What are reviews for?

I agree with you about what reviews should be for. Should there be any major gripes about the site these too should be aired, but not at the expense of details of the site, it's surroundings and places of interest close by. 

I would think reviews as you say should be,but then as with most things these days it is very easy and even cowardly to rant about things normally because the "problem?"was self inflicted and from a distance that they feel safe to advise the "world" with  little or no chance of any repercussions 

Unless its picked up by some on here

Ps reviews as far as we are concerned are taken from the majority rather than the odd rant 

I think if there are geniune grievances about the standard of the site, whether Club site or CL, then they should be aired but peripherals that will probably change day to day such as weather or neighbours behaviour or barking dogs are ignored when I read a review.

You can usually gauge when someone just wants to air a particular grievance. 

I prefer it if people stick to the actuals, such as the facilities on site then the surroundings off site, then more general information if needed such as buses or teains or points of interest.

I recently gave Thirsk site a mediocre review but based mostly on the site itself as I found it. Others can and will disagree. That's up to them but hopefully people who read regular reviews from the same source will be able to gain an impression of whether that source is reliable.

I know others disagree but I feel as you do, M. A review should be about the site itself and info about the immediate area.

I feel strongly that transient issues such as the weather, barking dogs, noisy neighbours and so on have no place in a site review. What use is it to someone planning a visit next month to know it rained every day last week and a dog barked all day on Friday? 

Complaints about wardens also have no place in reviews, in my opinion, as most seem unfair and, like other issues, a review is not the way to address problems. I’m happy to see praise of wardens, though, as this creates a welcoming atmosphere for others.

I'm frequently astounded that people moan in reviews, and on the forum, but fail to speak to the warden about their concerns.

I've said all this before and been shot down in flames and I doubt the reaction will be any different this time.

To me a review should be a discription of the site , how far from bus stops ,shops etc , maybe wether there are narrow roads to the site .

its not always easy to to suggest places to visit as we all look for different things 

A review needs to look at the bigger picture rather than how noisy someone's music was or how often a dog barked ,as when I visit they won't be there 

TW, do you mean moan or criticise? 

Not all bad points can be rectified by mentioning to the warden. Obviously if it's a rule infringement or a malfunction say in the shower block then I agree that should be referred but if you are talking about a fundamental fault with the site then I would hope that someone in the club would read reviews and if enough people mentioned it maybe do something about it.

When I read a review I want to know whether there is a bad smell from the local glue factory or that it lies directly under the approach flight path of Heathrow etc. Reporting these to the warden won't solve them but they should be mentioned.

I think members are invited to comment and rate a campsite/CL they have just stayed at. There are no instructions or suggestions on how that should be approached. It is up to the reader to sift through the reviews for any site in general and make up their minds accordingly. If someone has, in their view, had a bad experience of staying on a site there are no rules to say they can't express those views. Sometimes the same issue comes up time and time again which should flag something up to the Regional Manager for the site involved. It can also flag up where more communication with members is needed.

Personally I think the ability for other members to comment on a review should be removed or reserved for Club staff to comment. Invariably such comments are usually about disagreeing with the original review which is a bit odd as people who add comments have not had the same experience as recounted by the original reviewer which in my view is unfair. I tend to delete comments on reviews unless they actually add information rather than just being critical. 

David

I mean the sort of moan I described - essentially, rule breaking by others which people write about in reviews but don’t discuss with the warden.

Obviously, a major site flaw is beyond the warden's control but, again, he/she will be able to tell the full story and know what might be planned by way of rectification. That would not be a transient issue so should feature in reviews, I believe.

I agree with you about the local issues which is why I said I think reviews should include info about the immediate area.

Do you not think that comments on reviews help put issues into perspective, David? They frequently point out that a reviewer has broken a rule which that reviewer, or others, may not even know exists so comments can be seen as informative.

My most frequent comment is to ask people if they have discussed the issue with the warden as that is the first step we are asked to take in order to get the matter addressed at the time. I’ve even been thanked by reviewers for pointing that out.

I have, on occasion, reported reviews for reasons such as the writer hadn't actually stayed on the site so the rating given was inappropriate, or unfortunate language being used to describe wardens and, on one occasion, a warden was named in a verbal attack.

To remove the ability to comment on reviews would be very high handed in my view and I trust you do not delete constructive comments as that would be very unfair.

It’s not a review, it’s a rant, Totally useless in terms of providing information to potential users. 🙁