Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Changes To Review Submittals
RV Park Reviews Campground Discussion Forum > RV Park and Campground Discussions > RV Park Discussions
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
John Blue
Fitzjohnfan,

This information is correct. Also people need to note if review is over six months old it will not be posted on line. So if you only write one review a year you will never see your review due to old age. As soon as you post three reviews on line then you can post as slow as you wish as long as you get them posted inside the six month date. wink.gif
Kawartha
QUOTE(Fitzjohnfan @ Oct 6 2011, 10:36 PM) *

I think they meant that if you are a seasonal camper, you would only stay at one or two parks for the whole year, and possibly those one or two parks are the only ones they stay at (ever), so they might never get over the 3 park minimum and their reviews would never show up.

Just my interpritation.


That is indeed correct. I am glad that someone is good at basic reading. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Kawartha
Iluvcamp
Thank you,
Jerry S.
While this post is not about 3 reviews, or 5 reviews, or how soon my review will get posted, or getting more admins, it does sort of fit a discussion of how the reviews get posted. I have no problem with the 3 review requirement, am patient enough to wait a week or two for my reviews to post, and absolutely understand how tough a job the admins do in checking the reviews as submitted. In this thread, they have been too kind in critiquing how poorly written many reviews are. I know I couldn't do their job simply because I get frustrated too easily with how poorly educated the average person is today.

All that aside, my picky complaint is that, mainly during the busy summer backlog period, my reviews are not posted in the order submitted. If I submit 5 reviews in a week, three different admins may get those reviews to check. Thus, the reviews may not post in the order I visited the parks or in the order submited (I now try to make these have the same chronological order). My most recent trip (5 weeks and 20 or so parks) has has half the parks out of chronological order in the listing of all my reviews. Somebody looking at that list would think that I went to LA then NM then OK then AZ then TX then NM and so on (OK, this is an example, not the exact way my trip is reflected in my review list.).

Is there any way that the reviews can be listed in the Reviewer's personal list of all his'her reviews in the order of the date that we enter as the date we stayed at the park? Not a big deal for most people, but for those of us who take fairly long trips with stops at numerous parks it would be nice to see our review list reflect our actual route in the correct order.

Thanks.
Texasrvers
QUOTE(Jerry S. @ Nov 8 2011, 11:41 PM) *

my reviews are not posted in the order submitted. Is there any way that the reviews can be listed in the Reviewer's personal list of all his'her reviews in the order of the date that we enter as the date we stayed at the park?


You know I never noticed this until you mentioned it, and I agree with you that it would look better if reviews were in chronological order of the date of stay. Right now I assume they are in the order of the time/date they are posted, and yes, that can be different times/dates if different admins check them. This probably happens to you a lot because you do send in several reviews at the same time, and therefore, it is likely that more than one admin will work them.

I do not know if this can be corrected. It is far above my pay grade, but I will pass along your suggestion, and maybe it will happen. Thanks for mentioning it.
Jerry S.
Thanks for the quick response TX. As I indicated, this "problem" is not a big deal. If you look at my reviews for my fall (Oct/Nov) trip and my summer (Jul-Sep) trip, the order of the reviews as listed makes it look like I was all over the place zig-zagging and going back and forth. If it canbe fixed without too much trouble, fine. If not, no problem.
Skid Row Joe
I have stayed in a commercial RV park that is not listed in the city and state that it exists. Is this because the RV park owner or manager needs to initiate the RV park for reviewing in the first place? I cannot find a way to review this RV park I have now stayed at twice in one year.

Forgive me if this is covered in FAQs, but I'm not finding it.

Thank you.
Texasrvers
When you click on "Submit Review" you will first get a screen that asks you choose the state the park is in. The next screen asks you to select a park from one of the lists below and then click on Next. The instructions then say:

If the campground is not in either list, choose "Not in List" and click NEXT to enter a new park.

This should allow you to enter a park that is not already in our database and write a review for it.

Please let us know if you have any more trouble.
Skid Row Joe
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Jan 11 2012, 03:48 PM) *

When you click on "Submit Review" you will first get a screen that asks you choose the state the park is in. The next screen asks you to select a park from one of the lists below and then click on Next. The instructions then say:

If the campground is not in either list, choose "Not in List" and click NEXT to enter a new park.

