Interesting note from RV Park Reviews

[docj]

Well I'm not sure what a modest amount is because this didn't satisfy the computer:

 

 

I think you were probably a few characters less than the minimum that the system requires. But I seriously doubt that your language skills would have been challenged by having to add a couple of extra words.

 

But putting that aside for a moment, can you see that the text you entered doesn't really provide any useful information to a reader who isn't familiar with the park? The fact that you say you like it is great, but how will someone else be able to evaluate if the attributes that are important to you are shared by them? Sure, they can go back and read your earlier reviews, but what we have found is that people greatly prefer seeing a few words in each review that provide this sort of information: "this park has a great dog run and the store has a nice selection of items."

Obviously, I made this up and it probably doesn't even apply to this park, but we've found that users really like to see comments like that which help them to build an image of what the park is like. Most other review sites don't screen for much more than profanity, etc. RVPR tries to go a bit further to ensure that reviews are helpful to others. We recognize that not every user agrees with this philosophy but many do and complain to the admins about reviews that they feel doesn't have sufficient content. There's no way we can please everyone.

[Barbaraok]

Guess what - I'm not paid to write advertising content for the parks. So since saying that we have stayed there 3 times isn't sufficient to tell people that the park is pretty good, I won't bother doing them anymore.

[Pappy Yokum]

Some folks have a lot to say - - some only a little.

 

I would be appreciative of either one - and am capable of finding more info if I really need it.

 

I'll go with Barb on this one. No thanks - on the hoops to jump through!

 

If the site doesn't like -or want- brief comments (good or bad) I'll have to pass.

 

Whatever rings your review posting chimes!..

 

.

[cactus]

I'm not getting paid to do an extensive review for the site. I had reviewed the site previously (3 times IIRC) and while I could cut and paste, didn't see the need to do that. They don't want my review, fine, won't do it. I've got other things to do.

Barb,

Might not always agree with you, but we are on the same page here!

[docj]

 

If the site doesn't like -or want- brief comments (good or bad) I'll have to pass.

 

 

 

With all due respect, the very concept of sharing reviews through social media, whether they be reviews of RV parks, lawn mowers or restaurants, only works if users are willing to provide useful information in the reviews they leave for others. If everyone took the approach that they didn't want to be bothered writing detailed reviews then soon all that readers would see would be comments such as "Great, must buy!" or "Horrible, stay away!" which wouldn't be particularly helpful in most situations.

 

I, for one, rely heavily on reviews when making purchases, finding restaurants or exploring things to see in new cities. For those activities I use Amazon, Google, Yelp, TripAdvisor and other sites. As my way of saying "thanks" for having those reviews available for my needs I try to post reviews frequently and I strive to make my reviews reasonably informative so readers better understand why I like something or why I didn't. The very existence of social media review sites depends on the full participation of those who use them.

[Darryl&Rita]

With all due respect, you are being offered honest feedback. A review, if you will, of your site. Take it, or leave it. I've grown past being graded for word count. You request current reviews, but if there haven't been much changed to the campsite, or park, I don't need to practice my creative writing to find different words to say the same thing. I don't use reviews to create "destinations" or parks I simply must visit, in fact I find myself seldom using reviews of any kind. Rather than an anonymous reviewer, I find I value my own judgement more and more. In this day and age, with reviews for hire.

[Dance Chick]

 

With all due respect, the very concept of sharing reviews through social media, whether they be reviews of RV parks, lawn mowers or restaurants, only works if users are willing to provide useful information in the reviews they leave for others. If everyone took the approach that they didn't want to be bothered writing detailed reviews then soon all that readers would see would be comments such as "Great, must buy!" or "Horrible, stay away!" which wouldn't be particularly helpful in most situations.

 

I, for one, rely heavily on reviews when making purchases, finding restaurants or exploring things to see in new cities. For those activities I use Amazon, Google, Yelp, TripAdvisor and other sites. As my way of saying "thanks" for having those reviews available for my needs I try to post reviews frequently and I strive to make my reviews reasonably informative so readers better understand why I like something or why I didn't. The very existence of social media review sites depends on the full participation of those who use them.

I'm with you, Joel, and find the reviews without details worthless. I really don't get the big deal that's being made, and it doesn't take any time at all to write a decent review.

If they don't want to write them, then fine. There are those of us who will......

[2gypsies]

I'm with you, Joel, and find the reviews without details worthless. I really don't get the big deal that's being made, and it doesn't take any time at all to write a decent review.

If they don't want to write them, then fine. There are those of us who will......

 

Same here. A review includes details. You're not doing advertising for the park. You're giving future campers information. Typing one more minute isn't going to cut into fun time. How much time was spent on this one post?

[Kirk W]

Same here. A review includes details. You're not doing advertising for the park. You're giving future campers information. Typing one more minute isn't going to cut into fun time. How much time was spent on this one post?

While I'm not a big fan of word counting, there does need to be some sort of standard if the reviews are to be useful.

