Holiday Blogs or Site Reviews?

I tend to regard reviews as a snapshot, what is one person's experience may alter for the next person, even "immaculate facilities" or "nicely mown grass" may not be the same every time. I'm pleased to see people writing as they want to, I think it's best left as it is, good or bad.

EuroT does have a point John, you have to contribute as well! 

sadly quite a number of my reviews on here were lost/Deleted User when the forum upgrade happened a couple of years ago, very annoying at the time, but I suppose if somewhere has a lot of reviews, then the most recent are the ones to read.

To get the best out of reviews, I think you need to try and find someone whose likes and dislikes, wants and needs are similar to your own. You then know that you can trust such reviews, and share sites that have what you want. I am lucky enough to be in contact with a few other users of CT who do very informative reviews and happen to have similar wants and needs. There are some folks on here that put together some very good, succinct and trustworthy reviews, and are willing to share more details if you ask them. We have just got back from a recent tour having been helped out with two CLs we now can’t wait to use again, (thank you Nellie!) and a Club Site, Warwick Racecourse that DK posted a link to some photos for me, and that met our needs perfectly. 

Unfortunately, the review section on this website doesn’t have the capacity to upload photos, but you can find them on other forums if you do a search. Some contributors on here also have their own blog sites which give a lot of information, including photos.

That seems a good idea, as a guideline.

I'd like to add "Is it quiet at night?" among some others.

I confess however, that I've not posted reviews here, as we've not yet tried a CL, though I do regularly post on UKCampsites, where I find the reviews more useful for the sites we do use. Maybe one reason we've not used a CL yet is the remarkably vague nature of many reviews, just as in the OP's point.

I'd also welcome more images on the CL entries, there's a great number with no image available. Do most owners not bother, or is it too complex to achieve this?

I think the owners can submit a photo, but there doesn’t seem to be any way visitors can add photos to a review. It surely isn’t too onerous a task for the visiting inspector to take a general photo, and have at least that put onto each CL page? Digital cameras, so easy to use nowadays?

Agree TW, they are so diverse, and no visitor tends to have exactly the same likes or dislikes. One CL owner we recently spoke to who runs a very nice CL got nothing but moans and groans from a particular visitor who was fed up with the weather! Not sure how helpful a review from that person would be!

Look at it this way, John. By not writing a review you are not helping others by confirming whether the site owner’s description is accurate. There is always something constructive you can add even if it’s only to say the site description is spot on, to comment on cleanliness of facilities or grass cutting. 

Frankly, your attitude is not helping the very situation you complain about. Do as you would be done by and set an example. 

How can a preference for certain common aspects be useless John? I’ll give you a couple of examples

Dog ownership. Search filter will tell you if a CL takes dogs. That’s a reasonable start. But it won’t tell you if the dog walking is safe, in a sheep filled field, along a busy road, fit only for a chihuahua! A review from another dog owning reviewer might give you more information!

Noise, in the day, at night time. Very individual. Some folks never notice a busy road, trains passing by, stock living on a farm, aircraft flying overhead, a school located close by, etc..... Noise is the only thing ever to have had us leave a site. We did our homework, yes we didn’t mind the aircraft overhead, but the boy racers and huge trucks thundering past on a long straight B road caught us out. Unrelenting and very loud. Others on site weren’t bothered, we found it horrendous.

By completing a review, mentioning things like the above, you are likely to help a few others with similar tastes.

Give me a clue on what you are looking for, where and when and I might have an idea for a CL. We have used quite a few down the years.

I don’t consider the items you describe as ‘blog bits’, Steve. They are useful items and things I include in my reviews if I can.

I see the ‘blog bits’ as being such as “we had lovely weather and our friends came to visit” or “the people on the next pitch were grumpy and didn’t speak”. For me, the distinction is whether the events/items described are likely to be the same when I visit or whether they were fleeting occurrences. 

Likewise, numerous reviews complain about dog owners but the chances of those people being there when I visit are minimal so I disregard them. However the review complaining about a site owner’s dog wandering around a CL could be a different matter for some people. 

There are certain things you know will get repeated about particular sites, the love or hate issues with trees, trains, planes, the surprised remarks about farm noises on farms, the wind on exposed sites etc etc.

It is true, the small remarks about things are often more revealing and personally I'm always interested in the true distance to a bus stop, shop or pub etc. A half hour not so easy walk to a hostelry or village and no footpaths tells me a lot more.....

I think there has to be a degree of thought given to the CL owners. Most try very hard to be welcoming, provide clean, tidy places to stay, at a reasonable price for the location. After that, facilities, provision of services can vary enormously. What I consider a perfectly adequate and clean shower on a £10 Site might not be the next visitors ablutions nirvana. That’s why there is always such a lively debate when anyone tries to compare any kind of site, we are all very different in our expectations and preferences, and I suppose in what we will tolerate. A nit picking reference to something that might only have occurred once, or outside the control of the owner is not that useful.

Where are you thinking of visiting John?

Inspectors' photo - yes, agree.

Weather - I agree in general, though if it's a particularly exposed site so that in windy weather it's a real buffet, or in wet weather it quickly becomes a quagmire, I'd take that into account.
And I recently posted a review (ukcampsites again, sorry!) including the comment that even in cold windy weather the unheated shower area still worked because the water's so hot and abundant, which I also reckon to be relevant to potential visitors.

I reckon that we can probably cope with reading round a few accounts of Rosie the sheep/hen/dog and extract for ourselves the general flow, though. It's usually obvious from the first few sentences what sort of prose it's going to be!