What are reviews for?
I like reading reviews of both club sites and CLs. I like to know what folk think of the sites, the surroundings, local places of interest, activities (even occasionally shopping opportunities!) and places to eat. For CLs it's also useful to know about any access difficulties or what facilities are available and their standard.
But just lately reviews, particularly of club sites seem to have become little more than an opportunity to air grievances. If it's not having a go at the wardens (usually prefaced by comments like "we were only 50 minutes early", "my dog was only off the lead twice" , "I only just drove over the grass when reversing my van") it's complaints about barking dogs, loud TVs etc.
Today we have a review which now stretches to 20 posts and, apart from a reference to it being "a lovely site " in the opening sentence of the OP, there's not a single word about the site itself.
Is this what reviews should be? Are there not more appropriate means of taking up issues which have happened on one's visit? When I read reviews, even of club sites on, for example, UKcampsite these grievances aren't aired.
So my question is as in the title "what are reviews for"? What do others think?
Comments
-
I agree with you about what reviews should be for. Should there be any major gripes about the site these too should be aired, but not at the expense of details of the site, it's surroundings and places of interest close by.
0 -
I would think reviews as you say should be,but then as with most things these days it is very easy and even cowardly to rant about things normally because the "problem?"was self inflicted and from a distance that they feel safe to advise the "world" with little or no chance of any repercussions
Unless its picked up by some on here
Ps reviews as far as we are concerned are taken from the majority rather than the odd rant
0 -
I think if there are geniune grievances about the standard of the site, whether Club site or CL, then they should be aired but peripherals that will probably change day to day such as weather or neighbours behaviour or barking dogs are ignored when I read a review.
You can usually gauge when someone just wants to air a particular grievance.
I prefer it if people stick to the actuals, such as the facilities on site then the surroundings off site, then more general information if needed such as buses or teains or points of interest.
I recently gave Thirsk site a mediocre review but based mostly on the site itself as I found it. Others can and will disagree. That's up to them but hopefully people who read regular reviews from the same source will be able to gain an impression of whether that source is reliable.
1 -
I know others disagree but I feel as you do, M. A review should be about the site itself and info about the immediate area.
I feel strongly that transient issues such as the weather, barking dogs, noisy neighbours and so on have no place in a site review. What use is it to someone planning a visit next month to know it rained every day last week and a dog barked all day on Friday?
Complaints about wardens also have no place in reviews, in my opinion, as most seem unfair and, like other issues, a review is not the way to address problems. I’m happy to see praise of wardens, though, as this creates a welcoming atmosphere for others.
I'm frequently astounded that people moan in reviews, and on the forum, but fail to speak to the warden about their concerns.
I've said all this before and been shot down in flames and I doubt the reaction will be any different this time.
3 -
To me a review should be a discription of the site , how far from bus stops ,shops etc , maybe wether there are narrow roads to the site .
its not always easy to to suggest places to visit as we all look for different things
A review needs to look at the bigger picture rather than how noisy someone's music was or how often a dog barked ,as when I visit they won't be there
0 -
TW, do you mean moan or criticise?
Not all bad points can be rectified by mentioning to the warden. Obviously if it's a rule infringement or a malfunction say in the shower block then I agree that should be referred but if you are talking about a fundamental fault with the site then I would hope that someone in the club would read reviews and if enough people mentioned it maybe do something about it.
When I read a review I want to know whether there is a bad smell from the local glue factory or that it lies directly under the approach flight path of Heathrow etc. Reporting these to the warden won't solve them but they should be mentioned.
1 -
I think members are invited to comment and rate a campsite/CL they have just stayed at. There are no instructions or suggestions on how that should be approached. It is up to the reader to sift through the reviews for any site in general and make up their minds accordingly. If someone has, in their view, had a bad experience of staying on a site there are no rules to say they can't express those views. Sometimes the same issue comes up time and time again which should flag something up to the Regional Manager for the site involved. It can also flag up where more communication with members is needed.
Personally I think the ability for other members to comment on a review should be removed or reserved for Club staff to comment. Invariably such comments are usually about disagreeing with the original review which is a bit odd as people who add comments have not had the same experience as recounted by the original reviewer which in my view is unfair. I tend to delete comments on reviews unless they actually add information rather than just being critical.
David
2 -
I mean the sort of moan I described - essentially, rule breaking by others which people write about in reviews but don’t discuss with the warden.
Obviously, a major site flaw is beyond the warden's control but, again, he/she will be able to tell the full story and know what might be planned by way of rectification. That would not be a transient issue so should feature in reviews, I believe.
I agree with you about the local issues which is why I said I think reviews should include info about the immediate area.
0 -
Do you not think that comments on reviews help put issues into perspective, David? They frequently point out that a reviewer has broken a rule which that reviewer, or others, may not even know exists so comments can be seen as informative.
My most frequent comment is to ask people if they have discussed the issue with the warden as that is the first step we are asked to take in order to get the matter addressed at the time. I’ve even been thanked by reviewers for pointing that out.