This should allow you to enter a park that is not already in our database and write a review for it.

Please let us know if you have any more trouble.

Texasrvers/Moderator,

Got it. Will do.

Thanks,
SRJ
Jerry S.
Back in November of 2011 in this thread, I asked about having the each individual reviewer's list of reviews to be shown in the same chronological order as the reviewer stayed at the parks. From the response I received, I was led to believe the problem is that reviews are posted by the date they clear the admin's review. Depending on which admin gets a review to check and how large their backlog is, the time of posting can vary by weeks during the summer crunch. I can live with that even though it makes my review list looks really strange as I explained 3 months ago.

Yesterday I sent in a review on Oasis RV Park in Amarillo because I had to wait 90 days to send in a second review of the park I had stayed at and reviewed in mid-October. Because I did not want the review to post after the last few parks (in OK and MO) I stayed in at the start of November, I listed the "stay date" as 10/31 rather than the actual stay date of 11/1. I expected the review to show up on my list as my last October review. Instead, it not only posted over a dozen spots before the last October review on my list, it actually posted before my mid-October review of Oasis RV park. That really looks goofy.

I do have one more review for the final night of that trip in Effingham, IL to write for that trip. I would like to think that review will post as the final (for now) review on my list.
Texasrvers
OK, you’ve got me on this one. When I replied to your Nov. 2011 post I could see that your reviews were not listed in the order in which you stayed at the parks, and I agreed with you that in my opinion they should be. Since they weren’t in chronological order I said I ASSUMED that they must be in the posting order. However, with what you have reported now that does not seem to be the case either. And I agree with you again. If your last review was dated 10/31/2011, it should have been listed after all the other reviews that were written earlier in that month. I have no idea why it wasn’t, but I am not going to assume anymore that it was for one reason or another. I do know that I cannot fix it because it is still way above my pay grade. Maybe the webmaster can eventually find some time to fix it.
Jerry S.
Hi TX,

Thanks for the quick response. Your reasoning back in October trying to explain why most of my summer and fall trip reviews were all over the place chronologically made sense to me. This one, however, has no rhyme or reason. Why would a review with a stay date of 10/31 and submitted 3 months after all the other Oct/Nov reviews be placed before over a dozen other October reviews? Additionally, the fact that it was placed just before the first review of Oasis is just too weird to be a coincidence. At the very least, it would be nice if the second Oasis review (the one which mentions being submitted 2/12) could be moved to just before the Nov. reviews.
HappiestCamper
<disclaimer> I am not affiliated with this web site in any capacity more than a contributor to the forums and submitting my own personal reviews. I do have some experience with web sites and the back end databases they use</disclaimer>

While doing the review the date of stay does include the day of the month, it appears that it is only sorting by month and year when displaying reviews. Note that they do not show a day in a review, only the month and year. It may even be possible that the day is not being saved to the database, if so, then it would be impossible to sort in true chronological order. If, however, the entire date is being saved, then the query could be changed for review display to include the day as well.

Again, read disclaimer at the top - these are only my opinions, and do not reflect the views of this web site - and in fact may not reflect the truth.
dalsgal
I hate to ask what, to many of you, may seem to be obvious but....what difference does it make what the order is?
Texasrvers
QUOTE(dalsgal @ Feb 23 2012, 09:13 AM) *

I hate to ask what, to many of you, may seem to be obvious but....what difference does it make what the order is?


The best way I can explain it is that we are just wired that way--it is in our genes. Remember the TV show "Monk" and how he had to have everything just so. I'm not anywhere near that bad (I hope), but if things are not in a certain order, then they are not just right and it bothers us. A place for everything and everything in its place. Then there are those poor souls that order does not matter, and the result is we drive each other crazy. Try that combination in a marriage!!!! But ours has lasted 43 years so I guess we have been able to work things out--as long as we do it my way. :-)
normanspaulding
Yes it is sad cause many of the parks are greedy and providing bad service now.
Jerry S.
Norman,

Are you sure your post of 2/24/12 is for this thread? I went back through the previous 2 pages of posts and found none to which your post could possibly relate.
HappiestCamper
QUOTE(Jerry S. @ Feb 24 2012, 11:40 PM) *

Norman,

Are you sure your post of 2/24/12 is for this thread? I went back through the previous 2 pages of posts and found none to which your post could possibly relate.


