Our third non-scientific survey takes a look at the RV park directories we use most, and focuses on the "rating systems" used. We wanted to know what RVers are most interested in when they're looking for an RV park. How helpful are the primary directories we're using? Do the existing rating systems tell us what we're looking for -- and is the information current and reliable? And in the spirit of wanting to help improve what's presently out there, what suggestions would our readers have for improving the existing rating systems? While some of the information gathered tells of things we'd like to see improved, many of the comments offer interesting new suggestions which we hope the publishers of the directories will consider for future years' publications.
Which rating system do we prefer?
Our first peek was to which of the primary directories we're using the most in our travels; whether we find the rating systems they're using about the same, or do we have a preference for one or the other of them. Here's what we found:
The data suggests that while a full third of us find the rating systems about the same, a majority express a preference for one or the other, with the more specific Trailer Life system being most favored by RVers.
Looking at the Trailer Life ratings specifically:
When we focused on Trailer life, we found that the great majority of those who use that directory find it at least "good".
There were a number of comments and suggestions that pertained specifically to the Trailer Life rating system, and we've noted some representative items under the "Comments" section at the bottom of this article.
What about the Trailer Life categories?
We were curious to know which of the three Trailer Life rating categories RVers are most interested in. We know from our own travels that our first preference is for an RV park with a pleasant "environmental quality", by which we mean quiet setting in a pleasant area and the surroundings all offering a pleasant visual appeal. Yet other RVers will have different priorities. Here's the way we seem to have our priorities when we see the three rating categories:
From some of the comments, we detected some possible areas of "ambiguity" in Trailer Life's category called "Amenities". The comments indicated RVers might be interpreting "Amenities" to mean full hookup, modem connections, cable TV, big rig friendly, etc. Yet the rating category for "Amenities" would appear to reward other things such as video arcades and other items which RVers in other polls have indicated are relatively lower on their collective list. While we were surprised that a very modest percentage identified "restrooms" as the predominant factor, we think that may be because a park with a generally high rating almost invariably has a good rating for restrooms anyway.
Looking at the Woodalls ratings specifically:
Turning to the Woodalls rating system, we asked our readers to provide us their opinion on how they score that rating system:
Again, readers predominently appear to rate the more general Woodalls system "good" or better. Moreover it appears the "shape" of the curve approving both Trailer Life and Woodalls are remarkably similiar. This may simply suggest that RVers tend to prefer whatever directory they're most used to. And taking the two together, while there are many things we find could use improvement, the report card on both of these directories is on balance reasonably positive.
Is there a relationship between Advertising and Ratings?
This is something that of course we can't determine with a survey. What we can determine, however, is what the opinions of our readers is on this interesting subject. The issue is whether because an RV park spends a lot of advertising dollars with either (or both) of the major publishers, is that likely to "buy" them a higher rating? Said otherwise, if you see a full page ad touting the merits of an RV park as the "best", is there a tendency to believe that the ratings for that park might be artificially inflated? We say again this survey can't answer that question -- but it can shed light on what our opinions are on this matter:
A significant number of responses, some 30%, appear to reflect the reality that it is very difficult for us to "know" whether there is a connection. However, of those expressing an opinion on the subject, those believing there is a connection between advertising dollars paid and a park's ratings outnumber the opposing view by a margin of almost two to 1. We'd add parenthetically this is one question we'd really like to put to a group of RV park owners! Perhaps we'll find a way to do that in due course...
What about "Word of Mouth" Advertising?
Our final category asked RVers to consider whether they would rely more on one of the RV park rating system, or "word of mouth" information. We know from our own experience that a glowing report from a friend about a positive experience at a particular RV park can influence our own decision. Here's how our readers responded when asked which was more important:
We found this tidbit quite interesting. We think it says to RV park owners, no matter how much you value your "rating" from a directory publication, it can never be as important to you as the reputation you develop among your own RV guests. This means, in turn, a friendly helpful staff, facilities which meet the needs of your guests, and all those things which go into satisfying your RV guests -- not the rating inspectors! We think it may also in time invite a new dimension in RV park rating methods -- one in which RV guests' comments are collected and published. Perhaps this type of personal, qualitative information is precisely what's needed to supplement the more mechanical rating systems that are currently in use. We attribute the "ownership" of this idea to one of our readers who envisioned such a new resource in the comments section of the survey form.
COMMENTS: WHAT OUR READERS HAD TO SAY
We actually had three areas within this survey which invited comments. One related primarily to opinions and suggestions pertaining to the Trailer Life rating system. The second was the same for Woodalls. And the last was simply a catch-all comment box, in which readers were free to offer up whatever more they wished to express on the general subject. While some comments highlight areas of "needs improvement", we think that on balance they offer constructive comment -- and in some cases some excellent new ideas. Keep in mind all these comments come within a context of a generally favorable reception to both major directory services.
The number of comments is far to large to publish here, but we've attempted to select a sampling which seem to be representative of the whole. A "(TL)" before a comment indicates it came from the Trailer Life comment section; a ("W") indicates the Woodalls' comment section; and the rest were simply general comments.
