Site Reviews - Oh Boy!

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🤔

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!

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

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Out of interest on a private site we visited I noticed the site details and photos were out of date and reviews reflected this, I think it's important that sites have updated info clearly visible and that goes for CAMC too.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.

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.

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

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.

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.