 

I think that some of the comments have pushed Joel into a bit of a corner. He doesn't run the site, nor probably have much input about the features or rules, if any at all. While I do look at one other campground review site often and occasionally a second one, the RV Park Review site is the largest and I do believe that at least for now, the best available. Most of those doing the work are unpaid volunteers, just as we are on this forum and a lot of other valuable resources. It seems to me that not participating in the reviews of a site that we use would be counter to our own value received. There are a bunch of people like Joel who work amazingly hard to try and make that resource as good as they possibly can. Anyone who uses it should appreciate what they do.

[sandsys]

Apparently, I'm with all of you. I appreciated reviews that told me what the reviewer liked and/or didn't like so I tried to write those types of reviews. But, if it was my fourth visit to a park, I would find it harder to write that because I'd want to say something new and how many times would I bother trying to find new ways to say the same things? Now, Joel says the check boxes are included in the reviews so it would be even harder to find something else to say. If I checked that the park had a pool, why would I also say that the park had a pool unless it was so scummy I was offended by it? I would probably just say something like, "Every thing was as advertised on their website," and be done with it. Which would be rejected for lack of word count. Whose problem is that?

 

Linda Sand

[Barbaraok]

 

Same here. A review includes details. You're not doing advertising for the park. You're giving future campers information. Typing one more minute isn't going to cut into fun time. How much time was spent on this one post?

Actually quite a bit because you have to go through all the check boxes, drop downs, try to figure out if you remember the site number. Then you get the email and they ask you to go redo it because you didn't have enough words (the 3rd given for the same park) describing it. If someone can't read that this is the 3rd time we stayed there and figure out it must be ok if they keep going back, then my flower words aren't going to do much for them. If the park was really bad or supremely good, first time we stay there, I do write a much more extensive park review. I wasn't going to review it to begin with because I've said all I have to say on the park, but I got an email (sure lots of you did) pleading for people to go do reviews, even if it was for parks you had stayed at before. When you are asking me to do you a favor, don't criticize me for doing something for you - kind of an obvious idea to me.

[docj]

Actually quite a bit because you have to go through all the check boxes, drop downs, try to figure out if you remember the site number. Then you get the email and they ask you to go redo it because you didn't have enough words (the 3rd given for the same park) describing it.

 

I tried to tell you in my previous post that NONE of the check boxes, or the site number, or any of the things below the Comment box are required. As the result of this conversation I have suggested that a very large "Optional" label be added, but had you tried to submit without checking ANY of the boxes your review would have been accepted as long as the comments were at least the minimum length. The check boxes were added because many people are submitting reviews from phones where checking boxes is easier for most people than is writing text. You are literally the first person I have encountered who has believed that all that information is required. Sorry

[Barbaraok]

And why doesn't the comment box say - #XX characters required for this to be processed. In fact, why does it proceed at all if the comments are REQUIRED? Remember, rvparksreview.com SENT ME AN EMAIL ASKING ME TO DO THIS. Then they turn around and say I don't do enough for them?

 

And Joel, I'm not made at you, it is the owners of the site whose somewhat sanctimonious (they routinely notify me that they do not like my writing style and remove ( ) and other phrase punctuation), authoritarian (might I say dictatorial) management of the site which depends upon people doing work for them for free. Have they ever once sent an email saying "Thanks for contributing 50 reviews) or 100, or 200, or in any way thanking people for staying with them for years and years? Nope -just the nasty 'you can't do that' note. So I will take my leave.

[budeneighe]

One other thought.... RV Park Reviews needs to get their phone app out as that would give them a clear edge over any of the other similar sites that I'm aware of.

Big big issue! Really need that app with a user interface that does not require a lot of verbiage to be useful.

[Dutch_12078]

Guess what - I'm not paid to write advertising content for the parks. So since saying that we have stayed there 3 times isn't sufficient to tell people that the park is pretty good, I won't bother doing them anymore.

 

Except that tells us nothing about what you feel is "pretty good" about the park... And that's the whole point of a park review...

[SWharton]

I tried to post an informational review of a park. We had called the park and found out their "no pets" policy included all pets. Normally that just meant dogs. We have 2 trailer cats and could not stay there based on the policy. I wanted to pot this on RVparkreviews but because I had not stayed at the park, could not post. This information about their pet policy should be made known but I had no way of communicating it since I didn't stay at the park.

[budeneighe]

 

Except that tells us nothing about what you feel is "pretty good" about the park... And that's the whole point of a park review...

I depend more on RVPark Reviews than any other park reviewing facility because I can drill down into a reviewer's history to see what their nature and unit of worth is before I give their review any weight towards my own decision on a park. Their history establishes a pattern of behavior and attitude which, combined with the general current comments of other reviewers, really helps to vett the value of their opinion and sets how I rank and trust it.

[docj]

I tried to post an informational review of a park. We had called the park and found out their "no pets" policy included all pets. Normally that just meant dogs. We have 2 trailer cats and could not stay there based on the policy. I wanted to pot this on RVparkreviews but because I had not stayed at the park, could not post. This information about their pet policy should be made known but I had no way of communicating it since I didn't stay at the park.

