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
bobbyg
When I first heard about this website I was enthused and hopefull. I read the reviews of the campgrounds I planned to use and submitted 3 or 4 reviews this summer. I wondered why I didn't see any of my reviews until I saw the new policy on a hold on reviews until five are submitted. The reason doesn't make sense. If a particular campground employee wants to submit favorable reviews, he can just submit five or more for other campgrounds. You don't need to penalize everyone for not submitting five. There are quite a few people who only want to submit 2 or 3 reviews during a year and we will never see them. Now I know why I often don't see reviews on campgrounds or don't see very many on particular parks. I don't know about others, but I think I am smart enough to figure out if they are legitimate reviews. I think as long as you have this policy there won't be many reviews, and I for one won't be using the site.

Bob
Cheryl
They reconsidered and made it only 3 reviews not 5. And yes, an employee or owner could submit 3 false reviews, but they would have to take the time to look up all the information, such as prices, locations, exact name, how many sites available, etc... It would be easier for them to just make changes to their own campground to get legitimate good reviews.
Also, it doesn't matter if it takes you a year (or longer) to get your 3 reviews in, they will get posted. If you have met the 3 quota and still don't see your reviews, then you should contact the webmaster in a private email asking what went wrong. They won't post any reviews with missing or wrong information. They have other guidelines also, but only the webmaster can tell you which ones you didn't meet.
john2006
During the years 2002, 03 and 04 I submitted approximately seven park reviews to this site, which were accepted. During 2005 and 2006 I was staying at parks for the most part in the capacity of park host, and did not add any further reviews. I recently stayed at some parks as a non-employee, and when I attempted to log in yesterday, using my original screen name and password, I was not able to do so for some reason. So I re-registered with a new screen name and password, wrote and submitted a review, and learned about the new restrictions. When possible I will try to review the two other parks I recently stayed at and see if the three reviews will be accepted. This site has been very helpful to me in my travels and I want continue to contribute to it.
kw5kw
QUOTE(Cheryl @ Aug 9 2006, 06:24 PM) *

[*]You must enter the exact state and city that the campground is in or the review will not be posted.
[*]Do not add extra "notes" with the city such as "near Chicago" as this just has to be removed. Enter just the city where the campground is actually located--nothing more!


How many campgrounds are actually IN THE CITY and how many campgrounds are NEAR the city?
Cheryl
I just copied and pasted the website's guidelines. The webmaster will have to clarify that for you.
Testudo
QUOTE
If campground owners really want to be dishonest and post a review for their own campground, they will find a way to do it regardless of the restrictions that are placed on this site to try to keep them from doing just that. So then it is really the honest reviewers who are being hurt by the restrictions, not the campground owners. You have indicated that you have ways of determining if the review is from a campground owner, but I would bet that for every way you have, a dishonest person can figure out many ways around it. The only thing that keeps anyone (RVer or owner) from writing a dishonest review is his/her own honesty and integrity.


I have to agree -- [ Let's see, I'll post a glowing report for _my_ campground and 'nail' two of my closest competitors. ]

I don't have a better idea to deal with this problem. I also don't doubt that it _is_ a problem since I have noticed reviews here that read like 'advertising copy'.

From my point of view, I take advantage of these reviews so I would like to 'give back' but so far I've gotten around to putting in one review. The lack of seeing any progress from my own efforts is, unfortunately, discouraging me from putting in the time.

