Reviews
Comments
-
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
0 -
David - it seems to me there are two problems which have not been addressed regarding reviews.
Firstly the guidelines are patently not clear enough (or at least their location is not clear enough) and there appears to be little or no monitoring of first time reviews in the way that first posts on the main part of the forum are. I know you have said on the other thread that you have argued for this yourself but it is clearly not happening - hence the review today using appalling language about an identified club employee.
Secondly sometimes I have reported reviews rather than commenting on them and no action appears to be taken. I accept that may be because my reasons for reporting some may be considered incorrect, but on at least two occasions I have reported reviews criticising identified wardens and nothing has happened..
Surely the answer is for first time reviews to be witheld for inspection before being published - nothing to do with censorship, everything to do with common courtesy and respect for club employees.
2 -
I think I’d be broadly in favour of that approach (having transgressed myself). I didn’t realise it was possible to comment on a review until about a year ago. I provided a generally positive review of the Ilminster club site, but remarked on several pitches that had a grandstand view of dogs regularly defecating in the exercise area. It occurred to me that some folks might not enjoy watching dogs poo during dinner, so it was intended as useful information allowing people to avoid those pitches. Almost immediately it was commented on by a prolific poster on this forum advising me that if I didn’t like it I should pitch elsewhere. He certainly didn’t know anything about the situation on site and I don’t know whether he’s ever stayed there or not, but it was just plain unhelpful, unnecessary and his antagonistic attitude p***** me off. It was nothing whatsoever to do with him, but he clearly had nothing better to do with his time than ‘police’ reviews. Any approach that prevents that kind of situation is welcome.
0 -
Well, mine was the first comment on your review about 10 mins after you wrote it. The next comment was nearly a month later so you must be talking about me. The second comment from someone who rarely posts was the one that suggested moving pitch. Perhaps you should refresh your memory, SB.
Here’s what I said and it’s not as you describe -
"I noticed recently that a fenced off area had been formed to create a dog walk. It’s a vast improvement over having to take one's life in one's hands in the narrow lanes around the site. Well done the club.
I find the noise from the sewage pumps intrusive on this site if pitched too close to the facilities block."
0 -
Conveniently for you, the content has been removed, but that tells you all you need to know about the relevance and value of your contribution to my well intentioned and reasonable review. I realise you probably won’t have much to do if you adhere to David’s suggested approach, but I for one would be happy with that.
0 -
No, SB, you clearly stated the post telling you to move came almost immediately after you posted the review. That was not my comment and I would never have said that. My comment which matches your criteria on time was adding to your review in a constructive and informative manner. The post telling you to move is still there and was made by another person.
Whatever was in those Deleted User comments made 5-6 weeks after your review, I guess we'll never know but it cannot have been the comments you referred to which, in any case, were not made by me. I expect you’ve noticed that when it comes to deletions, it’s generally not far off the mark to assume the first post Deleted User was the cause of the trouble.
0