I think they read the OP only and replied - from the OP:
"Sorry we have to do this but some campground owner's/employees think they don't have to follow the rules of this website and continue to try to post great reviews about their campground."
Jerry S.
Thanks Happiest. I suppose that is possible. I just find it unusual that someone would go back 5+ years and 300 posts and make a comment that does not seem to relate to any of the recent comments in the thread. Hopefully, we will hear from Norman.
sass
I actually came to gripe about park owners/managers/employees/family/friends and pets posting reviews of their parks. Seems I've been beaten to the punch.

The biased posts are, for us old timers, easy to pick out, but to the uninitiated, maybe not so easy.

I wised up after calling a park in Oregon to make a reservation. I mentioned the good reviews I'd seen on RV Park Reviews. The dude on the phone said he was glad I liked them, since he wrote more than a few of them.

Long story short, the park was no where near what was advertised in the reviews the owner (as he turned out to be) had planted. It was a holiday weekend, so I was stuck. And not real happy. As my travels continued, I found more and more parks reviewed in this site were similarly misrepresented. But, what to do?

I'm not sure the new standard that requires reviews of three different parks to qualify for submission is adequate. All an owner/manager/employee/family/friend or pet has/have to do is find a few parks in the area (or as near as possible) and give them bad reviews. I've seen that done as well.

I'm not sure there is a way to keep the crafty liars out. All we can do is know they are there.

This might help.

The misleading "reviews" are most easily identified when they only discuss the "amenities" and pay no attention to the actual issues you generally have at an RV site. Like road conditions, tree overhang, site level, electrical power quality, water pressure, is there or is there not a sewer connection if they advertise that there is, does wifi cost extra, is there OTA TV, if not, is there cable and does it cost extra, can you catch a satellite?

These are all things, if we keep them in mind and address as many as possible in OUR reviews, that will more than highlight the bogus and generally untruthful, glossed over "reviews" posted by park owners/managers/employees/family/friends and pets.

Steve
DXSMac
I've been on this forum a number of years, and my understanding and observation is that the hard working admins are "wise" to the "tricks" used to pump up a park and do their best to keep those reviews out of the database.
FosterImposters
QUOTE(sass @ Aug 22 2012, 05:40 PM) *

I actually came to gripe about park owners/managers/employees/family/friends and pets posting reviews of their parks. Seems I've been beaten to the punch.

Welcome aboard sass!
We too have discovered 'less than honorable' reviews of RV parks out there. Started using this site, as folks like us, CAN send a message to the admins, to report what looks like an obvious ringer-review.

Have actually seen reviews vanish, when it became obvious a park owner (or his pet, laugh.gif ) posted gushing reviews.

So drop a dime (yikes...guess you can tell I grew up in another era), to the admin. Let's keep these reviews as real as possible!

Cheers! cool.gif
John Q Citizen
QUOTE(Webmaster @ Jul 4 2006, 09:18 AM) *

We have found it necessary to add some more security to the website when it comes to approving reviews. All members will now have to submit a minimum of three (3) different campgrounds before any of their reviews will be posted on the website. If you have not seen a recent review you submitted posted on the website that is because it is in a holding queue until the three review quota has been met and then they will automatically transfer to the approval queue and will then be posted. Any member that has already posted three or more will see no change. Sorry we have to do this but some campground owner's/employees think they don't have to follow the rules of this website and continue to try to post great reviews about their campground. The "great" campgrounds will never have to do that as they will always receive positive reviews from their customers. smile.gif We have caught several and will continue to do so to try to keep this website as it was intended.



A lot of bogus reviews are easy to spot. They are glowing, and nonspecific. I always check all the reviews of a park. mad.gif
SharonW.
QUOTE(Webmaster @ Jul 4 2006, 09:18 AM) *

We have found it necessary to add some more security to the website when it comes to approving reviews. All members will now have to submit a minimum of three (3) different campgrounds before any of their reviews will be posted on the website. If you have not seen a recent review you submitted posted on the website that is because it is in a holding queue until the three review quota has been met and then they will automatically transfer to the approval queue and will then be posted. Any member that has already posted three or more will see no change. Sorry we have to do this but some campground owner's/employees think they don't have to follow the rules of this website and continue to try to post great reviews about their campground. The "great" campgrounds will never have to do that as they will always receive positive reviews from their customers. smile.gif We have caught several and will continue to do so to try to keep this website as it was intended.