On the RV.net, we have the problem of manufacturers occassionally enlisting shills to post glowing reports about their campers. Because it is a forum environment, we tend to quickly discover the pattern and expose the posters for who they are (and what they are trying to do). One thing that I can't help but notice here is that the reviews are listed anonymously. It seems to me that posting the user name of the reviewer with the review would be a whole lot more effective in revealing bogus reviews than the current system is. I mean, someone with a financial interest is going to be a whole lot more patient than I am with the current system. And besides, for them it is going to be no effort to compose a rosy review of their own site and, in about two minutes more, post nasty stuff about their competitors. Additionally, a ranking system for the reviewers or listing the number of reviews the reviewer has submitted would go a long way toward establishing who the reliable reviewers are and who the one-shot wonders are. A ranking system might even spur people on to compete to submit more reviews (then all we have to worry about is the legitimate reviewers making up reviews to improve their ranking [grin!]).
Testudo
...Since I'm on a beef-roll: I don't recall ever seeing suggestions for arriving at an overall rating for a reviewed campground. I'll bet most reviews are ones and twos; nines and tens; and fives. For a star system with no guidelines, I think a five star system (or even three) would be more realistic than _ten_. Better yet, how about coming up with a guideline as to what the stars are supposed to mean so that (maybe) everybody will be on the 'same page'. Too many reviews focus on minor insults and gripes and not any sort of objective review of the services the campground seceded in providing. To make matters worse, I can't even PM the reviewer to make querys about all the information they left out [shrug].
kw5kw
QUOTE(kw5kw @ Dec 13 2006, 01:11 PM) *

QUOTE(Cheryl @ Aug 9 2006, 06:24 PM) *

[*]You must enter the exact state and city that the campground is in or the review will not be posted.
[*]Do not add extra "notes" with the city such as "near Chicago" as this just has to be removed. Enter just the city where the campground is actually located--nothing more!


How many campgrounds are actually IN THE CITY and how many campgrounds are NEAR the city?



QUOTE(Cheryl @ Dec 13 2006, 04:57 PM) *

I just copied and pasted the website's guidelines. The webmaster will have to clarify that for you.

Sorry, Cheryl, I thought you were an administrator.

Still, the rules about 5 or 4 or 3 are asinine.

If I was a campground owner, I'd just give me a good review and the neighbors bad reviews and vioila I've hit my 3 or 4 or 5 or 15 or ...

These rules only hurt a person like me. I've given one review to the one campground that the wife and I go to.

It's the only campground that we've been to since 1998 when we visited a different state park that was about 50 miles distant.

That was the only other campground that we've been to since 1987 when we vistited a different state park that was 50 miles the other direction.

That was the only site that we'd been to since 1985 when we actually pulled to Colorado :Shock:

Before that in 1979 we pulled to a campground in northern New Mexico.

We don't go far, we just like to get away from the house for a weekend.

That's what we do.

We don't spend much on fuel that way.

So, these rules would have allowed me to make reviews in 1979, 85, 87, 98 before they would have been seen in 2006 (with the 5 campground rule in effect).... yep, that info would have been up to date.

You, see, I look at this site dream. I purchaed a campground directory fully knowing that I'm not going to go to any of them, but I can dream while I'm camped a full 15 minutes away from the house in a full service campground.

</soap box rant off>
Cheryl
QUOTE
Sorry, Cheryl, I thought you were an administrator.

Nope, just a regular camper trying to help out. I wouldn't have the time or patience to maintain a website. We should all think about how much time and work goes into this site and remember that the webmaster does this free of charge and thank him/her (sorry not sure which) every once in awhile.
Testudo
I never meant any disrespect to the site purveyor but the ability to post a small number of reviews has no correlation with the fairness, sincerity, and honesty of those reviews. I would like to see the cumbersome vetting process go away and then see the reviewer's user name along with the number of reviews they've submitted, on each review. It would look something like this...

DREARY GULCH RV PARK AND BONE YARD, Dreary Gulch, State of Denial

* * * * * * * * kw5kw ( 1) This is the only campground I ever go to. Blah, blah, blah...
April 2006
$10


* * ________ Cheryl (134) Managed not to drown in showers. Blah, blah, blah...
June 2006
$22


Sorry to pick on you guys as examples but... 'kw5kw's report looks quite good but a number of glaring points are going to jump out at any reader. 'kw5kw' may be fair, sincere, and honest but he either doesn't have much experience with campgrounds or maybe he is getting a kickback from the owner (note what he paid). It wouldn't matter if there were ten one-shot wonder posts all similar to the first one and with ten different user names, I would naturally tend to discount them in favor of 'Cheryl's post because she has obviously 'been around' --having reviewed 134 campgrounds. Without those safeguards, both reviews are just anonymous opinions. With the current system in place, I have no idea that 'kw5kw' has even submitted a report (regardless of whether he was fair, honest, and sincere) because of the peculiarity of his camping habits. Still, he might be the only source of information for that campground because nobody else ever goes there.

