Reviews
Is it just me or are some of the site reviews a complete waste of time?
Would it not be best to include the name of the site being reviewed in the title, this would save people opening the review only to find it is for a site which is of no interest to you
In my opinion a review should tell the reader something about the site which they can't find out from the site details section
Telling us the toilets are clean is a bit of a waste of time, most people use the club sites because they can always rely on the toilets being clean
Is always nice to read of places people have visited why on site, or things happening close to the site (not 30 miles away like in the site information section)
Why bother leaving a review if all you have to say is "fantastic" or "We had a great time"
Comments
-
Dawn, there are other threads on this topic So, no, it’s not just you.
0 -
I agree and that was one of the reasons for the other thread I started on the subject. My main concern was slightly different though - the number of reviews which were simply complaints about wardens or other members rather than descriptions of the site and nearby attractions.
I do think that a number of first time reviewers are, understandably, unaware of the guidelines for reviews and these need to be made much clearer. Also I wonder if first time reviews are subject to the same scrutiny as first time posts on other sections of the forum.
I also agree that putting the name of a site in the title would be helpful, although having said that, I've found a number of sites, particularly CLs in areas we wouldn't normally have thought of visiting simply by reading a review out of curiosity!
1 -
UKCampsite.co.uk has reviews for many campsites - Club sites, commercial sites, privately owned sites, CS and CLs. It usually gives me a balanced picture of what's available in an area , so that's the only place I look .
0 -
It's a pity the reviews (and it's peak season for them now) come through on latest activity they're a bit of a distraction although useful for spotting interesting CLs. If I really want to find out about a site I look on the site details pages or on other web sites.
The rolling reviews on here are a bit time wasting if like me you are easily distracted and will read anything that appears before your eyes.
0 -
I do think that a number of first time reviewers are, understandably, unaware of the guidelines for reviews and these need to be made much clearer. Also I wonder if first time reviews are subject to the same scrutiny as first time posts on other sections of the forum.
Mousley
There is nothing wrong with the guidelines to writing reviews except perhaps where they are and the length of them. I had a look at them today, first time for a long time, and both Guide to Club Together and Community Guidelines are under the Club Together banner at the top of this page and the parts on reviews would cover two sides of an A4 sheet of paper! If you get an email reminder from the Club to write a review of a Club Site the link takes you straight to webpage for that site with no guidelines in sight!!! So there is no incentive for someone writing a review to go looking for them! Perhaps what is needed is an additional dialogue box containing the key points about complaints etc which you have to tick to proceed with your review? Your point about first time reviews undergoing the same scrutiny as forum posters I agree with and is exactly what I have proposed to the Community Manager in the past and the same should apply to people posting in the Story Section.
David
0 -
"There is nothing wrong with the guidelines to writing reviews except perhaps where they are and ...."
David, my point was not that there is anything wrong with the guidelines but that new reviewers may be unaware of them or post without reading them anyway. There have been an awful lot of first time reviewers just lately who write precious little about the site or surrounding area/attractions but use the review as an opportunity to let off steam against the wardens or fellow members. And these are the reviews which often end up followed by a string of comments. I am encouraged to see that you have suggested closer scrutiny of first time reviews though.
0 -
I’ve said similar. The GLs need to be visible and/or easily accessible.
0 -
The title of the review is only one small part of the thread(s), BG. It’s more about pertinent content and reviewers following, or failing to follow, the guidelines.
0 -
I only commented on the lack of the site name, TW. I do agree that some of the reviews leave a bit to be desired in the usefulness stakes. To be honest, I’ve never seen the guidelines referred to, and not done many reviews, but I hope the one I did for Brighton site after the late May bank holiday passes muster 😬🤞🏻
1 -
You'll find the guidelines on reviews in the Community Guidelines, BG, nearly at the bottom. I’m not surprised people don’t know they’re there.
1 -
And sometimes you get the impression that most wardens are unpleasant characters to be avoided at all costs whereas the reality is very, very different.
0 -
Rolled in front of us they may be but, even so, there’s no necessity to read them, let alone to comment or like comments. That’s a matter of exercising free will. I certainly don’t read every review - life’s too short for that.
0 -
Yet you do the very thing you say we shouldn’t. 🤔
l’ve no problem with people choosing to comment or not - that’s personal choice - but let’s not do one thing while saying another.
1 -
For the review in question TW, I think there is a great difference between providing a helpful bit of information / clarification than turning it into a discussion. However, if the CC don't want any additional comments the solution is simple and in their hands.
1 -
‘Premoderated’ isn’t that another way of saying censored?🤔
0 -
No TW I'm not saying what any of us should or shouldn't do because under the present circumstances replies are part of the system. But I'm sure there is a better place for discussions away from the reviews themselves. Like others do on here I'm wondering if the system itself could be improved. Other than that I still think most reviews are OK and many are useful.
1 -
“…I don't think we should be using reviews as a discussion platform…”
Err, so you’re not saying what we ‘should’ be doing while you do that very thing yourself, albeit in a ‘limited’ way. Right, got it. 😁
0 -
I was waiting for that 😂😂😂
1 -
I always find it a little annoying when I am asked to leave a review for a product and it comes up with the comment, "your review will be posted after review". It certainly puts me off leaving further reviews, so in my opinion is likely to be detrimental if introduced.
1 -
Recent confirmation of the reason for the comment box on reviews is as follows. It is for members who have also stayed at the site to either add more information or correct incorrect information. It was not designed as a way for some members to seek to moderate comments, that responsibility rests elsewhere. By all means report a review you are unhappy about but please resist the temptation to comment as that tends to start a series of posts which then turns into a discussion. It is also a bit pointless posting the word "reported" as it is unlikely the originator of the review will see it.
David
0 -
May I ask from where that confirmation emanated, David? It’s not that I doubt you but I would have thought the CM would have posted that information in one of the relevant threads on the forum. In fact, it would only be polite for her to do so. With respect, I suggest very few members/contributors will see your post above.
FYI, the reason I posted "Reported" as a comment in a horrendous review this afternoon was not to let the reviewer know - why would I care about that? - but to let other readers, including mods, know that a report had been made. So not "pointless" at all!
Perhaps someone will report this post to bring the issue to Rowena's attention in order that she has the opportunity to give full clarification to enhance our understanding.
0
