Quote: Originally posted by ficklejade on 26/11/2016
I've only stayed on two sites this year, one of which I've previously reviewed and the other in a static, which I'm not sure is allowed. If, like me, one tends to stay at the same sites, surely you'd bore people if you kept reviewing them, unless there had been a major change.
I'd agree with Sean's comments. I'd rather see a "My last review still applies" than no review during the past couple of years. OK, repeat visits a few times a year may not warrant a repeat review each time, but if it's a year or more later, just a quick update becomes relevant, in my opinion. I've done this for a few sites now.
Okay, that's fine, will do. Even if we're staying in a static, if it's also a touring site, I still check out facilities, so if that's okay will get typing!
------------- " When I die I don`t want my life to flash before me in an instant, I want it to be a 3 hour epic !"
Quote: Originally posted by Mrs. Bonce on 26/11/2016
What tends to worry me, as we always try to use CLs/CSs, is the glowing reviews on the CC/C&CC websites. We have used some poor to average sites based on these. Then I come along and spoil everything.
Mrs Bonce, I greatly appreciate your realistic reviews of CLs/CSs. Thank you.
Quote: However, reviewing is subjective obviously. Should it be 2 stars like an ok not very posh hotel or 5 stars compared to the average CL?
I am never very sure. That's why the narrative is important to us.
Some CLs are very good but their charges are sky high. Do you mark them down because of that? Is free wifi worth a bonus star?
I don't think there can be an objective standardised start system - sites have to be judged against the kind of place they are, the expectations they arouse in their site description / website, and what they provide within that.
For example, my idea of a fantastic site is probably the opposite of 'posh'. I favour the more 'wild camping' style sites, fires allowed, camp where you like, and because these are often 'off grid' to a certain extent (Personally I draw the line at no running water) they often have compost toilets, or solar heated showers. This has ben known to draw horrified and outraged 'no star' reviews from the occasional camper who didn't realise, but the site may well be another's idea of heaven.
The converse being true for lovely 'all mod cons' sites.
I give starts according to how far it does what it says on the tin, and how enjoyable a place to be the site is overall. With attention to specific details (like the standard of maintenance of the compost toilet, or reliability of the solar shower).
I have probably reviewed about half the sites I have stayed on, and I make a lot of repeat visits. I will review all in future!
Totally agree, Deborah.
Some may well add a star if the site has a water slide, where someone else will take a star off their ratings for the same site, for that very same water slide! LOL!
All we can do is rate it according to our own personal requirements and expectations.
I've said before, one man's "on-site entertainment" is another man's "holiday from hell". One man's "tranquil" is another man's "Far too quiet for my liking"!
I guess it's up to the reader to decide who's writing (and rating) what... which is another reason to give as much info as possible in our reviews. The "profile" of the reviewer can be just as important as the review itself, I'd say.
Must admit, despite still being a reasonably young, and extremely trendy couple (We don't take children with us, but are still "down with the kids, innit", hence being tent campers rather than a tin box on wheels!!), I think it's fair to say we take much, much more notice of reviews from "Mr & Mrs Dotage", than we do from "Bobbysueandkidsplusdog"!
I have never liked star rating systems at all. They are like trying to give something marks out of 10 when some people think 7 is good and some think 7 is bad. I never take any notice of the stars although I have to give them in a review I believe.
I read what the reviewer has said and try to evaluate what that person has said in relation to my own views. I try to read between the lines...for instance, did somebody have a rough trip due to weather or noisy neighbours and has given the campsite a bad review based on that?
It may be necessary to read two or three pages of different people's reviews to get something close to an accurate report. Reviews are, after all, just one persons personal opinion.
Good points Bob... and I must admit, I still haven't made my mind up whether 7 is good or bad!
Ultimately, the more lines we write, the more there is for folk to read in between them!
I do try to limit my attention span to the more recent reviews though. Last two, maybe three years at most, ideally. I always get a tad nervous with reviews older than that, concerned they may no longer be relevant. More often than not, unfortunately, sticking to the last 2 or 3 years keeps you on page one of that site's reviews!
There are plenty of facts we can all add to our opinions though, if we can be bothered!
A day of all things motorhome and campervan. The show is held both in the main indoor arena and across the grounds. Catering, hot drinks and food options are available. Easy access to the site and free parking included. Win one of five pairs of day tickets
Topic: Camp site reviews - Donations please...
