SDcampowneroperator wrote: rockhillmanor,
Good point about the ratio of long term to short term residents.
It is a factor I consider, it does have implications that the place is residential rather than recreational . A more appropriate approach to Long term/Short term may be to list the % of sites for each, or only to rate short term sites with mention of park nature if it has a long term/seasonal clientele.
You have me thinking again.
Max
Max,
I find that we do not like the parks with a lot of long term residents. They are not the GS type of people we enjoy meeting and often can really bring the enjoyment of a park down (often construction working long hours and not liking someone just into park for recreation). I know all of Alabama State and Historical parks limit to a max of 30 days and some even shorter depending on demand. We really feel like this is information we would use to determine if we wanted to use a park - depending on just a trip stop or a place to enjoy for a trip stay - makes a big difference to us.
Wilford
1998 F150 4WD, Heavy Tow package - rated for over 7,700 pounds
2009 F150 4WD STX Tow Package - rated for 10500 pounds
2012 Jayco Jay Flight Swift
Honz our German Shepherd rules with Novak the Doberman terror puppy!!
SDcampowneroperator wrote: rockhillmanor,
Good point about the ratio of long term to short term residents.
It is a factor I consider, it does have implications that the place is residential rather than recreational . A more appropriate approach to Long term/Short term may be to list the % of sites for each, or only to rate short term sites with mention of park nature if it has a long term/seasonal clientele.
You have me thinking again.
Max
Max,
I find that we do not like the parks with a lot of long term residents. They are not the GS type of people we enjoy meeting and often can really bring the enjoyment of a park down (often construction working long hours and not liking someone just into park for recreation). I know all of Alabama State and Historical parks limit to a max of 30 days and some even shorter depending on demand. We really feel like this is information we would use to determine if we wanted to use a park - depending on just a trip stop or a place to enjoy for a trip stay - makes a big difference to us.
Wilford
Okay someone has to ask this , what is a GS type of person? is there a difference than joe blow rv'er or is it the little sign ya have?
Quote: Max,
I find that we do not like the parks with a lot of long term residents. They are not the GS type of people we enjoy meeting and often can really bring the enjoyment of a park down (often construction working long hours and not liking someone just into park for recreation). I know all of Alabama State and Historical parks limit to a max of 30 days and some even shorter depending on demand. We really feel like this is information we would use to determine if we wanted to use a park - depending on just a trip stop or a place to enjoy for a trip stay - makes a big difference to us.Wilford
Quote: Okay someone has to ask this , what is a GS type of person? is there a difference than joe blow rv'er or is it the little sign ya have?
"We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
so as to have the life that is waiting for us".
long term and the nature of them ( seasonal residents / a one season group of const. workers) are entirely different.
A park on a northern lake or in the southern sun belt expect permanents or Joe Six Pack. Joe is OK, he is a camper. Sometimes not your ideal neighbor, never one to invent rules. We are less inclined to use parks designed for retirees.
in an area of growth you can' t blame the park for meeting the needs of the workers. He who calls first gets a campsite, a table at the restaurant, best price airfare. It could be a 1 month thing that they are there. often they pay a premium and are placed in away corners. Look at my profile, it will tell you how I know this.
In previous posts there were references as to how a visitor might unintentionally with a consumer rating( TICKS!) harm a good camp by posting how Joe S. Pack or Magdolynn the retiree or Max the pipeliner and others like them made the camp a less than satisfactory place.
The issue will never be resolved to suit everyone. Ratings are an issential tool but no replacement for research and experience.
I retrospect listing the % of sites for long term would do more harm than help.
FYI, we have no long term, few monthlies, our only seasonals are employees. That is the nature of our location.
Max
rockhillmanor wrote: After hearing about rvparkreveiws on this forum I went to their site to post a good review about an obscure CG that I thought was spectacular and wanted to share my good find, only to find out you have to post several reviews BEFORE your reviews are posted?
Needless to say I was not about to spend my time making X amount reviews of CG's to be able to post a tip on how nice this one CG was.
Several reviews? As far as I know, you only have to post three reviews before any are published. Helps prevent flaming a campground by only posting once. So, if you have visited a couple of nice or even not so nice campgrounds, write threee reviews to get the one you want published.
Frank now without Renae
KZ Montego Bay 37CKM
2007 Dodge 3500HD DDW
Three cats -- Sunkist, Topaz, & Amber
One dog -- Rascal
Started Full Timing since March 26, 2008
To be honest, if most campers are like the majority of some on this site, there will never be a fair and equitable rating system because some people fall to pieces over things that are just par for the course issues that can occur anywhere. I see a lot of those ratings sites as just another avenue for people who love to complain to post their gripes. You can generally tell by the tone of a complaint post though which are hyped up and which seem very legit. The legit ones tend to also point out things that went right, and they write their review with a fair and balanced outlook. Same with posts here. It's not hard to spot the ones that are just generally not easy to please vs those who have a very sound and legit complaint. I do not see any benefit in CG owners or Good Sam staff contacting people who wrote a complaint. Most people will not really appreciate being contacted, not to mention those payroll dollars are probably better spent elsewhere.
