jeffcarp wrote: It is all relative. A 7 on bathroom cleanliness and a 2 on amenities might be fine for an overnight. All it requires is for 1) TL to be very specific about its scale, 2) accurate in its ratings, 3) accept consumer ratings for the same scale and 4) ensure the ratings include a quality judgement and not just the existence of a feature.
You can see bad examples of this with TripAdvisor where the Ritz Carlton in downtown LA has the same star rating as the La Quinta at the airport and the Cheesecake Factory is the #1 rated restaurant in Vegas. I mean, really?
I don't get your point.....Have you been to both the Ritz and the La Quinta to compare...facilities and services provided? They may very well deserve the same rating since the La Quinta could easily be at the top of its game while the Ritz was showing its age. ....Even so, as tenbear points out so succinctly, I don't want to pay for a resort and it's overhead if I am just spending the night. Rating systems have inherent flaws, the result of the biases of the folks who build them....the most glaring of all is in your statement which seems to assume that the name Ritz automatically means a better quality and facility than a La Quinta....In order to have a valid rating system facilities should be placed in groups with similar facilities then ranked and rated with those facilities otherwise you get to apples and oranges........why rate a Wendy's or a McDonalds in the same category or group as a fine dining restaurant.....the category "Campground" is fairly useless without some sub-categories. With categories folks who don't want resorts can avoid looking in that category.......IMO the current system will not be improved by placing band aids on a flawed system...a complete overhaul is necessary if folks are to have confidence that a CG with an overall 5 rating is truly average and not in reality a poor CG receiving a five only because they received high scores for providing free firewood and ice or worse yet because someone graded on the curve as a result of lowering the bar. I remember the 1980's when the Miami PD lowered the bar on entrance exam scores and misdemeanor issues for applicants. The resultant hiring of those deemed now acceptable put a whole bunch of bad cops on the street and threw that department into chaos and tainted the PD's reputation for years. There are other similar examples in other areas; the majority of them indicating that the results of lowering the bar are mostly increases in quantity and not so much in quality.
Clarification on ratings.
Compare the 3 page rating guide in your 2012 or older T/L book with one in a the to come 2013 issue . You will see that the changes are minor, reflect changes in consumer wishes and technology.
Previous ratings required a full point on the first 5 categories in bath ratings, a minimum of 7.5 out of 10 to qualify. This has been modified to allow a half point in one of the first 5 categories, a minimum of 7 total, thus my comment of ' lowering the bar'.
In page 3 the letters in italics have been inserted to give credit to camps for individual site quality and fixture that due to climate ( in the desert?) do not have trees,flowers, etc.
As I stated before these changes do not weaken the ratings.
In years past a 5/7.5/5 was minimum. Now it will be 5/7/5. This shift will not make any camp rate higher than before, it only opens the door for more, giving members more opportunity. You, as We do, can depend on those ratings in your travels.
The Rep. teams are concientious professionals. Their rating cannot be bought.
Whatever your personal feelings may be, consider that all GS camps are private enterprises, not franchised. It is this individuality that leads to such wide possibilities.
Max.
* This post was
edited 04/30/12 10:23am by SDcampowneroperator *
I just started using the online version of Woodalls.
I find the way the woodalls web site is now is just fine the way it is.
Don't think I could ask for more info. Sure beats the hell out of looking at CG's alphabetically in that big dang book with the type so small you can't read it. I found the book worthless.
I don't think the range option on the website has any problems either. If an RV'er doesn't know what town he is either passing thru or pulled over in to search for a CG, something's wrong! You plug in the town you are in and hit 50 mile radius and trust me you will find one near you. You can't do that with the BOOK, with the book you DO have to KNOW all the names of what towns are near you to even look them up and that's absurd, we don't know, which again is why I found the book worthless.
The ONLY thing I would change on the website is that damn SNEAKY button you have to manually click to see ALL the CG's within the range you plug in. Took me several weeks before I realized that you had to click it and in fact it was a forum member who told me about!
The site's default is designed to show ONLY 'their featured" (i.e.GS) sites unless you click the button to show ALL of the CG's in the area.
IMHO that needs to be changed.
"We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
so as to have the life that is waiting for us".
Offline
