Why?

[dragon32a]

Can anyone tell me why my post about my recent holiday in Burnham on sea has been removed? I only told the truth as I see it. This forum wont be much good if we cant give negative as well as positive reviews of sites.

Don

 

[rayc]

donald, some time ago I suggested that the sub title of this section of the forum should be extended to say "and those you wouldn't go within 100 mile off".

The moderator explained to me that Haymarket publishing were concerned that they would get sued if nasty things are said on the forum so you can only say nice things because that is ok - presumably they won't get sued and may make money from advertising.

I do not know how other forums get on but the BBC have a rider " the views expressed on this site are not BBC those of the BBC and do not express BBC policy ( or words to that effect) and I cannot recall them being sued by anybody for comments on Cefax.

There you have it, they are scared that the site you complained about may sue them. Actually if I remember you didn't have any complaints against the site but mainly about the beach etc. Perhaps they thought the council would sue them cos you said it was muddy when the tide went out?

 

[Viking1]

Ray I seen over people on this forum who have put bad bits about sits and other thing and I have to and they have not got taken off. I thick it must be the way that some people put so things down.

If you look at this one you can see that some one has said think bad and that has not gone yet.

http://www.practicalcaravan.com/newforums/fm_messages.asp?FO=6&FM=138453
Mark

 

[rayc]

Mark, I am sure you are right. It seems to me to be how imflamatory your language, [THE SITE WAS CRAP etc] is that determines whether it is deleted or not. There are ways of getting your message across which doesn't appear to upset the mod but I guess that when you get home from a site, with steam coming out of your ears because it has not met your expectations, or their advertising blurb, that you feel like saying it how you feel.

I still think there is more chance of hell freezing over than Haymarket being sued though.

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

I've said/asked this before on here, how come other websites, like T & T or UKCampsite don't get sued. They have negative reviews over campsites. IMO it all comes down to revenue for Haymarket, loss of the guilty sites advertising revenue in PC mag or likely advertisers. I'm sure His Moddyship is only following the rules but they need updating like the site itself. We are 6 years into a new century and the software for this forum is back in the days of DOS :O(

p.s. don't get me wrong, I don't want all those smilie animated graphics like on T & T, where with the posters personal avatars, animated emoticons and the posters personal quote. It makes it so hard to find the actual posting and does my head in.

 

[KenWashington]

Haymarket's policy is that the forum should not be used to make individual complaints about specific incidents involving parks and businesses. These should be taken up with the company concerned.

The moderators have to decide when a post crosses that line. If someone expresses a personal view, like "I thought that the site was noisy", or "I found the staff unhelpful", the post will probably be accepted.

However, describing specific incidents like "the toilet block hadn't been cleaned for days", or "the salesman was rude and insulting" would not be fair as they are uncorroborated complaints.

Full of loopholes, but that's the policy, so let's work with it.

 

[rayc]

Haymarket's policy is that the forum should not be used to make individual complaints about specific incidents involving parks and businesses. These should be taken up with the company concerned.

The moderators have to decide when a post crosses that line. If someone expresses a personal view, like "I thought that the site was noisy", or "I found the staff unhelpful", the post will probably be accepted.

However, describing specific incidents like "the toilet block hadn't been cleaned for days", or "the salesman was rude and insulting" would not be fair as they are uncorroborated complaints.

Full of loopholes, but that's the policy, so let's work with it.

well a comment like "the toilet block are immaculate and must be constantly cleaned to keep them like that" is uncooberatted but that would be accepted.

I cannot see that a general comment "the toilets were filthy" should be a problem. It is one persons comments on how they found the site at that specific time and I am sure that a site owner would be able to produce a counter statement if they desired.

I do though have the reassurance that no site in PC's top 100 sites would attract that comment - I hope it's not misguided and they are not see things through rose coloured glasses.

 

[RichardS1]

After reading the reply from Mod1 I would suggest what is required is a change of policy by Haymarket!

 

[jon_5090857]

Whilst i did not read the removed post i feel i must reply. Why have a forum if the public are not allowed to express opinions that have a basis of fact? I can only think of one company in Burnham on sea and it is a national company that boasts of its fantastic ammenities for the caravaning public a boast that sadly it does not live up to. Whilst i can see the publisher/mods view that any blame is a claim we do however live in a land where his tonyness still has not abolished free speech yet and that includes the right to write about better customer service.

ive said my bit

jon

 

[Damian]

Having been a regular reader of this forum, and seeing the reasons for postings being removed, it is only reasonable to accept that some comments should not be made here, but to the place concerned.

