# Suggest a change to the Rating Guidelines



## VacationGuy (Apr 28, 2018)

The current guidelines heavily favor destination resorts with lots to do on site.  However, many timeshares are designed with the idea that the real attraction is the area.

Cape Cod timeshares are a good example where the real attraction is the Cape itself.  If you follow the current guidelines to the letter, you probably can't give a rating of more than 6 or 7, no matter how good the resort is.

Perhaps there should be adjustments for these types of resorts to give them a fairer rating.

Perhaps give them an addition of one point for simply being a non-destination resort where an activity director wouldn't make any sense because the real attractions are off-site.

Perhaps give them an additional point when the resort gives them extra privacy; such as, individual houses as opposed to condos or motel like units.

I can think of one timeshare on the Cape that is lucky to have a low 7+ rating that has a Five Star rating with TripAdvisor.  There may be others on the Cape as well.

If a TUG member only wants to book resorts with a rating of 8 or higher, they may be missing some real jewels.

Seems to me the Rating Guidelines need these adjustments.  Just my humble opinion.


----------



## silentg (Apr 29, 2018)

I agree with Vacation Guy. We own a timeshare at Holly Tree in Yarmouth. It’s a small studio that only sleeps 3 but it’s close to everything. Best part is you get Day privileges there if occupancy is less than 80%. Great place to park and walk to the beach. Most of our timeshares are small independent places. I feel that gives them unique status in the timeshare world. When we exchange, we also like to stay at independent timeshares too. We do like HICV too and have stayed at Wyndham Hyatt Marriot, but we are always looking for different kinds of timeshares and there are so many. I usually write reviews of each place we stay. 
Silentg


----------



## dioxide45 (Apr 29, 2018)

It does seem that the guidelines are pretty ridged.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 29, 2018)

the rating guidelines are merely suggestions.

id think any rating submitted either high or low would be justified or explained in the bulk of the review.  I also dont think that many folks would alter an overall rating of a resort itself for things that dont involve the resort at all.

ie if a resort is a dump but in a wonderful location...it would still get rated as a dump by the vast majority of those staying there, as those who went to the reviews to get information about the resort would not want to see a dump get rated an 8 or a 9 simply because it had a wonderful view or location, but a below average resort/room etc.


----------



## bizaro86 (Apr 29, 2018)

I think the line in the recommendations  about the on-site activities director is what gets people off track. 

Example: A Manhattan resort doesn't need an on-site activities director or a pool. Should Hilton W57 really be a 7/10 resort due to not having on site activities? I haven't been there, but I doubt it's a dump...

What type of activities and amenities are appropriate for a top-class resort depends very much on the location. 

I would suggest changing the line about activities director to something like "amenities/activities are appropriate for a top class resort" or something similar.


----------



## silentg (Apr 29, 2018)

None of my timeshares are dumps. Maybe small yes, but not dumps My Timeshare Holly Tree on Cape Cod has a 7.4 rating. Pretty good for a studio. I’m going to check the ratings on my other timeshares and will post those here tomorrow.
Silentg


----------



## silentg (Apr 30, 2018)

Here are my resorts with TUG Ratings High to Low

Fitzpatrick’s Castle Holiday Homes-9.2
Calini Beach Club—————————8.63
Orange Lake West Village HICV——8.5
Holly Tree Resort—————————7.50
Pines at Aspen East———————-6.75

Post your resorts with TUG ratings!
Silentg


----------



## bbodb1 (Apr 30, 2018)

VacationGuy said:


> The current guidelines heavily favor destination resorts with lots to do on site....



VacationGuy, 

While I have not written that many reviews, I did not (do not) see where the guidelines favor resorts as you note above.  Could you elaborate on why you think this is the case? 
It could be the case I've not fully read the review guidelines (...hope Brian doesn't see this....) but I don't recall feeling constrained to onsite activity considerations when deciding a rating to give a resort.