And with the current system (where the reviews are anonymous), let's say the campground is remote and I need to know that a certain condition of the campground is up to my expectation. I can't see from any other source if those conditions exist (or if they _still_ exist). 'kw5kw' didn't mention anything about it in his review but, if I can see that he is the reviewer, I could PM him to ask if he knows anything more that could help me.
kw5kw
QUOTE(Testudo @ Dec 21 2006, 02:37 PM) *

I never meant any disrespect to the site purveyor but the ability to post a small number of reviews has no correlation with the fairness, sincerity, and honesty of those reviews. I would like to see the cumbersome vetting process go away and then see the reviewer's user name along with the number of reviews they've submitted, on each review. It would look something like this...

DREARY GULCH RV PARK AND BONE YARD, Dreary Gulch, State of Denial

* * * * * * * * kw5kw ( 1) This is the only campground I ever go to. Blah, blah, blah...
April 2006
$10


* * ________ Cheryl (134) Managed not to drown in showers. Blah, blah, blah...
June 2006
$22


Sorry to pick on you guys as examples but... 'kw5kw's report looks quite good but a number of glaring points are going to jump out at any reader. 'kw5kw' may be fair, sincere, and honest but he either doesn't have much experience with campgrounds or maybe he is getting a kickback from the owner (note what he paid). It wouldn't matter if there were ten one-shot wonder posts all similar to the first one and with ten different user names, I would naturally tend to discount them in favor of 'Cheryl's post because she has obviously 'been around' --having reviewed 134 campgrounds. Without those safeguards, both reviews are just anonymous opinions. With the current system in place, I have no idea that 'kw5kw' has even submitted a report (regardless of whether he was fair, honest, and sincere) because of the peculiarity of his camping habits. Still, he might be the only source of information for that campground because nobody else ever goes there.

And with the current system (where the reviews are anonymous), let's say the campground is remote and I need to know that a certain condition of the campground is up to my expectation. I can't see from any other source if those conditions exist (or if they _still_ exist). 'kw5kw' didn't mention anything about it in his review but, if I can see that he is the reviewer, I could PM him to ask if he knows anything more that could help me.


And... It could mean that I (KW5KW) just found this site and Cheryl had found it years earlier.

I do a forum at www.ChristianForums.com and I have over 1423 posts with a reputation of 33654. There are many other posters who have >10,000 posts and they have reps of <1000. Who's more trustworthy, more posts or higher rep?

I do a forum at http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/index.php , I joined there June 1, 2006 and have 489 posts--- but I just found that site that day after having my CHL for >5 years before that. Who's more trustworthy, a guy who just joined or me or the person who registered when the forum was first created? I don't know! It's my guess that it's the guy who started the forum since he fights in the legislature for our rights.

I just joned http://www.graceforums.com/ because it was created because of ill will at another forum... so I guess we're all just about equal there.

Thing is just because you have 1 post or 10,000 posts does not disqualify anyone.

Thing is if a person shows extreme prejustice towards one view or another that could disqualify that person but you never know with only one post, it takes several.

Now, if that person posts only 4 or 5 times and praises one but trashes 4 that are nearby, then I perceive a problem and in that case (If I was the moderator/owner) I'd delete all posts by that individual.

Just my $0.02.

Thanks for the vent
Russ
ferretman1
[font=Arial][size=7]

Hello all:

My wife and I are new to "full time" rv-ing. Yes we lived in an RV for 9 years in Oklahoma
at one site, which was a regular trailer park, that had an RV section. We did this because I
am on disability and it was the cheapest way to live ($10.00 a day, electric, cable TV, water
sewage, etc included) on my limited income. In fact our old 35 foot fifth wheel is still there
as a glorified storage building, while we live in our newer one here in Colorado. We came
here for health reasons (allergies, heat, better doctors, etc.)

This is our first KOA experience ever. We have been here for a little over 8 months. We do
not plan to move around alot to other camp grounds at this time. We may stay here a year
or so and then move on, if finances permit this. We wanted to post a review about this
KOA. I just registered today, and in reading the information here I have to submit three
reviews from three diffierent campgrounds to get them posted???? So it will take us three
years minimum ( in our situation) to get our reviews posted?? How does this policy help
others who rely on this site for the neccessary information on campground recomendations?