Wait a minute. Why is everybody down there saying 5 reviews when this post says 3 reviews? I did 3, luckily I had 3 this year. The season is over now, and there obviously won't be many more. Hopefully that was enough?

Dutch_12078
QUOTE(SharonW. @ Oct 11 2012, 06:11 PM) *

Wait a minute. Why is everybody down there saying 5 reviews when this post says 3 reviews? I did 3, luckily I had 3 this year. The season is over now, and there obviously won't be many more. Hopefully that was enough?

Where did you see a reference to requiring 5 reviews? The requirement has been 3 as far as I know since this thread started 300 plus posts back.
Texasrvers
When this rule was first begun you had to submit 5 reviews, but shortly after that, the number was changed to 3. To this day members are still talking about having to do 5 reviews even though it was changed years ago. To try to stop the confusion we changed the number in our original post (which SharonW quoted) from 5 to 3, but I see that has not worked well either. (SIGH!)
Dutch_12078

Ahh! The fog clears... biggrin.gif
Smkyld
First, let me say I love this site. We are in the middle of a long trip to visit friends and family and have stayed at numerous campgrounds since our departure in August. I have used this site to make my decisions on where we stay along the way.

I found your site so helpful, I decided to join and do reviews on the places we have stayed. I did a few reviews and found only one thing lacking. Is it possible to add a "laundry" choice on the amenities list? I find that an important choice in selecting parks during extended trips. (We've been out 2 1/2 months.) I will also find it very important when I go full time within the next year or two.

Thank you for the hard work on such a wonderful site. biggrin.gif
Eaglemate
Probably should have run a focus group before making this decision and not after instituting an overall not well received response.
Dutch_12078
There doesn't seem to have been a huge outcry in my opinion, in the six years the rule has been in place.
Gold Miner in Red
Should have known this 3 location thing prior to filling out the crap and hitting the post button. Screw this site. I am gone.
dalsgal
Love how people read the rules and agree to them and then get angry after they post.
gritz
This is pretty lame when you refuse to post reviews that really help other RVers find a decent site. We may not DO 3 reviews in a year but if I am willing to take the time to submit a review and you won't even consider it .... then I'll never be back. I'll find another RV review site that is relevant and I will suggest to each park we visit that they use it. Why would I waste time doing a review where it's not appreciated. Dumb ... plain dumb.
dalsgal
For you that don't want to help others I will say that there is a reason for the 3 posts (not 3 in a year) and that is to keep dishonest owners or grumpy campers from signing on to make fake posts.
kcmoedoe
QUOTE(Gold Miner in Red @ Oct 18 2012, 01:15 PM) *

Should have known this 3 location thing prior to filling out the crap and hitting the post button. Screw this site. I am gone.

Bet he is now just as happy about this site as he was about the park he was preparing to skewer. Don't really see reviewing three parks as a major problem. It is, after all, a Campground and RV park review site. Camping and RVing tends to imply that you are going places and seeing things. Not sitting in one place for a year. And, it sure appears that single posts do make it the site eventually. Seems like whenever I see a terrible review, the reviewer has no other reviews. Apparently it can and does happen.

QUOTE(gritz @ Oct 18 2012, 02:46 PM) *

This is pretty lame when you refuse to post reviews that really help other RVers find a decent site. We may not DO 3 reviews in a year but if I am willing to take the time to submit a review and you won't even consider it .... then I'll never be back. I'll find another RV review site that is relevant and I will suggest to each park we visit that they use it. Why would I waste time doing a review where it's not appreciated. Dumb ... plain dumb.

So you visit enough parks that you recommending another review site (that actually doesn't exist as far as I have seen) will make a difference, yet you cannot review all those parks, just this single one, that I am sure you want to vent your frustrations at. Other than the entertainment value, most of the users of this site want information on both GOOD and bad parks. Only reviewing ones that you felt were bad doesn't help most of us. We are looking for GOOD places to stay and if you won't take the time to tell us where those parks are, we probably don't need you to come back.
Denali
QUOTE(Gold Miner in Red @ Oct 18 2012, 12:15 PM) *

Should have known this 3 location thing prior to filling out the crap and hitting the post button. Screw this site. I am gone.
Wow, that will bring the site to it's knees!