I personally will take my chances on a $30 site and go to a CG and see for myself if I like it or not, one night isn't going to kill me if it is a bit off, because I know I am not hard to please and just want a basic CG that has decent staff. The ones I frequent are not perfect, and there have been some visits where I wasn't 100% pleased but they were issues that sometimes just happen. Once I went to one that just opened a new small cafe, and had brand new staff, and their opening weekend happened to be the busiest weekend of the season. Everyone was griping and getting hot under the collar, and yes, the service was extremely slow....I chalked it up to these folks were brand new and trying to learn. After a few weekends, they got much much better. They just had some growing pains. I am not going to find a site to ding the park unless it is really unacceptable.
But the problem here is that what one might find unacceptable, might not be that bad to someone else.
SDcampowneroperator wrote: rockhillmanor,
Good point about the ratio of long term to short term residents.
It is a factor I consider, it does have implications that the place is residential rather than recreational . A more appropriate approach to Long term/Short term may be to list the % of sites for each, or only to rate short term sites with mention of park nature if it has a long term/seasonal clientele.
You have me thinking again.
Max
Max,
I find that we do not like the parks with a lot of long term residents. They are not the GS type of people we enjoy meeting and often can really bring the enjoyment of a park down (often construction working long hours and not liking someone just into park for recreation). I know all of Alabama State and Historical parks limit to a max of 30 days and some even shorter depending on demand. We really feel like this is information we would use to determine if we wanted to use a park - depending on just a trip stop or a place to enjoy for a trip stay - makes a big difference to us.
Wilford
Okay someone has to ask this , what is a GS type of person? is there a difference than joe blow rv'er or is it the little sign ya have?
Yea, and here I never knew GS'ers did not include any people who year round on camping sites.
rockhillmanor wrote: After hearing about rvparkreveiws on this forum I went to their site to post a good review about an obscure CG that I thought was spectacular and wanted to share my good find, only to find out you have to post several reviews BEFORE your reviews are posted?
Needless to say I was not about to spend my time making X amount reviews of CG's to be able to post a tip on how nice this one CG was.
Several reviews? As far as I know, you only have to post three reviews before any are published. Helps prevent flaming a campground by only posting once. So, if you have visited a couple of nice or even not so nice campgrounds, write threee reviews to get the one you want published.
That probably isn't a bad idea either. Sure, three reviews won't prevent flamers, but it might help ward off those who just want to throw out a real flame for no good reason.
I don’t generally like to be the wet blanket….However, in this case there are two completely different positions here; park owners/operators and RV folks. And as for a thread being hijacked, this one is starting to sound like an opportunity for park owners and friends to belittle the folks who stay in CG’s and have an opinion other than theirs. For a park owner to suggest that clean is subjective is just disingenuous. Either it’s clean or it isn’t, either there are supplies or there aren’t. As JayWalker2009 said most of us can tell when someone is flaming as opposed to pointing out issues of genuine concern.
Oh yeah, suggestions for SOLUTIONS as requested by Charolaisbreeders. Reduce the ratings from 10 that’s just too many, to 5 and have subcategories. Everybody seems to want to pick on swimming pools….so, have a category that concerns whether or not a facility is actually provided, a simple yes or no here would work nicely. Then have a category that asks about the quality of the facility; was the pool open, did it actually have water, was the water any color other than blue, was the pool a home for critters, frogs fish etc.
I imagine the owners won’t be happy with any rating system that actually allows someone to provide a review…..unless of course it’s a positive one.
Well let’s see how badly the moderators will chop, sorry edit this.
LTCLarry wrote: I don’t generally like to be the wet blanket….However, in this case there are two completely different positions here; park owners/operators and RV folks. And as for a thread being hijacked, this one is starting to sound like an opportunity for park owners and friends to belittle the folks who stay in CG’s and have an opinion other than theirs. For a park owner to suggest that clean is subjective is just disingenuous. Either it’s clean or it isn’t, either there are supplies or there aren’t. As JayWalker2009 said most of us can tell when someone is flaming as opposed to pointing out issues of genuine concern.
I think I only saw one park owner on this thread, and he/she is entitled to weigh in as I think that viewpoint would be helpful. But yes, it is fairly easy in most cases to tell who is flaming and who has a legitimate gripe. It's all in how they present their review.
* This post was
edited 04/30/12 10:08pm by JayWalker2009 *
Offline
As far as I know, you only have to post three reviews before any are published. Helps prevent flaming a campground by only posting once. So, if you have visited a couple of nice or even not so nice campgrounds, write threee reviews to get the one you want published.