You know you can try to legislate morality and honesty till the cows come home, but in most
cases, you just end up shooting yourselves in the foot, and restricting those who are honest
and would like to post a review, otherwise unless you vacation a lot and stay at various
camp grounds consistently and with regularity, submitting a review is apparently an effort
in futility!
Jerry S
Hi Ferretman1,

When I first read your post, my first thought was that you don't quite understand the concept of the park reviews on this site. With only one exception (see "RV Park Changes" string from 2/21/07 by Paisley), the vast majority of users and contributors to this site are campers who are either vacationers/weekenders (maybe a handful of parks in a year) or travelling RVers (dozens of parks every year). Their reviews give the reader what their experience was what and thus, what the reader might expect if they go to that park. I was unsure of how helpful a "resident's" experience would be to the majority of use who usually temorary guests of the park.

Since reading this post, I see that you have added another under the "Review Comments" string. I hope writing that post has eased your disappointment with the "rules" of this site.

Good luck with your situation.

Jerry S.
Florida Native
My wife and I owed a B&B for 10 years and experienced a huge number of false positive and false negative reviews on a huge site called Trip Advisor. I estimated that in our town about 50 % of the reviews were bogus. Other owners even bragged about doing it to me. This was a different situation in that the site had millions of visitors per week and made big bucks on their ads and such. They did nothing to police them and were just going for volume of reviews and click thrus for the revenue. I hate to see campground owners also doing this as it ruins it for all of us. I just reviewed 2 campgrounds this week from our recent trip. One was average and one was excellent. I might add that the average one was $70 and the excellent one was $23. The excellent one is a city park (Jacksonville, FL) and doesn’t have a good website. We had some friends tell us about it and I was hoping to spread the word with my review. I now need one more to get published. I don’t blame the moderator, but the unethical people trying to cheat. Money forces people to do bad things sometimes.
NikkiMac
QUOTE(Zig @ Jul 22 2006, 11:14 AM) *

I think we should be able to rate the reviewers. "Was this rating Helpfully?" I have seen this on other opinion sights. If it is just one or two reviews that are out of line, people will know to disregard those as somebody with a ax to grind, or somebody affiliated with the campground.
I am not going to fill out 5 reviews, due to the fact that we don't go to that many in one year. We do stay at one park for a week at a time, but, just do not go to that many campgrounds. This is a bad policy. blink.gif



I think that would be an excellent feature.. I've seen some reviews go from a 3 to a 10, and it just seams fishy to me, instead of writting another full review if we are able to agree with another person that would be helpful to..

is there a place in here to see all your reviews that you have done.. I been to a lot of campgrounds and don't want to submit a review to a campground that I've already done.
RLM
I have a position on this issue, but that is not the purpose of this reply. Neither is it to diminish any complaints made about the new rule or lessen the validity of negative comments.

Perhaps one of the reasons we like this site is because it is basically ‘commercial’ free. No pop-ups, banners, ads, or other annoyances. Your participation in it is not leading to a cultivation of information with which to send you junk email. Secondly, the participants on the website are fortunate that the administrator also publicly participates. That is rare.

There are some excellent suggestions in this thread about improving the security of the posts vs. a 3-post rule. Considering the controversy, I am sure the administrator is looking at many of them as methods to improve the legitimacy of the reviews. Be that as it may, I respectfully suggest that we don’t own, manage, or spend the inordinate time it takes to be the Webmaster. And since it is not a commercial site, he’s definitely not getting hordes of revenue to compensate for the time spent managing it.

I am an unpaid administrator for two smaller websites. From that experience, I can assure you of a few things:

1- I will never be able to please everyone all the time.
2- There are more ‘ah-craps’ passed to me than ‘atta boys.’
3- I take serious suggestions seriously, but I make the final decisions.
4- ”Why am I volunteering to doing this?” is a question I ask myself repeatedly.

Personally, with whatever inaccuracies or false reviews it may have, I put the information gathered here far above the traditional commercial campground directories.

