MMM Site review - thoughts please

[LordThornber]

I've read the Caravan Club Lower Clough Foot (Hebden Bridge) site review and I'm surprised to say the least at how misleading it is.

 

I asked my Wife, which, in her opinion was the poorest CC site we'd visited, from purely a motorhomers perspective and she answered Hebden Bridge.

 

The reviewers state that it's ideal for motorhomers because it's "quite level" and there are hard standings. Well that'll drag the crowds in then.

 

I've come to the conclusion that some reviewers are sending in recommendations not because the site is worth recommending but because they're actually there. And of course pocket the dosh for doing so.

 

That's fine, but not if it folk are being misled though.

 

This review is in my opinion, hopelessly inaccurate in that it is anything but a good site for us motorhomers. Caravan man yes, us no. To back that up, on our visit there we were very kindly offered a lift by a caravan owner into Hebden Bridge who agreed at the time that it was not really a suitable location unless you had some transport.

 

The site itself is in a nice spot, (but not outstanding), but is nowhere near anything of note. It's bus ride stuff to anywhere, which is fine but hardly bears a recommendation to a motorhomer. Particularly those, (us and a whole of others no doubt) who don't move their vans.

 

Before anyone gets shirty, just let me say, that I've paid my £3.75 and that does give me the right to a view, and if folk (reviewers) are putting themselves on the stage, so to speak, then some comment can be expected.

 

Martyn

 

 

 

[Robinhood]

I disagree entirely.

 

Great place for walking from, both on the hills and along the canal in both directions.

 

When it comes to reviews however, I could certainly pick holes with the postive Good Beer Guide description of the Shoulder of Mutton in Mytholmroyd down the road - I found it pretty charmless with somewhat lower than average food.

 

Just goes to show that one man's meat......... (or maybe you just don't like being in God's own count®y. B-)

 

I do, however, think that the MMM site reviews in general come from a pretty unimaginative set of contributors (the usual, same suspects, who appear to be supplementing their pension each month 8-) ).

 

It is only a small proportion of these reviews that adds anything to the knowledgebase - CC and C&CC sites are very easily researchable.

 

I'm sure someone will take offence to some of the above, but it's nothing personal.

 

 

[mondo]

I must say I agree with his lordship on this site..I've actually stayed on better CLs and CSs...but as all will say.. one mans meat etc it's not one of the better sites from a Motorhomers point of view

 

As for the Shoulder of Mutton yea well...not very good service..food the wrong side of mediochre and I'm an ex sqaddy and will eat just about anything!!!

 

Lord Thornber has a good point you do need transport!!

[Robinhood]

mondo - 2010-10-19 5:16 PM

 

As for the Shoulder of Mutton yea well...not very good service..food the wrong side of mediochre and I'm an ex sqaddy and will eat just about anything!!!

!!

 

At least we agree on one thing then :-D

 

 

mondo - 2010-10-19 5:16 PM

 

Lord Thornber has a good point you do need transport!!

You and he might!! *-) I most certainly don't.

 

My 'van hardly ever goes off site once I've 'pitched'. LCF provides access to a huge network of footpaths from directly outside the gate. The Canal is a short walk down the valley, with easy walking to either Hebden Bridge or Sowerby Bridge. There is (or was) a very good "Inn" within a short distance at Cragg Vale serving excellent meals. And what's wrong with using public transport? The train ride from Mytholmroyd (less than a mile away) into Halifax is cheap, and there are sights there well worth visiting.

 

For the above, I like it (and many motorcaravanners use their vehicle to support such pursuits).

 

It patently doesn't suit you or his Lordship, but the comments implying ALL motorcaravanners need transport is just as misleading as his Lordship claims the original review is.

 

FWIW I'm generally with his Lordship in his overall views as to the quality of the reviews in general, but took umbrage at his rather sweeping generalisation about motorcaravanners.

 

Nurse! I think it's time for my pills! :D

[Hopesy]

When i see that the reviewer has done a CC or CCC site i ask mysef why and then realise it's 40 quid (i think). I'll read the independant sites reviews but mostly use a couple of independant web sites for research. We don't use the van much when it's on site but walk and cycle. I take the reviews in MMM for what they are a page of pictures, a table of stats and mostly a template of recycled other site reviews. the foreign ones are worth a read!

[colin]

I don't know the site in question, but, as a PVC owner driving off site is pretty normal, if people wish to use a motorhome as a caravan with a motor up front it doesn't mean the site is unsuitable for motorhomes.

[duffers]

I think that any reviews of the Club sites should be relegated to just a quick paragraph if featured at all.

