Site Reviews - Oh Boy!
Just laughing at some reviews of sites that we have booked. The righteous indignation of those who agree with the club rules as long as they don't apply to themselves.
Moderator Edit:
Title amended to better reflect the topic of the thread.
Comments
-
As most site staff will say those negative reviews are from normally self inflicted "problems"that if the revuer had spoken to site staff would have been advised accordingly 👍
The say it is the same with comments book members will rant about something , but tend never to identify who the rant is from🤔
0 -
You’ve obviously not seen the Deleted User ones that let fly at the wardens with all sorts of insults. The attitude speaks for itself when the reviewer admits to being a rule breaker yet castigates the warden for pointing it out. People, huh!
1 -
The vast majority of reviews are just that, proper reviews, although quite a lot are a bit thin on detail. There will always be those that let off steam at a perceived mistreatment but we are not usually privy to both sides of the debate. In extreme cases the Club will take them down and remind the reviewers that if they have a complaint there are proper channels to follow. I suspect for many that once they get it off their chest they probably don't follow it up. Perhaps more worrying for the Club is that often those same reviews that may have shocked the OP are also appearing on the likes of Tripadvisor and I imagine there is not much the Club can do about those?
David
0 -
I think just now this is the silly season for reviews, one or two unfortunates dig themselves in up to their armpits. Contradictions abound. Every person's visit is very personal and one person's good experience is another's not so good. Some are unintentionally entertaining, the vast majority are just the usual snap shot of a particular time.
Out of interest on a private site we visited I noticed the site details and photos were out of date and reviews reflected this, I think it's important that sites have updated info clearly visible and that goes for CAMC too. No horrible surprises await the visitor.
On the whole reviews aren't particularly interesting and local more helpful details often don't feature.
2 -
On the whole reviews aren't particularly interesting and local more helpful details often don't feature.
I tend to think that it depends whether you have come across the reviewer in the past. There are several reviewers of CLs that I take notice of yet have never met them or even seen their names crop up on this or any other forum yet once you have stayed at a site or two that they have given a review of and generally found it to be informative and true to your own experience then you tend to trust their views next time you come across them.
I really don't take much notice of Club site reviews, I've been to enough of them to know what to expect, or any review that is obviously out of date. Same with restaurants etc. or trip advisor reviews.
Not really interested in any review that just talks about the weather or their wonderful discussions or not with management. I want facts about the site and what to expect in the surrounding area.
What I would like with reviews is for them to only give an average mark from the last 10 reviews not 1000. I did actually see 2 reviews of different CLs this week that had the star system completely the wrong way around. One even titled his review "Unhappy" yet gave 5*. The other though one of the CLs was wonderful in every way yet ended up giving it 1*. So big pinch of salt for star system.
3 -
I don't do reviews of Club sites. You know what to expect of them and there is always enough further information on the web site to satisfy me. I don't look at the existing reviews etither. CLs are an exception.
I use Club site for location, nothing else.
peedee
0 -
I've found some of the reviews amusing, and as the OP says some people think the rules don't apply. One that arrived over three hour early and was annoyed that they were told to go away.
I always try and leave helpful hints and tips like where we've eaten and places you can visit, especially if something has changed on the site or off site since my last visit.
0 -
I try and reflect what I would want know e.g access to services, grey water disposal, how level are pitches etc. Plus some comment on how easy to book/welcome to site or info about pitching when arrive. And then perhaps some bits about what we’ve done, where we went, that isn’t a repeat of other posts.
It vaguely amuses me when people begin a review with “I don’t normally review a site, but”. It’s usually a bad review.
Cl owners in particular welcome reviews (obviously they hope for good ones!) because having no reviews usually reduces their customers, And CLs are all so different from each other.
I try to review all the sites we visit, even Club sites. Although the reviews of Club sites are usually fairly brief as, as peewee says there is loads of info on the web site.
I do wish all sites would include up to date photos of the site, not just views. The Club should really take notice, many of their pictures seem old, and they have no excuse.
1 -
Moderator Edit:
The comment to which you responded has been removed.
0 -
I don’t think some folks have any idea of how to review a product of any kind, certainly not in a concise, informative manner. Club confuses issue of Club Sites by asking people to rate a Site (that’s the star system), and then review it. A rating deals with specific items, a review is more personal and can include more detail, such as places of interest close by, shopping/eating/walking/cycling opportunities in vacinity. I like to include something for other dog owners, such as safe walks, car not required to walk dog, etc… I don’t comment much in terms of suitability for children, as we don’t have any.
The weather, the neighbours, the staff aren’t that relevant, as they will be completely different each day/few days. So a comment such as “next door’s dog barked” is ……pointless🤷♀️
Like WN, there are some very good site reviewers we tend to trust to choose a CL. Some we have met, and know we share likes and dislikes, others we haven’t met, but they have reviewed somewhere we know, and their experiences are similar to ours, then we would read and take note.