And for the administrator, thanks for your time....atta-boy.

Rick
Florida Native
My wife and I are in a 3 month camping trip probably up the east coast and hopefully up to PEI. I have sent in many reviews that have not been posted and frankly probably won't bother sending in anymore. We just spent 2 great days a a small campground in western NC. Too bad not to be able to report it. We are in New Bern, NC waiting for the storm to abate so we can get on the outer banks.
hdnelson
Funny. I submitted my first review here last night, and saw it up this evening.

I'm sure I'll be back.
Dave-and-Ellen
QUOTE(hdnelson @ May 21 2007, 09:11 PM) *

Funny. I submitted my first review here last night, and saw it up this evening.

I'm sure I'll be back.


I hope I have the same luck. I posted my first review a few minutes ago, but it will take a while before I come up with some more!
Dina
I found this site yesterday, and thought I would share our perceptions of the parks we have been to.
I signed up and submitted 2 reviews, and noticed I needed three. No problem-we have been to about 80 parks over the last four or five years, so I reviewed a third and forth. (I must admit I started with my favourites-and I don't remember how much we paid for them!) Unfortunately when I hit enter after the forth review, the message offered to take my third review! So I re-did one and it took it. Then I did a couple more.
Today when I signed in to check which ones had been accepted and which still needed to be done, none are there.

Did I do something wrong? Do I have to start all over again?
Cheryl
Not necessarily, sometimes it takes a few days or so to see them posted.
Dave-and-Ellen
QUOTE(Cheryl @ Jun 9 2007, 06:07 AM) *

Not necessarily, sometimes it takes a few days or so to see them posted.


Well, It has been a while, and since I only did one review, I guess it will never be posted.
Cheryl
Yours will be posted once you submit 2 more. There is a 3 review requirement to try to keep it honest.
Dave-and-Ellen
QUOTE(Cheryl @ Jun 17 2007, 06:18 PM) *

Yours will be posted once you submit 2 more. There is a 3 review requirement to try to keep it honest.


OK, but it may take a bit to do the other two. I am still trying to realize the fact that with our "B" you can not just get up and go, as we had imagined!
Meanderman
I'm kinda surprised that this subject is still going on, but since it is, feel the need to comment.
- First, this site provides a service unlike any other. The most accurate and current reviews of campgrounds available. It makes the Trailer Life Directory and Woodall's rating systems obsolete instead of just inaccurate. Thanks to all of those who works hard to make this site what it is.
- Regarding criteria to review, I'll probably alienate some when I say this: If you only dined out once or twice a year I wouldn't trust your restaurant review, or if you only rode in one or two cars a year I wouldn't trust your car reviews.....so why should you expect to have campground review credibility if you visit them so rarely? Yes, I'm biased, but in the last year and a half as full timers we've stayed in 61 different parks and some of the reviews on this site have not always been accurate, although once again, it's the best source available. I'm not accusing anyone of not trying to describe their experience as best as possilble, but unless you spend a significant amount of time at campgrounds it is difficult to be consisitent when describing rates, facilities, and services.
- Once again, I don't mean to sound elitist, but while opinions are free, there should be some experience in whatever that opinion is for it to be credible.
Dave-and-Ellen
Well, I just submitted my 2nd review. Before I did, it said I had submitted 0 out of the 3 required. What happened to the one I submitted on Seven Feathers, Canyonville, OR in June?

TIA
Dave-and-Ellen
QUOTE(Cheryl @ Jun 17 2007, 06:18 PM) *

Yours will be posted once you submit 2 more. There is a 3 review requirement to try to keep it honest.