(TL ) I've seen Trailer Life write: "...good interior roads." Then when we arrive we find that the "good roads" are overgrown with hanging tree limbs or brush. I've pointed this out to the publisher then find they make no adjustments in next publication.
(TL) Don't understand why Trailer Life allows campgrounds to advertise highest rated park in --" when according to the ratings they are not!
(TL) I like it the way it is.
(TL) Check the parks better. We happen to live in a mobile home park that has an RV section. Though the mobile section is A-1,the RV section is rundown and terrible. We would never stay in a park like this when we are on the road nor will we recommend it to friends. But sadly this RV section is highly rated in the guides, and we don't know why. When we have written to Trailer Life a couple times to complain about their ratings, they just blow it off. [Comment on Woodalls] (W) Same as above, we don't know who they use to rate these places, but they need to stop thinking about advertising $$ and start telling it like it is.
(TL) Trailer Life" claims that the people who rate campgrounds must follow a fairly rigid and categorized checklist but there still seems to be far too much rating inconsistency in all categories and there is as much variation in the lower numbers too. (8 is the lowest I go unless I have NO other choice.) Not everyone perceives "dirt" in the same way! I realize that at any time on any given day a normally "clean" restroom/laundry might be well below its usual standard but more vigilence on management's part should take care of this. I think a far stricter but still realistic standard for ALL categories is needed perhaps even revising some categories for more accurate reflection of a campground's REAL condition. For example I care a LOT more about the condition of the campground's electrical hook-up than I do about a "lighted entry sign"! Woodall's and TL are now owned by Affinity Group, and I wouldn't expect their overall corporate policy to vary among the various arms of the organization.
(TL) I would like to see a breakdown for modem friendly parks, i.e., whether there is instant access" at the site or if the modem hookup is at a location other than individual RV sites. I would also like to see them offer their rating book in a Western and an Eastern edition like Woodalls does. The Trailer Life book is just too big for easy handling, although I do like their rating system better than Woodalls. However I use both books since Woodalls lists some parks that aren't in Trailer Life's book.
(TL) Trailer Life CD is great. It was about time!
(TL) I don't feel the ratings and what they stand for are consistent from state to state. How many people are involved in rating a campground?
(TL) Try to obtain more accurate rate information, and make the local tax information easier to read as this affects the total cost of staying at a campground. The fact that the owner is in active management and lives on site would be useful data because these campgrounds are usually better run and friendly.
(TL) ref. the question on the amount of advertising paid... We stayed at a TL highly rated park that had a pool with crummy water in it, poor (hardly any) water pressure and poorly maintained sites. It did however have a full page ad in the TL directory. Hmmmmm could that be the reason for a higher than expected rating?????"
(TL) Use unique symbols or colors on maps to disclose overall rating of each campground. In other words, one should be able to look at campground symbols on maps and distinguish higher rated campgrounds from lower rated campgrounds.
(TL) Use stricter guidelines for ratings. Example: Some parks are rated better as to their scenic beauty over others in the area when there is clearly little or no difference. The type of rating seems to be influenced by how big an ad the park buys.
(TL) More candor. Avoid, for instance, describing a small fenced enclosure with emaciated, uncared for animals, as a "petting zoo." Potholed gravel trails do not good interior roads make. A busy highway on two sides should be noted. In other words help me avoid sites that are not well located, noisy and not well maintained"
(TL) A more honest and consistent rating system is appropriate. Let's be honest...the campgrounds pay Trailer Life for advertising and the company won't necessarily give a true appraisal if the campground is a big spender.
(TL) I feel inspectors build a relationship with owners over the years and this can affect ratings. I think inspectors should be rotated or changed at least every 2-3 years to get another perspective on a campground.
(TL) Trailer Life ratings appear to be based on who buys the biggest ad. I have been to several parks around the country that they rate well and take a full page ad, and I wouldn't let my dog stay there. Trailer Life needs to make sure who ever they hire to check to campgrounds out, that they are independent of Affinity Group and Good Sams.
(TL) Give the width of the spaces. That is very important to us with slide-outs. Also, mark modem friendly parks. Mark modem friendly parks with features.
(TL) List when the park is a mobile home park and not an RV park.
(TL) What they now have works for me.
(TL) Make sure big rig sites are really for big rigs like 40-45 feet long.
(W) We have been pleased in most instances with the Woodalls Book, but find the word of mouth an important addition as to friendliness of personnel, cleanliness, amenities, and generally pleasant campgrounds.
(W) I would like to see a separate rating for showers. That is the most important (to me) of the amenities. Woodall's seems to rate only the type(s) of construction and not the quality of that construction. We camped in one campground that was rated 3W. The showers were painted but it was old. The floor was concrete with NO platforms. It was in such a state I refused to shower there.
(W) Although we have had some pretty yucky experiences with their listings by and far they seem pretty consistent. Again, any rating system should be the same and by the comparison values on some RV parks, folks have some pretty low evaluation standards!
(W) There should be a rating system that will tell a visitor whether or not the facility is close to a metro area or out in the outback, miles away from anything. and if they are, if they have the necessary facilities to accommodate a traveling RVer
(W) The star rating system is too broad. It doesn't nail down the specifics enough.
