Standard Rating Scale for Camping Ratings

I think it would be helpful to include a "grading scale" for the various areas when people leave comments about Military Campgrounds. I've see a LOT of ratings as 5,5,5,5,5 and when we arrive, it's more like 1,1,1,1,1

It would be nice to have a Rating Schema or Examples as a popup help so that everyone is Rating Campgrounds the same way. While I know experiences vary depending on how long and when you visit, but from 1s to 5s is a big difference for the same CG.

Also, it'd be nice to add other rating criteria like WiFi strength and reliability. It's very disappointing to have CGs "say" they have wifi only to arrive and see that wifi is non-existent!

Finally, while I realize you have a standalone software suite, have you considered developing an app for the iPhone?

Thanks for the website…it is very helpful with our travels.

Thanks for the feedback.

As you realized, reviews and ratings are very subjective. It all depends on your personal experience and expectations. That's what these are - people's personal "opinion". It's completely possible for someone staying in the same campground to to have completely opposite ratings. The ratings and reviews should only be considered as a "guideline" based on other opinions.

We encourage people to include their WiFi experience in their review, if it's important to them. It's not important to everyone. Also, other issues may be important to other people. I can't include a rating for every little item. Ratings are for "larger" categories. If you have a bad WiFi experience, this may effect your "Amenities" or "Overall experience" ratings.

I would love to have versions of the Directory software for the iPad/iPhone, Android phone/tablet, Windows phone, Windows RT tablets, Linux, and Macintosh systems. However, I need to consider the development, distribution, updates, and support costs associated with all of these versions. The revenue generated from the Windows version barely supports that one version of the Directory software and the operation of the website.

I like the current rating scale and as Larry says it is our opinion and we all know ratings are subjective. What one person expects or looks for may not be important to another person so just looking at ratings is not the whole picture. It is the narrative that explains and supports the ratings so I always read them and contribute to the reviews whenever I stay at a MCG no matter if it is the first time or 20th time as things change each time we go. As for WiFi it can be working fine when someone is there and if you rely on that it could be different when you go. We chose not to use WiFi in any campground and use a Verizon JetPack that is secure so to us it is not important so we would never mention it. Another example of how needs and wants vary in importance for each of us is the amount of trees as we have an in motion roof mounted dome we use for DISH same as at home but for many of you having trees is important as it sure does provide shade.

I have to agree with Larry and LamSan on this subject. Ratings are by their nature extremely subjective. Doubt that: have you ever used a Woodall or Trailer Life campground guide? They use three basic criteria, with multiple breakdowns within each of the three general categories. With the exception of the top of the line ratings (10/10/10), we very often can not agree with what the guide says about a particular campground, especially those rated in the seven and eight ranges. Remember also that the ratings are completed by professionals, and even they can get it wrong, apparently.

JMHO - John