Cheryl...is my first review still there?
Lringe
QUOTE(Webmaster @ Jul 4 2006, 11:18 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 five (5) 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 five 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 five 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.

sad.gif I do not think the new security measures are fair. I always look to your site for my next campground choice's. I have noticed not many review are being put on, that is because they are in a holding queue. My family really values others reviews on campgrounds, it is really a shame that even a site as helpful as this is being ruined by a few bad practicing campground owners. I agree that you should maybe have a more intense application process before you all people to submit to your site. Thank you.
T Lynn
wink.gif My thinking exactly! Thank you.
QUOTE(Zig @ Jul 22 2006, 01:14 PM) *

I think we should be able to rate the reviewers. "Was this rating Helpfully?" I have seen this on other opinion sights. If it is just one or two reviews that are out of line, people will know to disregard those as somebody with a ax to grind, or somebody affiliated with the campground.
I am not going to fill out 5 reviews, due to the fact that we don't go to that many in one year. We do stay at one park for a week at a time, but, just do not go to that many campgrounds. This is a bad policy. blink.gif
Dave-and-Ellen
I, of course, also agree! I have taken the time to write 2 reviews...I guess for nothing. It is OK if you RV a lot, but we have been so busy since we got the RV we have only been to two or three sites. Also, one of my two seem to be missing. I had great feedback for Seven Feathers...hope it finally makes it!

QUOTE(T Lynn @ Jul 29 2007, 03:13 PM) *

wink.gif My thinking exactly! Thank you.
QUOTE(Zig @ Jul 22 2006, 01:14 PM) *

I think we should be able to rate the reviewers. "Was this rating Helpfully?" I have seen this on other opinion sights. If it is just one or two reviews that are out of line, people will know to disregard those as somebody with a ax to grind, or somebody affiliated with the campground.
I am not going to fill out 5 reviews, due to the fact that we don't go to that many in one year. We do stay at one park for a week at a time, but, just do not go to that many campgrounds. This is a bad policy. blink.gif

Cheryl
QUOTE
Well, I just submitted my 2nd review. Before I did, it said I had submitted 0 out of the 3 required. What happened to the one I submitted on Seven Feathers, Canyonville, OR in June?
Cheryl...is my first review still there?


Dave and Ellen,
Sorry for the late response, we've been away camping. As long as you followed all of the guidelines and got a "thank you" screen after you submitted your review, then it should still be there.
Dave-and-Ellen
Been busy ourselves. I do not remember if we got the thankyou screen, but assume I did. I understand the need to try and prevent an owner from giving a great 9 or 10 review and thus your 3 review requirement. However, even if that happened, if the next 2 or 3 people review that site as a 3 or 4 we know something is not correct with the 10.

It can work the other way as well. In Canyonville, OR, there is a park called Seven Feathers (the one I reviewed and said may have gone away). The rating says it is about a 9 or 10 by a lot of people. I agree that it is the best park we have ever been to and Good Sam also had it listed in the magazine. So, why are there some 2 and 3's? Because they are old reviews of an old park next to the Seven Feathers Casino.


QUOTE(Cheryl @ Jul 30 2007, 08:00 AM) *

QUOTE
Well, I just submitted my 2nd review. Before I did, it said I had submitted 0 out of the 3 required. What happened to the one I submitted on Seven Feathers, Canyonville, OR in June?
Cheryl...is my first review still there?


Dave and Ellen,
Sorry for the late response, we've been away camping. As long as you followed all of the guidelines and got a "thank you" screen after you submitted your review, then it should still be there.
Cheryl
QUOTE
thus your 3 review requirement


Not MY requirement. I'm just another poster trying to help.
Dave-and-Ellen
QUOTE(Cheryl @ Jul 30 2007, 03:10 PM) *

QUOTE
thus your 3 review requirement


Not MY requirement. I'm just another poster trying to help.


No problem. smile.gif
onemantwokids
ohmy.gif Gee, I'm not too happy with the new rules for reviewing either. I just reviewed a campground and got the notice that I hadn't reviewed enough campgrounds when in fact, this was at least my third review. My others which were done a while ago are posted. Those reviews were done while we were still tenting but now we've purchased our first hybrid trailer.

I don't get why the system doesn't realize that I've reviewed other campgrounds unless it's since I haven't done any in awhile unsure.gif

It's too bad because I've really come to depend on this site when choosing campgrounds to stay at.
elwood1944
I would like to see the stop over points on the Ohio Turnpike listed as a camp ground. They provide a necessary place for RV Travelers on the Turnpike. They offer 30 and 50 amp electric and a dump station. For $15.00 you can spend the night at a Service Plaza
Cheryl
This isn't a "campground listing" site, it's just a place that campers can review (or rate) campgrounds they have stayed at.
The only way campgrounds get listed here is if somebody reviews them.
If you are interested in reviewing them, I would suggest sending a personal message to the webmaster to inquire if that type of place even qualifies.
co-pilot
QUOTE(Webmaster @ Jul 4 2006, 07:18 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 five (5) 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 five 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 five 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.

