What are your Cruise Review pet peeves?

Over the past 2 days, I've read dozens upon dozens of reviews of several different ships. I've found myself rolling my eyes over several common complaints, which in my opinion should not translate to a low rating for a ship or cruise line.

My top pet peeves are equal:

1) those who complain about and/or are offended by their fellow passengers and their behavior as though this is somehow the cruise ship's fault. There are extreme situations which the crew could have perhaps handled differently/better (a recent Chumley Bears cruise thread comes to mind) but those are not the type to which I refer.

2)complaints about the weather!!! Stating that the cold/hot weather ruined your cruise should NOT warrant a bad rating for the ship, period. I read quite a few reviews saying that it was too hot to enjoy any outdoor activities either on the ship or in port, and that their money was wasted.

I don't get it, I really don't. I have sympathy for those who encounter rough seas , I truly do (so I'm not referring to those situations), but temperatures can be dealt with if you keep a positive attitude.

Now, feel free to say that your pet peeve is those who complain about the complaints :p. I am aware of the irony here. ;)

My review pet peeve is really bad grammar or a lot of obvious spelling mistakes, missed words, etc. Like you, I dislike when the reviewer complains about the weather being bad as if the cruise line is at fault. Glaringly incorrect statements bother me, too. For instance, someone once said in a review that the lunch buffet was only open for an hour a day. The way it was phrased indicated that they were talking about the main Lido buffet, which is open for many hours each day.

My favorite parts of reviews are usually food porn and a lot of photos!

My review pet peeve is really bad grammar or a lot of obvious spelling mistakes, missed words, etc. Like you, I dislike when the reviewer complains about the weather being bad as if the cruise line is at fault. Glaringly incorrect statements bother me, too. For instance, someone once said in a review that the lunch buffet was only open for an hour a day. The way it was phrased indicated that they were talking about the main Lido buffet, which is open for many hours each day.

My favorite parts of reviews are usually food porn and a lot of photos!

my review pet peeves:

1: long reviews with no paragraphs.

If it is one big block of text with no breaks, I will not even try to read it.

2: pages of a review on pre cruise stuff. I don't care how long you waited in the airport, what you ate on the plane, the check in process at the pre cruise hotel, etc. I will skip right over all of that to get the the actual cruise review.

3: sweeping generalizations, usually negative. i.e. "the food was inedible"

Really, so you didn't eat anything on the ship all week?

Lois

My biggest peeve is when people put a misleading title on the review.

The title indicates a good review. When you start reading it's continuous review of what went wrong. With maybe one buried in the middle saying something good.

No peeves for me, it is not like Cruise Critic members are getting paid for writing them. Inaccuracies in the professional reviews are a little off putting. Complaints about the weather or fellow passengers remind me of what might affect my cruise enjoyment. If the review does not interest me, I don't read it.

There were a couple of reviews on the main page of Cruise Critic (not posted within the forum part here) that comes to mind. I read those while waiting for my sailing date to arrive, even though it was a repeat ship and itinerary for us. One reviewer complained about the entertainment, specifically all the Hawaiian music on board. Jeez, it was a cruise to Hawaii:rolleyes:. In fact, many of us who have been blessed to hear the duo this person didn't care for usually list the live Hawaiian music as one of the best things about this cruise.

Another person didn't even know the name of their ship. He/she was either posting a review about a cruise taken many years ago on this ship or was confused about the ship as it hadn't been on a Med cruise in years, just Alaskan and Hawaiian cruises. I emailed the administrators of CC to point this out and it was either removed or the ship's name edited and moved to the right area.

As others have said above, it's frustrating when reviewers are too vague. It's one thing if someone says that much of the time food was cold when served in the MDR or something similar, but to say the food was bad, etc., isn't helpful. At least if someone says they work as a chef in a four star restaurant, it gives context to a complaint, but otherwise as food quality is subjective, we don't have any clues how to take such a comment.

Also, it's okay to mention the weather as it might help someone who's still trying to decide on an itinerary, but it should have no bearing on the ship or cruise line.

I do disagree about the pre-cruise info. Maybe info about a hotel could be very helpful. Also if someone tried to fly in the day of a cruise and discovered how problematic that is, that could help someone avoid that mistake.

There were a couple of reviews on the main page of Cruise Critic (not posted within the forum part here) that comes to mind. I read those while waiting for my sailing date to arrive' date=' even though it was a repeat ship and itinerary for us. One reviewer complained about the entertainment, specifically all the Hawaiian music on board. Jeez, it was a cruise to Hawaii:rolleyes:. In fact, many of us who have been blessed to hear the duo this person didn't care for usually list the live Hawaiian music as one of the best things about this cruise.

 

Another person didn't even know the name of their ship. He/she was either posting a review about a cruise taken many years ago on this ship or was confused about the ship as it hadn't been on a Med cruise in years, just Alaskan and Hawaiian cruises. I emailed the administrators of CC to point this out and it was either removed or the ship's name edited and moved to the right area.

 

As others have said above, it's frustrating when reviewers are too vague. It's one thing if someone says that much of the time food was cold when served in the MDR or something similar, but to say the food was bad, etc., isn't helpful. At least if someone says they work as a chef in a four star restaurant, it gives context to a complaint, but otherwise as food quality is subjective, we don't have any clues how to take such a comment.