Haymarket, along with other forum providers, have to weigh the balance of postings, and can easily run the risk of litigation for allowing "difficult" postings to remain on the boards.

Jon says that"free spech" is still allowed, by no less than Tony Blair, however, Free Speech has been non existant in this country for a good number of years, for example, you are not allowed to make

Racist comments,

Sexual orientation comments,

Religious comments,

Anti Monarchy comments,

non "politically Correct" comments

Disability comments,

Ageist comments,

and the list goes on.

Complaints about sites, or facilities should be taken up with the operator, there is nothing anyone on the forum can do about them, and whilst one person may have a complaint, there may be many others who found the opposite, and had a very positive outlook on where they were.

 

[JohnW1]

In my opinion a forum loses much of its value if members are not freely allowed to express an opinion. Whether or not this is the case here I have no idea as I did not read the original post. However, as in all things there is a line between an opinion and downright unacceptable and derogatory comments regarding a site,organisation or individual.

I notice that a thread highly critical of PC Magazine has not been deleted so would suggest, as a contributor to this thread has earlier. that the policy needs review to protect Haymarket's legal position and also ensure that the site attracts a larger number of users.

 

[Steve L]

I share your thoughs.

While Hay market do have to consider just how far they allow ventureous publication to go before litigation comes their way, I do think that a measured responce both posative and negative should be allowed.

After all, I have made certain campsite owners aware of their short commings and have been ignored. If these issues are publicised then may be improvement could be instigated.

I agree that there should be a defined line between malicious gossip and fact, but then maybe a camera could be deployed to back up complaints. May be if each complaint was reviewed by the moderation team prior to being posted for general view and then the item published minus the photo's if the server can't handle it.

Just a few thoughts to mull over.

Steve.

 

[rayc]

Having been a regular reader of this forum, and seeing the reasons for postings being removed, it is only reasonable to accept that some comments should not be made here, but to the place concerned.

Haymarket, along with other forum providers, have to weigh the balance of postings, and can easily run the risk of litigation for allowing "difficult" postings to remain on the boards.

Jon says that"free spech" is still allowed, by no less than Tony Blair, however, Free Speech has been non existant in this country for a good number of years, for example, you are not allowed to make

Racist comments,

Sexual orientation comments,

Religious comments,

Anti Monarchy comments,

non "politically Correct" comments

Disability comments,

Ageist comments,

and the list goes on.

Complaints about sites, or facilities should be taken up with the operator, there is nothing anyone on the forum can do about them, and whilst one person may have a complaint, there may be many others who found the opposite, and had a very positive outlook on where they were.

So we should do just do as the sub heading of the forum says "Give and get recommendations for the best uk sites".

They are of course only one persons view and whilst one person may find the site fantastic, there may be many others who found the opposite, and had a very negative outlook on where they were.

Still it will be nice in this day and age to just read good news but not much help in trying to obtain prior knowledge of what a site is likely to be like.

 

[parker1158]

Agree with Mark on his posting above. So many folk on this forum, when replying / posting, immediately start throwing their toys about and making snide comments if anyone dares to suggest that something they own / do is questioned.(This is not critical of you Donald as I did not see your original post

 

[John_5101260]

I would be interested to know what would happen if I booked a site based on an advertisment in PC and found it not to be as described in the advert. I would suggest that I would have no comeback against Haymarket and that they would expect me to take my compalint up with the site advertiser (and rightly so). My point is that it should be the person making the comments (or the company advertising) that should be responsible. I think it is legitimate to make forum members aware that they are responsible for any comments that they make and that they would be personaly responsible to handle any litigation.

To have a forum that only allows the good to shine is unrealistic.

John

 

[Lord Braykewynde]

So we should do just do as the sub heading of the forum says "Give and get recommendations for the best uk sites".

They are of course only one persons view and whilst one person may find the site fantastic, there may be many others who found the opposite, and had a very negative outlook on where they were.

Still it will be nice in this day and age to just read good news but not much help in trying to obtain prior knowledge of what a site is likely to be like.

hear! hear! Ray.