Sep 2 2012, 07:40 PM
There is a review of Mission West RV park in Mission Texas that got a "1". Since I read all the trainwreck reviews, I read it, and then clicked through the posters other reviews. They have "reviewed" this park 4 times since March of 2011. They are involved in a lawsuit against the park, by their own admission in the posts. I don't have a dog in the fight, but it sure appears the purpose of the multiple reviews is not to make the public aware of any issues in the park but to give a black eye to the ownership and try and hurt their bottom line. I don't think these obvious personal attacks should be allowed, especially when it is expressly represented that legal action is occuring.
Sep 2 2012, 08:44 PM
This does seem excessive. However, our only guideline about reviews for the same park is that they must be 90 days apart. It appears that the first 3 reviews by this person meet that criteria. Only the last one seems to be within 90 days of the previous one. However, if the January 2012 review was submitted at the very first of the month and the if the March 2012 review was submitted at the very end of month, that would be right at the 90 days. Of course the reverse could be true also. An end of January review and the first of March review would only be 30 days. The system is not supposed to allow second reviews to go through unless they are outside the 90 day limit, so maybe this last review just made it under the wire.
As for the content of the review and the fact that it is reporting a law suit, I will call this to the attention of the higher up admins. And thank you for calling it to our attention.
Sep 3 2012, 08:49 AM
I agree this is a train-wreck in a lot of ways. I went over all the reviews and see this park has had problems a long time now. The only way to fix this problem may be a lawsuit. The person who posted the reviews lives in this park six months per year and needs to be near medical care and I can understand that. If other RV people come to this park will they find the same problems?
As an off note I received e-mails from couple park owners that the reviews were all wrong down in south TX. Every review we show was all wrong. I made a trip to each park and found the were 100% on the money. Never received any more e-mails past that point. Most reviews tell you some information on what you will find in a park.
The outcome on this problem will take more time due to slow legal action.
Sep 3 2012, 09:26 AM
We were in a delightful park once that had consistantly high scores except for one "1", who panned everything in the park (everything was dirty, everyone was rude, the sites were narrow, the road was awful, etc., etc.). As we found the park to be very good, I spoke with the owner about the bad review and he said he knew who had done it; it was a camper who was impossible to please and who had threatened to "bad mouth" the park. I mentioned that he could contact the moderators about this unfair report and he said that it wasn't worth his time to do so, that he felt prospective campers would see the report for what it was and pay attention to the other high reports. If I see a report with consistantly high scores and then a bad one, I figure that there are people all over this world who just cannot be pleased. Look at the cruise reports.....you get people who hated everything about the cruise....how could you possibly hate EVERYTHING about the cruise unless the boat sank? And even then, they MUST have had at least a little fun until they had to get in the lifeboats, yaknowhatImean? Conversely, if the park gets 1s and 2s and then a 10 with "best park I ever stayed at, etc., etc", well, I figure they've asked their mom to post a review. Ya gotta take it all with a grain of salt.
Sep 3 2012, 11:04 AM
I can't help but wonder why they keep going back to that park if they feel it is so bad. I might return a second time to a bad park but not again after that. It sounds to me more like they are just trying to set out to make sure the park continues to get bad reports. I don't know if the reports are warranted or not but I would question the accuracy of someone that stayed there 4 times when they hated it the first time.
Sep 3 2012, 01:16 PM
QUOTE(dalsgal @ Sep 3 2012, 12:04 PM)
I can't help but wonder why they keep going back to that park if they feel it is so bad.
In his 2011 review he mentioned he owns a lot there and may not be able to sell it or get out of it because of the law suit. Then he also mentioned he needs to go there for medical reasons. It seems like he could find another park in the area (there is one on every corner down there), but maybe financially he cannot afford to move to another place. But I'd sure be trying. Life is too short to be that unhappy.
Sep 3 2012, 02:20 PM
I did go read his posts after I posted. Even if he had a reason to stay there it appears that he went out of his way to try to blacken the eye of the campground even more. He could have posted something honest without making himself sound vindictive.
Sep 3 2012, 04:46 PM
Does the staff here look at the computer's host mask to see if the same computer is posting multiple reviews under different email addresses?
Sep 3 2012, 07:50 PM
The answer is yes we do this. I think we all need to send money to everyone in this park so everyone can move out.
Sep 4 2012, 10:03 AM
Back when we were in the lodging business, one of our competitors used to get a new email (takes about a minute or so) frequently and trash several others. They caught him by using the host mask. He switched over to using different computers, but it sure slowed him down.
Sep 4 2012, 11:47 AM
I re-read the posts regarding this park and it appears to be another case of people signing up for some goofy ownership/rental/timeshare arrangement. There have been other threads on these forums about those type of arrangements. In my opinion, unless you get deeded property never enter into a long term contract, too many bad things can happen.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here