Only 172,706 other reviews are online at this site, so expect to see a big impact from Gold Miner in Red's departure!
Glenn Norton
QUOTE(Gold Miner in Red @ Oct 18 2012, 12:15 PM) *

Should have known this 3 location thing prior to filling out the crap and hitting the post button. Screw this site. I am gone.


If "crap" is all you have in your review, I don't need to read it.
Texasrvers
QUOTE(kcmoedoe @ Oct 18 2012, 04:43 PM) *

it sure appears that single posts do make it the site eventually.


Let me explain how this can happen. Sometimes a new reviewer submits their 3 required reviews which meets our criteria. However, if two of those reviews must be deferred that leaves only one review posted. Thus, it appears that he has submitted only one review when in fact, he really did submit 3.


By the way. we will gladly return Gold Miners' and gritz's membership fee if they will fill out the crap paperwork to request a refund.
HappiestCamper
kcmoedoe, as usual you knocked it out off the park.

Texasrvers, love the part about the refund biggrin.gif
HercMaster
Changing the subject a bit, I noticed today a review submitted by another user that clearly is referencing the wrong campground. The user has submitted only 2 reviews, and those 2 look legit, but I can tell the user is referencing the wrong campground (because I visited that campground just an hour ago, and because I am currently camping IN the campground the user *meant* to reference.

The review given is only a 5-star review ( which in my opinion is pretty much about the right rating for the campground I am in, and which is clearly the campground he *meant* to submit on ) and it is unfortunate because the campground he actually named is nearby and is more on the order of 8 stars, based on my impression when I visited THAT campground an hour ago and also based on other user's reviews of that campground which are posted here.

If a moderator would like to contact me by private email, I will be glad to give him the names of the 2 campgrounds I am talking about, along with supporting data as to why I am sure the other user made an error in referencing those 2 campgrounds. It would be good, for the sake of BOTH of the 2 campgrounds, to correct the incorrect campsite reference.
Texasrvers
QUOTE(HercMaster @ Nov 7 2012, 03:10 PM) *

If a moderator would like to contact me by private email, I will be glad to give him the names of the 2 campgrounds I am talking about, along with supporting data as to why I am sure the other user made an error in referencing those 2 campgrounds. It would be good, for the sake of BOTH of the 2 campgrounds, to correct the incorrect campsite reference.


Since you have now located how to send a message directly to me, please go ahead and send the names of the 2 campgrounds and any other data about them to me, and I will have a look at them. Thanks for pointing this out.

Texasrvers
Fitzjohnfan
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Oct 18 2012, 09:40 PM) *

Let me explain how this can happen. Sometimes a new reviewer submits their 3 required reviews which meets our criteria. However, if two of those reviews must be deferred that leaves only one review posted. Thus, it appears that he has submitted only one review when in fact, he really did submit 3.
By the way. we will gladly return Gold Miners' and gritz's membership fee if they will fill out the crap paperwork to request a refund.

Texas, this comment made me laugh so hard I woke my wife up sleeping next to me. Because of this I too want a refund, and I will no longer post any more reviews (for the next 24 hours). (Grin).
Texasrvers
QUOTE(Fitzjohnfan @ Nov 24 2012, 01:23 AM) *

Texas, this comment made me laugh so hard I woke my wife up sleeping next to me. Because of this I too want a refund, and I will no longer post any more reviews (for the next 24 hours). (Grin).