4 -
I agree with you JK. Practically evey site Club site I have been to the wardens have been fine and are usually very helpful and friendly, especially as it must often be a very demanding job. The lady who was at Bolton Abbey a few weeks ago (whom I believe is usually at Thirsk) was lovely.
I really don't understand why so many people have such a hang up about the Club rules either, nor why so many cannot simply follow them and/or constantly complain about them as they are not that onerous!
3 -
I must say that I see nothing wrong whatever in including in a review of a club site some comments about the site managers where it is appropriate, although I accept that if one has a specific complaint, of a material nature, than that should be raised elsewhere. Even then I would still expect to be freely able to put something in my review. Perhaps I would write something like: I had an unfortunate incident with a site manager about which I have made a separate complaint.
I should add that I have never actually done such a thing or had to say such a thing in a review. My point is that I see nothing wrong with that if I had had a difficult time with a site manager (or another camper come to that).
Mostly I have no reason to mention the site managers because, except on arrival, I rarely have any contact. But if I do have contact and I find them either very good or very bad, I shall say so and in my view that is entirely right and proper.
So just thinking of two recent examples, one from last year and one earlier this year, I was highly praiseworthy of a site manager at Ayr who was lovely, friendly, helpful and always up for a chat. On the other hand, at White Water I found a lady site manager to be cold, unsmiling and inhospitable [and very far from chatty] and so I said so in my review. Are people suggesting that is not valid in a site review? If so, I fundamentally disagree.
Everything you write in a review is going to be a personal opinion. You read reviews and make your own mind up from the, normally, wide range of views. Star ratings are a vital part of that. My own reviews are always too long, like a lot of my posts here. At least I have worked out how to make proper paragraphs in reviews, rather than be left with a solid block of writing - always so difficult to read.
I try to comment about things relevant to me - like local transport or walks or cycling - but I will certainly comment about the site and, moreover, if there were a lot of noisy dogs or noisy neighbours, or lots of speeding, or lots of rule breaking generally, I will mention that too. It may be indicative of the site and if it affected my enjoyment of a site, it is worthy of mention.
2 -
Gray, it’s about the club's duty of care to its staff. When wardens are identifiable or called names (I won’t repeat here) in the most horrible way, it is absolutely right for those reviews to be removed. Often the 'reviews' contain no more than complaints and are not reviews at all in the true meaning of the word. If the guidelines on writing reviews are followed, there will be no reason for any to be removed.
3 -
People will, rightly or wrongly, use the review section as a means of expressing their frustration if they perceive that site staff have been less than friendly towards them. Human nature I am afraid. Not condoning it but it is bound to happen. Given that a review is about information it is also about your general feelings about your stay. When the Club send out surveys after you have stayed on a site they major quite a lot on how the site staff interacted with you. I appreciate that is private survey and is not published anywhere so allows both Club and member to be more honest in their rating. There are far more reviews that praise staff although I often wonder how a stay has been made so much better by the actions of the site staff? Like others I rarely have any interaction with members of staff beyond the original booking in. Now there are times when site staff do go beyond their brief and that is often when a member suffers some sort of medical or mechanical problem and site staff can often make a real difference and that certainly justifies praise and an honorary mention in despatches.
David
0 -
So in the interest of fairness should reviews that only praise the site staff but impart no other meaningful information be taken down?
I think GrayD made a valid point about including his perception of site management, should their attention have been noticeable (and many times they carry on doing their jobs without coming to my attention), within an overall review of the site, extensive it would appear from what he has posted.
I have no particular stand on this point as I rarely visit club sites and secondly rarely leave a review as there never seems to be a shortage of them. If something special strikes me then I will leave one.
Just for the record I have never met a rude warden and the vast majority are pleasant. Only ever met 1 really lazy one, back in the 1990's. Even his fellow wardens were exasperated by him. Doubt I left a review either.
0 -
Grayjames said So just thinking of two recent examples, one from last year and one earlier this year, I was highly praiseworthy of a site manager at Ayr who was lovely, friendly, helpful and always up for a chat. On the other hand, at White Water I found a lady site manager to be cold, unsmiling and inhospitable [and very far from chatty] and so I said so in my review. Are people suggesting that is not valid in a site review? If so, I fundamentally disagree.
Sorry GJ, such information is irrelevant for me. Just your perceptions. None of us could know why someone didn’t meet your required facial expression or chat level. The individual concerned could be unwell, have heard bad news, have been on duty during a bad incident, anything🤷♀️They are human beings, just like the customers they serve, but don’t have recourse to saying anything about some of the demanding, inconsiderate, rude, selfish, maybe at times abusive people they have to meet and greet. And what’s the relevance of the “lady” tag? Tells me nothing about either Ayr or WWP🤷♀️
2 -
Thanks for that post ttda
JK
1 -
It’s under community guidelines
useful info list right hand side of page
0
