What are reviews for?

I think reviews of CLs are far more useful than club sites as most who visit them seem to be proper caravaners as apposed the to what seems these days a growing amount of "members" who will use a club site review as a "rant" outlet  (mostly self inflicted ,reading them)rather than what is found on most CL reviews 

The user and all related content has been Deleted User

Oh, it is, David, it certainly is ! 

But at least you can book a hard standing!

Low season prices are not bad, but the payment/deposit regime is not attractive.

£16 per night for a HS in midweek in September, including EHU, 2 adults and WiFi,

£18 If you fancy a serviced HS.

Looks like you have to cross grass to get to the HS however, which is not good if it is wet

To be honest I'm fed up with 'reviews' which are clearly an individual's axe grind. These are very often against the grain and at odds with the usual comments. Sometimes they just wish to make their own points about club issues rather than a site specific comment. The ones I value most are those which are informative about the site itself and the locality.

Agree, although, in fairness (and I've made this point to Ro) many of them just lately appear to be from first time reviewers who, perhaps understandably, are unfamiliar with the guidelines for posting reviews. I'm not sure if they are monitored in the same way that, as I understand it, first time posters on the forum are. 

Understood but nevertheless they are inappropriate as there is a proper and well 'signposted' route for submitting a possible complaint. Reviews surely are not for that purpose and those which do not meet the T&Cs should be removed in my opinion as they often are irrelevant to the vast majority of us who are seasoned members who understand the clubs ways. 

I agree, Micky. They do stand out a mile and it shouldn’t be necessary for us to apply our own powers of discrimination to weed them out. 

The guidelines concerning the writing of reviews need to be given a much more prominent position with emphasis on the correct avenue for axe grinding/complaining and, as M said, vetting of reviews from new posters before publication would be good which is what happens on UKC.

I've just noticed the thread in this section "moderation required". Apparently the first three posts by new members have to be approved before being published. Very sensible too.

But why, then, are reviews, such as last night's  "Absolute Crap" and this mornings "rudest warden ever" , both from first time reviewers allowed to appear?

Granted, last night's was removed/hidden, after I guess, several reports but why should that be necessary?