 

I agree that this is a situation in which your review could have provided useful information even though you hadn't stayed at the park. The problem is, however, that the vast majority of reviews by people who didn't stay are not informative and pertain to some dispute, typically with their reservations that they wish to complain about. With the volume of reviews we receive we have to make rules under which we operate and one of them is that we don't permit reviews by people who didn't stay at a park. Sorry

[trailertraveler]

As RV Park Reviews has become more demanding, I tend to post fewer reviews. If a park has current reviews that I tend to agree with, I am inclined to not bother with posting. Recently, I mostly post reviews of campgrounds that were not previously in the database. However, even this is fraught with potential problems. I posted a fairly detailed review, which I thought was complimentary, of an older no frills park with little visitation. The RV Park Reviews staff listed it as poor. The owner was obviously upset as was I. I recently posted a review of another unlisted park which has not posted nor have I received any comments.

 

Another down side of the must stay policy is that you can not post that a park has closed, is now so popular that you need to make reservations well in advance, has raised their rates significantly. or is no longer a Passport America Park, etc.

[docj]

As RV Park Reviews has become more demanding, I tend to post fewer reviews. If a park has current reviews that I tend to agree with, I am inclined to not bother with posting. Recently, I mostly post reviews of campgrounds that were not previously in the database. However, even this is fraught with potential problems. I posted a fairly detailed review, which I thought was complimentary, of an older no frills park with little visitation. The RV Park Reviews staff listed it as poor. The owner was obviously upset as was I. I recently posted a review of another unlisted park which has not posted nor have I received any comments.

 

Another down side of the must stay policy is that you can not post that a park has closed, is now so popular that you need to make reservations well in advance, has raised their rates significantly. or is no longer a Passport America Park, etc.

 

With all due respect there is no possible way that the admin staff at RVPR would change a review you wrote to "poor" if you had designated a different rating. OTOH, you wouldn't be the first person I have encountered who, by accident, checked the wrong box when submitting his review. Occasionally, when I notice this I send reviewers questions pointing out that the rating was inconsistent with the text comments.

 

If you would please reply to me either through this thread or via PM and provide me your RVPR user name, the name of the park and the approximate date of the review I will be glad to change the rating to whatever you would like it to be.

 

As for not being able to inform RVPR that a park is closed, that's what the Contact RVPR links on every page of the website are for. You can use those links to inform the admins of issues such as park closure or major changes in business such as "members only."

[remoandiris]

I wish I could edit my reviews on RVPR. Occasionally I think of something I should have mentioned after I submit.

[trailertraveler]

...With all due respect there is no possible way that the admin staff at RVPR would change a review you wrote to "poor" if you had designated a different rating....

Well you can defend your website all you want, but explain how all three stars translates to 2 stars for an overall rating. Your attempts to bully those who have any problems/complaints is not appreciated by me and is one of the reasons I review less and less. The park was Taos RV Park and my review is still the first and only review of that park so should not be hard to find. Do what ever you want including deleting the review as it has already damaged my image with the owner.

[docj]

Well you can defend your website all you want, but explain how all three stars translates to 2 stars for an overall rating. Your attempts to bully those who have any problems/complaints is not appreciated by me and is one of the reasons I review less and less. The park was Taos RV Park and my review is still the first and only review of that park so should not be hard to find. Do what ever you want including deleting the review as it has already damage my relationship with the owner.

 

Your review was submitted on 9/19/2015 and was approved by an admin on 9/25/2015. No changes were made to your review. You selected a rating of "4" which clearly states that it is "poor". Since the "star" ratings are based on a 1-5 scale a rating of "4" corresponds to a 2-star rating. It appears that you thought that a rating of "4" would translate to 4-stars even though the text next to the number "4" states that the rating means "poor." It's an easy mistake to make but the words in your review that this park "has seen better days" are not inconsistent with the rating you gave it. Maybe, on second thought, you decided that you were being a bit harsh.

 

If you would like me to change your rating I would be happy to do so or I will remove it entirely; just let me know. But I will not take any responsibility for any of the RVPR admins changing your review as you claim. Our system creates a detailed record of all changes made to reviews from the moment they come in to the time they are posted. No changes were made to your review and I have the proof to document that. I find it difficult to see how this can be construed as bullying you.

[trailertraveler]

Docj,

 

The three star ratings I gave are listed as satisfactory on the summary page not poor, of course I am to blame for that! I'm out of here and off your site, You can delete all of my reviews and my account if it suits you, I could care less at this point. Also don't bother to post my latest review which was also for a park that was never in your data base.

[docj]

Just to reiterate what I said previously, to have given the park a rating of 3 stars you would have had to have selected a numerical rating of "6" (out of 10). Regardless of what you say, our detailed records of your submission show that it was sent in with a rating of "4" (which is equivalent to 2 stars). You have submitted lots of reviews and the system has been this way for a long time, so I my assumption is that you either made a mistake or have reconsidered your rating.

 

I have now edited the rating for you and have changed it to a "6" as you requested. If you had made this change request when you first noted this problem, the correction could have been made without any need for discussion. We provide "Contact RVPR" links on every page of our website exactly for this sort of need.