Reviewing CLs

Just for information, website isn't currently working properly for me at moment, can't seem to post, it hovers in the ether somewhere for a while! I did add an edit to the above, but it hasn't appeared?

I think of it more as my research not being good enough in some way, and prefer to move on to somewhere that meets my expectations more, than trashing someone's small business. My needs may not be those of someone else's.

My thought as well, although I do think at times I should just state that a site is not up to the standard I have been led to expect from the reviews and see what, if any, response I get to my comments.

Agree Nellie. It's hard sometimes because a lot can change on a site in a few months. Sometimes the photos don't flatter a really lovely place, other times they don't show what might be a problem. We look on OS maps, google earth, and other review sites if possible before we book, especially if it's a long break.

Brian

It's all well and good taking your frustrations out on the forum,  but there has not been a timeout problem with this forum for some time, in fact I remain logged in all day unless I turn my PC off, is that not the case for others? It has long been suggested that reviews are composed in a word processor and then pasted into the forum. At least using that method you get a spell checker and it makes it easier if you wish to post to multi forums.

Those of you that advocate not posting reviews on here are surely flying in the face of what you hope to achieve, ie the survival and encouragement of the use and development of the CL network. I am puzzled how that is achieved by not posting reviews on here. I am not saying not to post them elsewhere, I would go so far as to encourage people to do that as well. I am probably one of the most prolific review posters on UKCampsite with approaching 200 reviews. I keep a watching brief on most of the free to use forums on our hobby and anyone that does the same will see that this forum has as many if not more posts on a daily basis than others. 

As to the content of reviews I just wonder how you police that? I am sure most on here have developed a sixth sense into knowing when a review is useful. If reviews are a bit below par on detail then surely even more reason for the people that have the future of CL's at heart to submit reviews as a counter balance?

At the end of the day where do people start their search for CL's? Am I wrong in thinking that it is more likely to be the CL review section on this forum? No doubt they then might look elsewhere but I suspect it all starts here. 

David

If a site is well reviewed then it is very difficult to say something more refreshing so I don't bother. I have made reviews and have made them in the form of being inviting to a would be visitor. Some reports are so unimaginative I think they should be removed.

On the other side of the coin. Do cl owners make a good job of promoting their actual site?

There are some excellent owner previews but lots that don't even bother putting the bare minimum into their page and that includes the lack of even a simple site image, which for them to put on seems a lot easier. This is lack lustre it gives a sense of being not very inviting. However, if an owner writes a report that is full of interest then it draws you and goes a long way to get you booking. So with that, do those sites with poor ‘Home Pages’ really deserve a members report if they themselves can’t be bothered.

".....I remain logged in all day unless I turn my PC off, is that not the case for others?"

No, it’s not the case for me, David. It seems to be device specific at times but, at others, logging out occurs at random. Then we have the issue of hitting the button to post and nothing happens and eventually the words are lost. And, no, it’s not my broadband.

I, too, think CL owners have been treated shabbily by the club and I wouldn't blame them if they obtained their exemption elsewhere. If anybody is flying in the face of promoting the use and continuation of CLs, it’s the club itself.

I remain logged on all day on my I pad, desktop and smart phone.  I try to leave reviews wherever we stay.  As others have said there are a lot of reviews that give little away.  We always try to give as much info as possible regarding not only the site but POI 

It's not the time out function that's the bee in my bonnet at the moment, there seems to be a long delay in getting any of my posts to send at the moment. Little "reply" button turns grey, but screen just doesn't change. Only on this website!

To a certain extent I don't disagree David, and perhaps it is me being a tad petty taking my bat and ball home. But reviews on here are not my first look when choosing a site. I will actually PM a few chums, see if they have been, know anything about it, then take a look on UKcampsites, reviews are more impartial on there. We are finding more and more independent sites to use in truth. 

I use mainly use CLs and have written quite a few reviews in the past but not so many since a lot of them were lost in the upgrade.

It would have to be a really scathing review to put me off going to a site that was in my perfect chosen location. We all have different ideas of our perfect site so a combination of Google Earth and reviews from various sources can tip the balance for me.

Just out of interest, I have just read some reviews on a CL we know well, in terms of location and by sight, although we haven't stayed. Most of the reviews are very similar, giving it 5 out of 5. Three however, marked it down to only 3 out of 5. One of those because it had no wifi. One because they couldn't  level van up. Another because there were cows nearby.

It's a dairy farm, the clue is in the name! It says slightly sloping. No mention of it having wifi. My question is, why choose this, and then mark it down for something like the above? Doesn't make sense to me.