The sites are pretty much standard, the only variation is their location, which can be covered by a map, it really doesn't add a lot of information.

It's much more useful to have information on independent sites

[this month shows 1 independent, 1 CC 1 C&CC]

and - as someone has already pointed out, the same people do seem to keep popping up -

 

 

:-S

[LordThornber]

Robinhood - pursuits).

It patently doesn't suit you or his Lordship, but the comments implying ALL motorcaravanners need transport is just as misleading as his Lordship claims the original review is.

:D

 

I wasn't aware that I'd implied that ALL Motorhomers need transport, but if I did, that wasn't my intention.

 

In terms of being misleading though, I'd just like to say that my comments will have been read by what 200 people at best? The article itself rather more in the hundreds of thousands, and they've got paid for it.

 

The main thrust of my comments were, poorly perhaps, directed at the fact that this site is recommended as ideal for motorhomers. I don't think it is. Further to that, I stand by what I said about folk visiting sites and recommending them purely because they're there, rather than being able to properly endorse a site to motorhomers. In other words, they're spending their leisure time producing site reviews which are inflicted on us whether they're recommendable or not.

 

I will cheerfully concede that when we visited we didn't get our boots on and there is nothing wrong with buses, we use them home and away, but at the time of our visit, they weren't that user friendly in terms of regularity.

 

As for moving your van, in my 11+ years of motorhoming in the UK and in France, my observations would suggest the number of folk moving their van is easily under under 10%.

 

Martyn

 

[Robinhood]

LordThornber - 2010-10-20 10:09 AM

 

Further to that, I stand by what I said about folk visiting sites and recommending them purely because they're there, rather than being able to properly endorse a site to motorhomers. In other words, they're spending their leisure time producing site reviews which are inflicted on us whether they're recommendable or not.

 

Martyn

 

Can't pick much of a hole in this bit (and my words above are supportive).

 

I'm rather with "Hopesy" on this - the reviews of foreign sites are usually much more helpful, and less likely to be submitted by the usual suspects.

 

In general, I'm much less impressed with the MMM content than I used to be (maybe I'm just getting old). The "jokey" and themed review paragraphs for the vehicles on test particularly annoy me. I'd rather see a standardised review format with some more detail, than a lot of flowery prose.

 

I just need to break the habit of buying it :-S

[rupert123]

Although I have never been to the site in question I tend to agree with Martyn on this. We rarely move our van because we have a scooter and use that in Europe, however at this time of the year it is to bl**dy cold in the UK so do not take it. For us it is essential we can get out and about from the site, either by walks direct from the site or easy access to a town or attractions. Ideal sites for us at this time of year are places like York or Bristol CC sites. If weather is fair then places like Castleton or Buxton CC sites are brilliant. The description of a site in magazines like MMM must include a good bit on the means to get around and things to do direct from the site. I have made my feelngs on the MMM magazine clear on here several times and only ever read Andy's stuff now although I have since read the review in question before my reply.

[LordThornber]

Robinhood, I agree on the foreign sites view, I think they're much less likely to be submitted as opposed to the Site Review Tourists, which I've christened them.

 

As for stopping buying it, well my subscription ended over a year ago, I've bought it twice since and was, one or 2 articles excepted, disappointed on both occasions.

 

In pic 10 page 154, how did the reviewer form good opinion of the loo? It's still got the sealed tape on! Ok you don't have to actually USE the loo but every picture tells a story...

 

To offer some balance, the review of the van in the "Living With" article, is in my opinion, excellent. It's written by non professionals, just Joe Bloggs campers and is every bit as good as the pro write ups. Perhaps it's because it's their van but nonetheless, a good read.

 

I accept the whole mag can't please everyone all of the time but I feel it's fallen back too far for me. The Sites Review is my particular bugbear. Like you say, the "jokey" review paragraphs, what's that all about? But perhaps it pleases some, as ever. I'll dip my toes in again, probably in the New Year.

 

Martyn

 

[nowtelse2do]

I think the site in question is one of Andy Stothart's favorites, which Andy, if I'm correct seems to prefer the more basic site. I've never used this site because it is only 20minute drive from where I live but if walking is your thing then this area is the place for you, but some of the walks can be tough.

As for getting around on public transport, its ideal, as in the earlier post Halifax is a lot better than than one might think and with good connections to Leeds, Bradford and even Manchester, and if you have some uncontrollable urge to visit Blackburn then that is also possible (sorry M :D good indoor market there) The Bronte country and Hardcastle Craggs, Heptonstall, Studley Pike (with a meal at the Top Brink Pub after this walk) are all good places to visit. Catch the bus or train to Sowerby Bridge or Todmorden and walk the canal back to Hebden is perfect.