OK, since you requested so politely I will not make you fill out the paperwork. Watch for your membership refund check in the mail. laugh.gif tongue.gif
Joe56
The problem with even 3 is some of us are seasonal campers like me I stay at on site fore the season. With that said I know I'm new here but wanted people to know about the tv park I stay at and their unposted changes.
MATurner
I'm a bit dismayed by this whole situation. I've written and had placed in the forum many reviews of campgrounds and have NEVER been denied a review. I stayed in a campground for two nights and wrote what I felt was an accurate review of the campground speaking of the false advertising and the problems we encountered at the campground. We are on a 3 month trip and have more than 30 reservations made for this trip. I cannot for the life of me figure out why my review was "deferred" except that I gave said campground a low rating compared to others who had reviewed it. I also mentioned a few positives. The only one being that they had spacious sites. If the campground advertises certain things and doesn't deliver, we should be able to advise fellow travelers so they won't have the same problem. I just cannot figure out what was wrong with my review.
Texasrvers
QUOTE(MATurner @ Jun 20 2013, 09:55 PM) *

I just cannot figure out what was wrong with my review.



I am sorry your review was rejected, but we do not do this just because it gave the park a low rating, so I am sure the admin who read your review felt it did not meet our guidelines for publication for some other reason. The email you received explained the reason your review was not published, and the admin may have given you additional information.
MATurner
QUOTE(Texasrvers @ Jun 21 2013, 12:12 AM) *

I am sorry your review was rejected, but we do not this just because it gave the park a low rating, so I am sure the admin who read your review felt it did not meet our guidelines for publication for some other reason. The email you received explained the reason your review was not published, and the admin may have given you additional information.


No, it did not. If you look over my other reviews, you will see how I write them. The fact that I found this park not as expected, you will see. I've got many reviews on this forum, and this one was no less or more than any others. I feel it was not accepted because it was not a good review as others were for this particular park, and if people read it, they would appreciate what I wrote.
MATurner
QUOTE(MATurner @ Jun 21 2013, 12:18 AM) *

No, it did not. If you look over my other reviews, you will see how I write them. The fact that I found this park not as expected, you will see. I've got many reviews on this forum, and this one was no less or more than any others. I feel it was not accepted because it was not a good review as others were for this particular park, and if people read it, they would appreciate what I wrote.



LOL! I just went back and read over many of my other reviews of parks on this forum, and the one I wrote for the last park was absolutely no different. I told what I saw and what I felt about the park just as I did the others. Never have any been rejected. What I didn't say about said park was how the trash bin wasn't emptied for what looked like weeks, nor was the water at the dog park clean. I need an explanation for my review being rejected more than what I got. If you really want these parks to be reviewed, you do not need to be rejecting REAL reviews for the parks. Needless to say, this does not make me happy. Do you really want reviews which people want to see? Or, are you only looking for what you THINK the parks want to see?
MATurner
QUOTE(MATurner @ Jun 21 2013, 12:45 AM) *

LOL! I just went back and read over many of my other reviews of parks on this forum, and the one I wrote for the last park was absolutely no different. I told what I saw and what I felt about the park just as I did the others. Never have any been rejected. What I didn't say about said park was how the trash bin wasn't emptied for what looked like weeks, nor was the water at the dog park clean. There was green slime in it. I need an explanation for my review being rejected more than what I got. If you really want these parks to be reviewed, you do not need to be rejecting REAL reviews for the parks. Needless to say, this does not make me happy. Do you really want reviews which people want to see? Or, are you only looking for what you THINK the parks want to see?


Further, at what point is someone NOT considered a newbie? I've been posting on this site since 2009. That's 4 years. What's up with that? I really don't care if I'm considered a newbie, but I do care when my reviews are rejected when they have been very informative. BTW, the park about which I posted is the KOA in Carlsbad, NM, and it is not a good park, nor do they live up to what is advertised. They are 50 miles from Carlsbad Caverns and 15 miles from town. What do I need to do to tell people that they do not tell the truth about their park? They say they are the #1 rated park in NM. If that is the #1 park in the state, I'm in shock!!
docj
The term "newbie" isn't anything more than a label used by the forum's software to describe someone who doesn't have many forum posts. It has nothing to do with your posts on the website. It's nothing more than a machine applying a category; it's not a put-down.

As for the Carlsbad KOA, this park repeatedly gets negative comments from people who stayed there only to discover that it is further away from the Caverns than they realized. IMHO the park doesn't conceal its location on its website and even provides maps. If someone chooses to stay there and then finds the drive to the Caverns longer than what they desired, why is that the park's fault? There's no bait and switch going on; the park is exactly where it said it is. Personally, I consider downgrading the park's rating for that to be totally inappropriate, but I am not the admin who deferred your review.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.