like. Personal or anecdotal information (e.g., The kids had a great time catching frogs in the river.) may be a good memory for the reviewer, but it does nothing to give the reader information about the campground. Likewise reporting an incident (e.g., The campers next to us were smokers, and when I very politely asked them to stop blowing smoke in our direction he called me a #? *!) only tells about a condition or event that happened at the park when the reviewer was there, and because it is unlikely to happen or be present when the next person stays there, this type of information is also not too useful.

Sometimes a reviewer will just write sentences that are too general; (e.g., This was a great park. We really liked staying here. There are great views.) While this information is OK, if that is all that is said it is not enough to give another reader an idea of what the park is like. Quality, not quantity, is the key here. Information should be pretty specific in order to be helpful, and Denali and FosterImposters have both given you some good ideas about what to include.

All that said I checked on your reviews. The ones that were deferred seem to fall in the “too general” category. Nothing you said was wrong, but they just did not contain the “specifics.” I also checked your posted reviews, and they contain comments about site accessibility, size, surface (concrete or gravel, etc.), levelness, power problems, low branches, Wi-Fi strength, and satellite reception to name a few. While these past reviews did also contain some more frivolous material, the important thing is that they also talked about the facilities, services, and amenities offered by the park.

I think that with a little added information and revision your deferred reviews can be as good as your previous ones.