Must stop rambling on, I'm sounding like someone from the Yorkshire tourist board, and me a Lancastrian, better find somewhere to hide quick :-D

Dave  

 

[breakaleg]

I have had about 3 site reviews published, not all in MMM the last one was in , Monifieth, just outside Aberdeen.

 

Although I did do one for a clubsite, I don't anymore, just Private sites and sites abroad, but only if in my opinion they deserve sharing, i.e clean and tidy flat preferably, hard standing if available.Hand for public transport and welcoing wardens.

 

I don't think CL's should be published or if they are only the page in the sites book, the owners never (well twice in 30 years) check for membership, this makes it difficult in popular spots to get a pitch if occupied by non members.

Pete

[malc d]

The answer is not to take ANY reviews too seriously, especially when they express opinions rather than facts.

 

This also applies to the stories of peoples travels.

A few years ago we were in the south of France and my wife remembered reading a review which said there was a " fantastic " view from one particular beach.

We trundled off down a narrow uneven road for about 5 miles, ending up in a dead-end by a beach.

Out to sea there was a " nice " view of a few low lying islands - nothing special - they certainly didn't look fantastic to us. A complete waste of time and fuel !

But, maybe the writer had never been anywhere else ?

 

So - when you read that a site has 50 pitches - that's fact.

 

If you read that it's a fabulous site - that's an opinion.

 

Just a matter of recognising the difference.

 

 

 

 

;-)

[flicka]

It's time for MMM to drop Club sites from the reviews.

They are restricted to members.

 

I know!!! they can be used by non-members (at a premium), but if members can't book because there are no pitches available due to the pre-booking debacle, the likelyhood of non-members going on them is even more remote. :D :D :D

 

The club members can already get most of the information from their Handbook, Magazine or Website.

 

So, what's the point *-) *-) unless MMM is short of editorial content 8-)

Or is it because they reduce the Editorial teams workload ;-) ;-)

[LordThornber]

The club members can already get most of the information from their Handbook, Magazine or Website.

QUOTE]

 

I agree John, and I've made this point on here previously. Who possibly needs to know that a CC site has hard standings for goodness sake? It smacks of filling in to me.

 

Malc, I hear what you are saying, but these "reviews" are in a National publication, we shouldn't be having to decide what is opinion and what is fact, we're paying, (or rather I was), good money for information which quite often is of poor quality, in my opinion.

 

Drop the fee to £10 and let's see how many yarns the "site review tourists" churn out then. With a bit of luck, genuine, accurate, relevant reviews may appear.

 

Martyn

[rolandrat]

Try parking in Hebden Bridge.

[malc d]

LordThornber - 2010-10-20 4:21 PM

 

The club members can already get most of the information from their Handbook, Magazine or Website.

QUOTE]

 

I agree John, and I've made this point on here previously. Who possibly needs to know that a CC site has hard standings for goodness sake? It smacks of filling in to me.

 

Malc, I hear what you are saying, but these "reviews" are in a National publication, we shouldn't be having to decide what is opinion and what is fact, we're paying, (or rather I was), good money for information which quite often is of poor quality, in my opinion.

 

Drop the fee to £10 and let's see how many yarns the "site review tourists" churn out then. With a bit of luck, genuine, accurate, relevant reviews may appear.

 

Martyn

 

 

I take your point but however " accurate " or " genuine " a review is, it is almost certain to include a certain amount of opinion rather than fact.

 

So as I say, it's just a matter of separating the two.

 

 

[Dave Newell]

To all those who criticise MMM site reviews on the basis of it always being the same names doing the reviews the answer is in your hands. Do your own site reviews and submit them, simples (lol) .

 

I'd also make the point that a review is just that and NOT a reccomendation.

D.

[Mel B]

Okay, here's my tuppenceworth! :D

 

Which type of sites to include:

 

1) CC and CCC main sites - I think these should be permitted as they are open to members and non-members alike (exception would be those that are specifically only open to members).

 

2) CL and CS (members' only sites) - I don't think they should be included - if you don't belong to the specific club you can't use them.

 

3) Independent sites - all should be permitted.

 

Content:

 

1) Reviews should clearly state the basics: facilities (eg showers, toilets, disabled facilities, mv waste, hardstanding (important to know if you plan to go in winter and don't want that 'sinking feeling'!), are dogs permitted, is it adults only, plus pricing range etc. Ideally this should be in a separate standardised 'box' so you can see at a glance what's there, not have to read through loads of stuff to find out, or try to gleam it from the small info panel that's included now.