(W) Woodalls is more complete, with state parks listed. Suggestion: Since both Trailer Life and Woodalls are owned by the Affinity Group why not combine the two into one guide? It would cost less and we wouldn't have to lug two heavy guides around"
(W) feel that we need a list (somehow)of campgrounds that are near a major local. Wash. DC New Orleans or New York City. A page that would list campgrounds or a number code with- in a state would make camping better Alpha listing can hide a campground's town location which is in town "A" but may be located in town "Z".
More accurate data on access, such as low hanging trees, and better Better directions. (Several times we have been unable to find a park because the directions were incorrect.)
We don't feel that the park information is updated enough. Many times we have gone to a park and found that nothing is like it says in the book, when we question the park manager, they just shrug and say oh well...
In the last year's rates information should include whether or not a park charges for extra persons (over 2) and if so how much. We frequently travel as four adults and this would significantly affect our choice. As an observation any additional charge over $1 to$2 per extra person is unjustified. Thanks.
I think the advertising dollars have an impact on the rating. I have been in campgrounds that TL rated as a 10 and I wouldn't have rated the whole place a 6 but that's my own opinion."
We've seen no mention or consideration given to proximity to potentially noisy locations; next to busy highway, corporation yard, beach where ATV's are used. Who cares if restrooms are clean if while staying all you hear is noise from outside the park?
Put the information on a searchable CD or floppy including all existing data. On a CD, pictures probably could be included.
Park location is important to us when we travel. It would be great to work in a mapping program to the search so that only those close to your travel route are shown.
We feel the ratings tend to be overly generous. We have been in some campgrounds that had avg. ratings of 7s and 8s that really were pigpens ................but very rarely in campgrounds that were underrated
I would like to see a rating that shows the cleanliness...not the structure of the bath houses. I am tired of going to 8-9 pt restrooms and finding cobwebs and moldy shower curtains.
We're heading out shortly for the first time in two yrs so am a little out of date with Trailer Life and Woodalls. I did start with their Internet sites about 6 mo. ago and found Trailer Life much better to get around in, amount of online info, etc.
I would like the maps to be with each state as well as at the front.
We talked to an RV park owner very recently (a Good Sam park)who told us that the Trailer Life inspectors would give a better rating to a park that placed an advertisement (and, presumably, the bigger the ad, the higher the rating). However, she also said that they were no longer supposed to do that (but, is any rating book going to give a bad rating to someone who advertises...they would soon lose all their advertisers!).
Provide better maps in directories. Put Map at beginning of state listing. Also, consider a small map as part of each listing.
The statement of pet restrictions is not clear. This may be interpreted as 1. no pets allowed or 2. pets must be restrained by a leash. Those travelling with pets will often avoid "pet restriction" parks as it is not clear which of the two is the policy of the campground. It is definitely working against those campgrounds that post this statement. It is clear to me and I believe to most other pet owners
Both of these directories would be better if they gave the size of the campground like AAA does. This along with the number of sites gives a good measure of how spaced out the sites will be. For example if we see 100 sites on 10 acres we know they're jammed together. We don't always want to be THAT close to our neighbors.
Having recently completed a trip through the NE, we were disappointed in Trailer Life. We felt the info was not current even though the cover indicated it was a current directory. Also, directions for locating a campground leaves much to be desired in TL. It used to be more reliable.
I think you are to be commended at offering us serious RVers an opportunity to learn so much from one place. We have recently become fulltimers and I find your web page even more needed! Thanks for the fantastic job!
Keep a rating system on all RV parks that we visit. I also ask question of other travelers. However, an online system that we could fill out either on the road or at home would be ideal.
Look through the travelers eyes---do not hype, but give realistic ratings.
Generally speaking, getting first hand knowledge from someone who has camped in a particular spot means 100% more than any other rating system. I think it bodes well on the friendliness and overall honesty of campers as a group.
Since most of the camp grounds that I make reservations or overnight stops at are unfamiliar to me, I would like to see more photo sites in the directory. Also, if Satellite sites were marked that had a open view of DSS Dish Prime Star.
Campgrounds need overnight sites without all the frills. We seldom use any of the amenities at a one night stop on route to a destination. That's what makes Walmart so attractive!
List driving distance in time from main highways or interstates when applicable.
Have used both the TL and Woodalls, they don't compare to word of Mouth" Thanks for such a great site.
What is the purpose of this poll? Is it for RVers benefit or for Directory Publishers benefit?
Our motorhome is a 1983 which we keep in EXCELLENT" condition. However recently when calling a campground in Florida to make reservations they asked for the year of our motorhome. First time this question was asked and to our dismay we were denied access to this park based solely on the year of our rig. Would be interested to know if anyone else has experienced this problem and what we can do. Thank you.
I am currently still working, and have to travel faster than I'd like to reach my holiday destinations. I need a directory I can trust, rather than depending on word of mouth". I usually don't have time to search out "word of mouth" recommendations.
© 1998, RVers Online. All Rights Reserved