I have, on occasion, reported reviews for reasons such as the writer hadn't actually stayed on the site so the rating given was inappropriate, or unfortunate language being used to describe wardens and, on one occasion, a warden was named in a verbal attack.
To remove the ability to comment on reviews would be very high handed in my view and I trust you do not delete constructive comments as that would be very unfair.
5 -
It’s not a review, it’s a rant, Totally useless in terms of providing information to potential users. 🙁
0 -
I’ve stopped referring to reviews as an aid to deciding if I want to stop at a particular site. The club website gives me all the information I need about the actual site, size, facilities, access, etc. As for the local area and places to visit, in the time it takes to read a reasonable number of reviews, I can trawl the internet and get all the information I want.
0 -
I agree with both paragraphs. With reference to the first; there is already sufficient censorship on this site. As for only permitting staff to respond to reviews that would seem a waste of time as they do not respond to reviews!
A case in point has been two reviews about the route to Gowerton which, if I did not know better would have put me off ever visiting. The reviewers both seem to have approached the site from the wrong direction through two narrow bridges one of which is signed as 2.3m max width. Staff should have picked up on this and commented on the review itself but obviously don't read and comment
2 -
Personally, I write a review to give information for future visitors, so approaches, site facilities, an idea of the site, the size of the pitches,or anything that may affect your stay and what is around it, especially if there are new shops, restaurants, or supermarkets. Also any places that give discounts to club members. I always base these on permanent things, so barking, dogs never come into it. Also I always give a pat on the back to the wardens, if merited of course but it usually is.
0 -
I would agree with this, but also like to provide information on phone / 4G, at least for the two networks we have. This information is not easily available from other sources, as the coverage maps the networks publish are often grossly misleading.
1 -
What about reviewers who have stepped out of line on site, then deliberately told untruth's about the situation. In the last year I had a conversation with a warden and he outlined 2 occasions where incidents had taken place then the reviewer slammed the wardens and the site in the reviews.
I take more notice of some reviewers than others particularly if it seems someone has 'an axe to grind'
I wonder if we are now experiencing the trip advisor effect, you know the one several hundred good/average reviews then a horrendous one. I always think that person is on the look out for a freebie
5 -
A lot of times a very negative review is the members first post. There is no other activity. To me it just suggests someone who has been upset by something wanting to let of steam. Where as a negative, from a generally positive poster says a lot more.
4 -
I agree that we don't need to have access to reviews for our comments (I have added a few myself over the years but I'd be happy not to.) We do have access to report a review. I've used this facility a couple of times. The club responded to one of the reviews which was quite a distressing one about animal neglect, others may have reported the same review. Another review I reported recently was an aggressive tirade about a CL I've used, it didn't read true to form and as far as I know no action has been taken to moderate the review. The club doesn't respond to review reports but I do hope they act or investigate them. In fact it's most important that Club show they are actively engaged in "reviewing" reviews to give members confidence.
I personally think people should be able to write freely in reviews but with guidelines and the much needed advice that the club will be actively looking at reviews, acting appropriately and responding as needed with the guidance that members bring up concerns on site too. The C&CC pre-moderates reviews and this seems to work whilst leaving complaints about poor facilities etc in place.
The review section on the site details pages needs an advice paragraph before people start their review.
1 -
As Moulesy said in his opening post, the reviews on UKCampsite are quite different. So either they have different rules on what they print, or they are written by a different sort of visitor with different attitudes. I think it may be both those two.
0 -
yes good point in your first paragraph,, happens in schools a lot. I think it is called getting your retaliation in first.
Th thing is if I had a grievance or complaint about a club site (which of course in mathematically impossible) I'd take it up with the warden first then head office rather than posting a review about it.
2 -
There is/was an advice paragraph somewhere, Brue, but I’m blowed if I can find it now.
I distinctly remember it saying a reviewer should have used the site within the last so many months.
I don’t see any problem with members being able to add comments. For instance, suppose a reviewer has eluded to something which could be important to an individual - it’s good to be in a position to ask for clarification. Don’t forget the members who are also CL owners as they frequently add comments to thank a reviewer or reply to points raised.
4 -
A warden blurted out the effects of a very unpleasant review on a site we used earlier in the year, just in conversation one day. The untruthful and unkind review had badly affected the wardens and having read it I understood why. We didn't tell him we had also read the review it just came out so must have still been niggling him although they said they had joked about it since, We don't usually get into these type of conversations but it's an eye opener to hear about the real effects on real people.
2 -
I think that is what many of us are saying AD, cumulative reviews pointing to the same problems need input or action from the club. One single derogatory review might need taking with a huge pinch of salt but the wardens should not receive insults on reviews. The CAMC have a duty of care to staff.
3 -
Thanks everyone for an interesting variety of replies. If it makes just one person think again then maybe the thread will have been worthwhile.
The review I was referring to in my OP was the one about Pembrey - I haven't looked yet this morning but as I said last night there were 20 posts with only those opening few words saying anything about the site itself!
Edit - interestingly, unless I'm missing something, that review and all the follow up seems to have been removed!
0