I reviewed a compground back in July. I was wondering why it wasn't posted. It's too bad you have to hold the reviews. I don't go camping often so it will take me awhile to build up 5 reviews.
Cheryl
You only need 3.
Everyboysmomma
QUOTE(Zig @ Jul 22 2006, 01:14 PM) *

I think we should be able to rate the reviewers. "Was this rating Helpfully?" I have seen this on other opinion sights. If it is just one or two reviews that are out of line, people will know to disregard those as somebody with a ax to grind, or somebody affiliated with the campground.
I am not going to fill out 5 reviews, due to the fact that we don't go to that many in one year. We do stay at one park for a week at a time, but, just do not go to that many campgrounds. This is a bad policy. blink.gif


I think this is the best way to go, if the Webmaster is collection opinions. Check out the format of Trip Advisor, which is great for hotels. Being able to rate reviews would certainly keep more people honest.
IMHO
Momma
friendlycamper
[quote name='Webmaster' date='Jul 4 2006, 11:18 AM' post='4533']
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 five (5) 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 five 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 five 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.

/quote]



Well this is a real bummer, I just bought a Travel Trailer 2 weeks ago, went on my first camp trip this past week, posted a review needed to be seen by campers and it won't be posted till next year. There has gotta be a better way. There is going to be alot of valuable reviews not seen. I do understand, however like usual the innocent will be punished not the ones that are cheating the system. Kick them off when they are caught.
lizandjeremy
Is there something wrong with the review function right now? I cannot even log in to leave a comment. I have my 3 to 5 reviews to post, but cannot manage to log in.
kitten4762
I submitted 3 campground reviews quite a while ago and have yet to see them posted here. Just wondering what's up with that?
Cheryl
Did you just look on the "front" page or did you go to the page with all of that State's listing's? If they were posted, it may have been on a day where a lot of reviews got put on at the same time. Yours may have just dropped off the front page very quickly. If they are not on the actual State pages, did you get a "Thank you" screen at the end of your posting process? If you didn't end up at that screen, then something went wrong during your submittal.
Butch
kitten4762,

Cheryl is absolutely correct as to why your reviews did not show on the front page. There are times when a great number of reviews hit the system and over 100+ reviews maybe proof read and activated, or posted, within a few hours. Check your State, City, and campground listing to see if your reviews are listed. You may have missed seeing them listed on page one due to the sheer numbers handled at that time.
kitten4762
Thanks you all...but I went to the listing for each campground and none of my reviews were posted. The last review I submitted said that I had submitted 3 out of the 3 required to get posted, so I don't know why they haven't shown up.
Cheryl
How long ago did you post them? Days, weeks, months??
Also, when you went to listings, did you scroll all the way down through all of the listings to look for it?
kitten4762
Maybe they're backed up or something...I don't know. The third review that I submitted was probably two weeks ago...the previous submissions even before then. I have read the entire reviews for each campground I reviewed and mine aren't posted. For example....the first campground I reviewed was Gatewood Park and Reservoir in Pulaski, VA. There is one review and it's from 2005 (not mine). It's no big deal or anything...I'll check back periodically. I just won't bother writing anymore though if they aren't going to be read by anyone.
Butch
Kitten4762,

After looking through over 1800 reviews, I only found two written under "Kitten4762".
1) Gatewood Park & Reservoir, and 2) Oceanlakes Family Campground. You state that you had three, but the third one is not showing on the list, what happen ?? I don't know. Re-post the third one again, if it takes it that will show that for some reason it was kicked out. Just trying to help, good luck.
kitten4762
Thanks Butch. I just rewrote the third review and tried to submit it but it gave me a "You have reviewed 2 out of 3 required" yadda yadda message...doesn't look like it "took". I have no idea what the problem is. I give up...it's just not meant to be!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.