What are reviews for?
Comments
-
We stayed at C&CC Oxford site last year, we had used it several years back. Didn't find noise an issue, it was cold and damp so didn't sit out or have windows open. The facilities are dated but clean. Literally across the road for the P&R straight into the city. We didn't visit the pub 😉
0 -
Very convenient for Go Outdoors as well.
0 -
Is this for when you are heading home? If so roughly where are you heading for?
David
0 -
To go back on topic,
Reviews should review the site, not your stay, there is a difference, well to me at least. It does not say review the staff. Yes over and above good service should be mentioned but in the other case, where there is a complaint, then this is not the place to put it. Firstly as M points out they cannot answer back, the complaint may not even be true (or it may - doesn't matter), so it is totally unfair and almost cyber-bullying to do so.
If your complaint is justified then appropriate action will be taken.
2 -
A review is a review and no one should be allowed to comment on them. When I am looking for a site (private or club) I look at the reviews and form my own opinion. When it's of a club site or cl there are usually derogatory comments about the reviewer, when it's of a private site you just get the reviews which is all I am looking for. Of all the recent reviews I have looked at there is one member that crops up all the time as being either the first or only one to tell the reviewer what they should do, it's wrong,it looks bad and it should be stopped
3 -
Well, yes, I would go along with no comments on reviews if there were clearer guidelines strictly enforced. In other words, no verbal attacks on wardens (often as I said in the OP from folk who have failed to observe club rules) and no "hobby horses" (such as simply moaning about other campers, be it their dogs, TV, music, drinking etc) which are ephemeral and of little value to future customers.
3 -
yes agree, but also people do make factual errors about a site, (no drying room when there is) so a reply can often clear this up?
Often a reply gives advice as to what to do to take a concern further.
I've never read any derogatory comments about the reviewer though.
0 -
That’s being constructive in letting folk know the true situation.👍🏻
I think it’s also helpful to explain the reason behind the earliest arrival time to some folk as they confuse 'no arrivals before…' with 'no check-in before…' and think it’s OK to park up at the entrance where they may block the road.
0 -
If people have concerns about a review please press the report button and allow the Community Manager to deal with the issue. Or if they need immediate attention post details here in this section and the Mods can have a look and take action if required. The problem with making comments is that they are after event and it is unlikely a reviewer will return to see the comments anyway so invariably additional comments are pointless. I am pretty sure members reading through reviews will be sensible enough to work out the bits of a review that provide genuinely useful information compared to those parts of the reviews that may just be a personal opinion or recount some one off issue that has fired up the reviewer?
David
1 -
Yep, reported two this morning. One's gone (as you know) while the other which is offensive to a warden remains.
FYI, David, reviewers do often revisit their reviews and add comments in response.
0 -
Might Cotswold View at Charlbury be that alternative for you? - but there are over 200 reviews and I didn't read them all.
0 -
I read reviews that I would never bother to read purely because they appear on latest activity. It's a bit addictive reading them and tempting to reply. I don't expect many of the reviewers realise they're on a rolling system and on view in this way.
1 -
I think reviews of CLs are far more useful than club sites as most who visit them seem to be proper caravaners as apposed the to what seems these days a growing amount of "members" who will use a club site review as a "rant" outlet (mostly self inflicted ,reading them)rather than what is found on most CL reviews
1 -
To be honest I'm fed up with 'reviews' which are clearly an individual's axe grind. These are very often against the grain and at odds with the usual comments. Sometimes they just wish to make their own points about club issues rather than a site specific comment. The ones I value most are those which are informative about the site itself and the locality.
2 -
Agree, although, in fairness (and I've made this point to Ro) many of them just lately appear to be from first time reviewers who, perhaps understandably, are unfamiliar with the guidelines for posting reviews. I'm not sure if they are monitored in the same way that, as I understand it, first time posters on the forum are.
1 -
Understood but nevertheless they are inappropriate as there is a proper and well 'signposted' route for submitting a possible complaint. Reviews surely are not for that purpose and those which do not meet the T&Cs should be removed in my opinion as they often are irrelevant to the vast majority of us who are seasoned members who understand the clubs ways.
0 -
I agree, Micky. They do stand out a mile and it shouldn’t be necessary for us to apply our own powers of discrimination to weed them out.
The guidelines concerning the writing of reviews need to be given a much more prominent position with emphasis on the correct avenue for axe grinding/complaining and, as M said, vetting of reviews from new posters before publication would be good which is what happens on UKC.
1 -
I've just noticed the thread in this section "moderation required". Apparently the first three posts by new members have to be approved before being published. Very sensible too.
But why, then, are reviews, such as last night's "Absolute Crap" and this mornings "rudest warden ever" , both from first time reviewers allowed to appear?
Granted, last night's was removed/hidden, after I guess, several reports but why should that be necessary?
3 -
I've just reported another review from a first time reviewer using language about a warden that would be pretty quickly removed from the forum in general if used about a fellow member. It's clear that there is little if any monitoring of first time reviews!
0 -