 

2) Then they should include details of what's in the area of interest, how to get there etc.

 

3) Only after the above has been detailed should there be personal opinion given on the site.

 

If the reviews were done in the above order we could see much easier which reviews are relevant to our specific needs or not.

 

 

But, I'm with Dave on this one, if you don't like the reviews, then do your own and make some dosh in the process! :->

[Robinhood]

Dave Newell - 2010-10-20 6:15 PM

 

To all those who criticise MMM site reviews on the basis of it always being the same names doing the reviews the answer is in your hands. Do your own site reviews and submit them, simples (lol) .

 

That's a good idea!

 

I know a CC site near Hebden Bridge that everyone should like :D :D

[flicka]

Mel B - 2010-10-20 6:45 PM

 

Okay, here's my tuppenceworth! :D

 

Which type of sites to include:

 

1) CC and CCC main sites - I think these should be permitted as they are open to members and non-members alike (exception would be those that are specifically only open to members).

 

2) CL and CS (members' only sites) - I don't think they should be included - if you don't belong to the specific club you can't use them.

 

But, I'm with Dave on this one, if you don't like the reviews, then do your own and make some dosh in the process! :->

 

Mel

CC sites in particular are often pre-booked to the gunwalls, so even members "on-tour" have difficulty getting pitches during holiday periods & most summer weekends. Won't comment about the situation with C&CC, as I am not a member.

So WHY advertise to non-members, who may beat you to a pitch, even if they are paying more.

All Club sites IMO, should be members only & only pre-bookable if accompanied by a deposit upfront. That then puts them in the same category as CL's/CS's, so EXCLUDE their reviews.

 

BUT thats another arguement. >:-( >:-(

[LordThornber]

Dave Newell - 2010-10-20 6:15 PM

 

To all those who criticise MMM site reviews on the basis of it always being the same names doing the reviews the answer is in your hands. Do your own site reviews and submit them, simples (lol) .

 

I'd also make the point that a review is just that and NOT a reccomendation.

D.

 

Sorry Dave but I can't agree.

 

The paragraph under the main heading of "Your site reviews" clearly starts with, "Tell us about sites you would recommend".

 

My personal observations and opinion, taking Oct MMM as a starter

 

The 1st review (and recommendation) is for a site that is "a very busy site"

 

The 2nd, is for a site charging £30 a night

 

The 3rd, well I think I've done that...

 

The 4th, is good, apart from the pic of the van in front of what looks like a derelict toilet.

 

The 5th is good.

 

The 6th is good.

 

As I said, my personal opinion. It's my £3.75.

 

We shouldn't have to resort to submitting our own copy on sites just because a negative view is aired.

 

Leave that to folk who are any good at providing a balanced view and are capable of deciding whether a site is recommendable or not.

 

Rather than sending in reviews, (and therefore recommendations) of sites they've planned, (or not) to stay at and then just get the pen and camera out and cross their fingers for the £40. That is how I view a large number of these "reviews".

 

Martyn

 

 

 

[Petra]

I have submitted some reviews but only on European sites and only if they really deserve it. I too feel that some people send reviews in just because they have been there and when they mention that things are not too clean or facilities are lacking or very busy I often wonder why they bothered.

 

As for the CC and C & CC sites, I think it is pointless putting the main club sites in as all the information are in the Cllub handbooks and if you are not a member then you are unlikely to go there. CL's and CS's should I think be allowed as the details given in the handbooks dont really give that much information and recommendations are always welcome, for us anyway. What would be worthwhile would be reviews of Aires, Sostas and Stellplatz even if reviews were restricted to half a page.

[Mel B]

flicka - 2010-10-20 7:54 PM

 

Mel

CC sites in particular are often pre-booked to the gunwalls, so even members "on-tour" have difficulty getting pitches during holiday periods & most summer weekends.

 

I would imagine that getting a pitch on normal commercial sites would be difficult at those time too if you expect to just turn up and get a spot, so it isn't just restricted to the CC and CCC. You don't have to be a member to use the vast majority of 'club' sites, I can remember using them when we weren't members.

 

Won't comment about the situation with C&CC, as I am not a member.

So WHY advertise to non-members, who may beat you to a pitch, even if they are paying more.

All Club sites IMO, should be members only & only pre-bookable if accompanied by a deposit upfront. That then puts them in the same category as CL's/CS's, so EXCLUDE their reviews.

 

I would totally agree with what you say if they were ONLY open to members but they are NOT, so I feel it is legitimate to let others know about them who are not members, not everyone want to join the club, especially if they only intend to have a short holiday in the UK.