Thanks.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 30, 2018)

here are the current guidelines for reference!


*10 -* World class resort with everything included. Should be the best resort you have ever seen! Most are self-contained vacation destinations. Everything is in perfect order. There should be very few ratings of "10" given.
*9 -* A great resort with everything except a major extra (e.g., golf or skiing being off-site). Beautiful units with fabulous decor. This should be among the 2nd to 4th best resorts you have seen.
*8 -* A good resort with a great location. Still has top quality units and furnishing with on site recreation and activity director. An excellent exchange.
*7 -* Above average resort but missing some extras and charges for the extras they do provide (e.g., tennis, bikes). Units might be a little smaller, not quite as plush but still very nice.
*6 -* This resort is nice but just one step above average. Has planned activities, but units may be older. Does not have many activities or full time director. An ok exchange, but wish it were better.
*5 -* Average resort. Nothing special but OK. Would not go there again.
*4 -* Below average.
*3 -* Below average.
*2 -* Awful. Avoid if possible. Has old furniture, poor service, no extras, poor location, would not trade into again.
*1 -* Awful. Avoid if possible. Has old furniture, poor service, no extras, poor location, would not trade into again.


----------



## TUGBrian (Apr 30, 2018)

just to be clear, these were originally written in the 90s...so there is no reason we cant update them if necessary.

however until now, ive never considered that "any resort without an activities director should get a 6 rating despite it being a wonderful resort".  i always read that as merely a description to cover a range of resorts that were both "lower end"...and also had no real on site activities.

on top of that, to be perfectly honest...for a resort to get a 6 or below rating would have absolutely NOTHING to do with the presence (or lack thereof) of an onsite activities director, and i read just about 100% of the reviews that come into the site.  (copies of the reviews all come to my email)


----------



## VacationGuy (Apr 30, 2018)

Let's consider the fact that some of the wording suggests some bias that doesn't need to be there.

Here is my suggestion as to how the Guidelines should be written:

*Need help selecting the best rating for your review?*

*10 -* Should be the very best resort you have ever seen!  Everything is in perfect order. There should be very few ratings of "10" given.
*9 -* A great resort . Beautiful units with fabulous decor. This should be among the 2nd to 4th best resorts you have ever seen.
*8 -* A good resort with a great location. Still has top quality units and furnishings. An excellent exchange.
*7 -* Above average resort but missing some extras. Units might be a little smaller, not quite as plush but still very nice.
*6 -* This resort is nice but just one step above average. Units may be older.  An OK exchange, but wish it were better.
*5 -* Average resort. Nothing special but OK. Might or might not go there again.
*4 -* Below average. Have to be a good reason to go there again.
*3* - Well below average. Probably won't go there again.
*2* *-* Awful. Avoid if possible. Has old furniture, poor service, no extras, poor location, would not trade into again.
*1 -* Really awful. Do not exchange into this resort under any circumstances.


----------



## theo (May 1, 2018)

Fwiw, we could not possibly care any less about "on site activities" or a "activities director" at any timeshare property.
Personally, I would never take the presence or absence thereof into account *at all* when rating a timeshare property.

I agree wholeheartedly with the OP that  it's the *area* that truly matters most to us --- not "on site activities" (in which we would not likely participate anyhow).

We choose to own intervals at small, independent, non-"chain" resorts, each having been carefully selected for location and season, good management and decent (albeit not opulent) infrastructure.  Activities? We'll make our own, thanks. YMMV.


----------



## Laurie (May 2, 2018)

Originally I was going to suggest to the OP that people could just adjust their bottom-line rating # to consider, but actually I like VacationGuy's revised suggestion for ratings guidelines. 

Many people (including me) never ever use on-site activities. But I do like a desk that has information on what's available in the area, and resorts fall down in my estimation when personnel is clueless, which happens.  I also care a lot about location and view, so that does affect my experience and would affect my rating.


----------

