How to rate sites (1 Viewer)

[brushdw]

When using P4N or S4S or Google or TripA how do you rate sites? Currently we on a site in Greece. The owner is friendly and helpful, the showers are clean and the water hot. It is virtually empty. We slept really well with no lighting or traffic to disturb us. A bargain at €20. So 5* ? But it is scruffy and undermaintained, the electrics are 'unorthodox', 80% of the pitches have permanent caravans and awnings in them, it's already the end of April yet the facilities are still closed. Filled with Greek families who know each other from years back I fear it would be bedlam and noisy. One washing machine for 100 pitches of long stay visitors? I suspect we, and many other tourers, would hate it in high season and only give it 2*. I believe my description captures the place OK - maybe it is time to ditch the concept of 1 to 5 ratings.

 

[poppycamper]

When using P4N or S4S or Google or TripA how do you rate sites? Currently we on a site in Greece. The owner is friendly and helpful, the showers are clean and the water hot. It is virtually empty. We slept really well with no lighting or traffic to disturb us. A bargain at €20. So 5* ? But it is scruffy and undermaintained, the electrics are 'unorthodox', 80% of the pitches have permanent caravans and awnings in them, it's already the end of April yet the facilities are still closed. Filled with Greek families who know each other from years back I fear it would be bedlam and noisy. One washing machine for 100 pitches of long stay visitors? I suspect we, and many other tourers, would hate it in high season and only give it 2*. I believe my description captures the place OK - maybe it is time to ditch the concept of 1 to 5 ratings.

I gave up, many years ago.. paying any attention to any sort of reviews..
Differant folk expect differant things and.
What may be shite to them may be exceptable/good to others...

 

[LesW]

When checking anywhere for reviews, I always check the lowest ratings first.

It’s amazing the reasons some give for bad reviews, a very good pub near us got one star because it didn't allow dogs in the restaurant area.

 

[brushdw]

I gave up, many years ago.. paying any attention to any sort of reviews..
Differant folk expect differant things and.
What may be shite to them may be exceptable/good to others...

Which is why I think descriptions are valuable but stars are pointless. Real descriptions, not " we thought this site was lovely"

 

[scotjimland]

at best, site reviews are but a guide.. we all have different ideas about what is good and bad....

so I don't take much notice, the best way is to visit and find out for yourself..

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[hja]

I use descriptions not star ratings, for reasons outlined above. The ones that I find difficult to review is when the pro for an asks you for ratings for e.g. facilities. Now is that the condition of the facilities the site actually offers or the facilities of that site compared to others? So a basic CL with grass pitches, water, and toilet dump could get 5 star because everything was well placed, clean etc, grass mown, or only one star because no HS, ehu, toilet block, swimming pool etc. I tend to go with the former, but who knows what the authors of the review pro forma intend.

 

[Guigsy]

Location and access are important to us. If it's close to interesting stuff with a bike route or at least a bus stop nearby, that's good.

If it's in the middle of nowhere and no easy way to get into the city without decamping, it's unlikely to get 5 stars from us.

Everyone has different needs.

 

[maison]

We always try to give a rating and a review.

A site in a great location but with poor facilities would be downgraded from 5* to either 3* or 4*.

We would give an explanation along the lines of….

“In a lovely riverside location and with an easy 5 minute walk into the pretty village which has a few shops and bars. Would have given more stars but facilities were out of service at the time of our visit and the site looks a little tired. Would recommend as an overnight stop. Own facilities may be required.”

 

[dunnah01]

They're all a necessary evil 1*

 

[The Wino]

In our case facilities are not at all important other than a dump point and water/ grey waste preferably drive over so a star system based on what the shower block is like would be very misleading. Much better would be a separate star rating for several categories

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Guigsy]

In our case facilities are not at all important other than a dump point and water/ grey waste preferably drive over so a star system based on what the shower block is like would be very misleading. Much better would be a separate star rating for several categories

I've stayed at city Aires that were nothing more than a car park with vans squeezed together, a secure fence, a water tap and and a dump point. But they were clean, easy to use, cheap, and 5 minutes walk into a city. Exactly what we wanted, so 5 stars.

 

[Coastal Cruiser.]

We went to a site recently in Woolacombe and I was a bit worried about the negative reviews on the staff could not be further from the reviews, staff were as nice a people as you could meet very helpful and chatty and site was spotless.
Turns out the negative reviews were by people who didn’t want to go with the rules, most were for groups talking in awnings late night early morning and doing things they shouldn’t be doing!!

 

[brushdw]

I've stayed at city Aires that were nothing more than a car park with vans squeezed together, a secure fence, a water tap and and a dump point. But they were clean, easy to use, cheap, and 5 minutes walk into a city. Exactly what we wanted, so 5 stars.

This illustrates exactly the dilemma that made me begin this thread. I happen to agree with you that a well run Aire can serve our needs perfectly ( sometimes, sometimes we want or need more) but your 5 star rating will confuse many readers. A clean and simple B&B is not a 5* hotel but a badly run 'luxury' hotel is something best avoided. There are two alternative methodologies - rating the facilities ( which is what the AA used to do with hotels) or measuring how well the site "does what it says on the tin". As things now are , all the star systems confuse the two hopelessly. Which is why I believe they should be abandoned - reforming them to be meaningful seems an impossible dream.

 

[brushdw]

We always try to give a rating and a review.

A site in a great location but with poor facilities would be downgraded from 5* to either 3* or 4*.

We would give an explanation along the lines of….

“In a lovely riverside location and with an easy 5 minute walk into the pretty village which has a few shops and bars. Would have given more stars but facilities were out of service at the time of our visit and the site looks a little tired. Would recommend as an overnight stop. Own facilities may be required.”

Exactly. It is the descriptive text which provides useful info for others. If a site offers facilities but they are out of use or poorly maintained or dirty etc then I would say they can never get a high star rating. But the harder question is whether a site offering few facilities ( which some would say was a site with 'poor' facilities) should ever be given a high star rating?

 

[brushdw]

Location and access are important to us. If it's close to interesting stuff with a bike route or at least a bus stop nearby, that's good.

If it's in the middle of nowhere and no easy way to get into the city without decamping, it's unlikely to get 5 stars from us.

Everyone has different needs.

Certainly, everyone has different needs. But how useful to anyone else is a star rating based on "did this site meet my needs"? I am suggesting that it is of no use at all.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[brushdw]

at best, site reviews are but a guide.. we all have different ideas about what is good and bad....

so I don't take much notice, the best way is to visit and find out for yourself..

Do we really all have different ideas about what is good or bad? And is that what reviews are about? If facilities are offered but not delivered is there anyone who thinks that deserves a good review? If the sanitary block is dirty does anyone think that is good? If there is no hot water in the showers ( when there is meant to be) is that good in anyone's mind? For those of us who rarely stay anywhere more than a couple of nights visiting to find out for ourselves is not really an answer.