 

Also, it's okay to mention the weather as it might help someone who's still trying to decide on an itinerary, but it should have no bearing on the ship or cruise line.

 

I do disagree about the pre-cruise info. Maybe info about a hotel could be very helpful. Also if someone tried to fly in the day of a cruise and discovered how problematic that is, that could help someone avoid that mistake.[/quote']

 

 

 

Sent from my VK810 4G using Forums mobile app

 

You're right about pre cruise hotel and stuff but they dont need to include pictures of themselves on the plane or sitting at port waiting to get on the ship

My least favorite type of review is a totally negative one. I also get ticked off when people post inaccurate info.

It's nice of people to take their time to do reviews. Just wish everyone would use paragraphs.

LuLu

I do not enjoy tooo wordy reviews.

Also I hate when I see a picture from a sailing, and I have no idea where it is from, or if on board, where it was taken.

Love the descriptions of pictures.

And if it is a reputable poster I really pay attention!

Too many good ones posting in the last couple months, and one starting next Sunday.

Safe travels.

This post is not meant as a knock or criticism toward any one person.

Things I like in reviews:

* Criticism - especially when the examples are specific. I do take notes if it's a ship I've sailed on recently or will sail on soon.

* Good grammar - of course

* Pre-cruse stuff - OK within limits, but talk about the cruise please

Things I don't like in reviews:

* Lots of pictures - ESPECIALLY food pictures

* One-line dismissals of anything or anyone. "The buffet was bad" tells me almost nothing.

I'll close by saying thank you for all the reviewers out there that have taken time out of their busy lives to chronicle their journey for public consumption. I really appreciate it, more than I can say here.

Many of them are far too long and detailed, and contain extraneous information, like how they got to the port. Many of the reviewers don't seem to know what a paragraph is. I generally just skim most reviews.

I do get compliments when I post photos of food (I do try to label the items) and menus (which can be difficult to take without getting glare...or at least for me it is).

What I often is during reviews and many other posts is when someone quotes an entire post by someone else, but not because they want to comment on specific items. I often will try to delete the paragraphs that I'm not commenting on.

Briefly- when other passengers, food, waitstaff that didn't ____, weather, and/or missed ports "ruined" their cruise.

"What compensation should we get" because- ______, 'fill in any of the above'.

The reviews I do look at are those from itineraries that we have already, or are going to, book. I have seen some gorgeous pictures of places we will be going in 2015 and 2016.

I don't look at any of the pre-cruise review or pictures, just the cruise.

I'm not a foodie so I don't really look at the "food porn".

I appreciate that it takes a lot of time an effort to write the extensive reviews. I appreciate even more the posting of beautiful pictures.

I don't have too many complaints with members reviews, Sure, it would be nice if they all used grammar and paragraphs properly but since I'm not paying them to produce English Lit. quality I will give them a bit of slack there.;)

What really bugs me is the responses of some CC members to the reviews. If a reviewer has any negative thing to say there is always someone who seems to take this as a criticism of themselves personally simply because the reviewer criticizes their favorite cruise line or cruise ship. This is ridiculous of course, unless the offended member is also a shareholder of that cruise line!

Frankly, if I love a cruise line or a particular ship I want others to post scathing reviews! That way demand for my line or ship might be less and that might result in lower future cruise costs for me!:D I know what I like and don't like. I don't need others to validate my decisions.

So, please, please write scathing reviews of Celebrity, and the Connie, and ...........

PLEASE!

The thing I find most interesting about the member reviews, is that in the same month on the same ship there may be reviews that say"worst cruise ever", and the next one saying"wonderful cruise".

I think it is about experience and expectations, which are all over the place. It is also a cultural thing. Reading reviews of Cunard or P & O written by British travelers and others by North Americans is interesting.

Also, if you are British and respect the queues, do not sail on MSC or Costa where it is not a cultural thing.

I do agree with other posters about omitting precruise discussions, and using paragraphing to make the reviews easier to read.

Hyperbole and context - especially in relation to food.

"The food was inedible". So what did you eat all week? :confused:

Food reviews are very subjective e.g. I like rare steak - others like well-done steak. A rare steak to me is good - to others it is 'inedible'. Gristle and excessive fat could render the steak bad from both our points of view however.

Context.

How did you order it and how was it described? What is the critiquer's normal diet and what are their (realistic or otherwise) expectations from a cruise (price paid, numbers being fed etc.)?

A US passenger's view on certain foods is quite possibly very different to a European or Oriental pax's view/preferences (e.g. what constitutes a good pizza in their view; tea; bacon; curry etc.).

I love reviews where they talk about the various ports.

I am not interested in all the food pictures of what they ate at every meal.

Over the past 2 days, I've read dozens upon dozens of reviews of several different ships. I've found myself rolling my eyes over several common complaints, which in my opinion should not translate to a low rating for a ship or cruise line.

 

My top pet peeves are equal:

1) those who complain about and/or are offended by their fellow passengers and their behavior as though this is somehow the cruise ship's fault. There are extreme situations which the crew could have perhaps handled differently/better (a recent Chumley Bears cruise thread comes to mind) but those are not the type to which I refer.

 

2)complaints about the weather!!! Stating that the cold/hot weather ruined your cruise should NOT warrant a bad rating for the ship, period. I read quite a few reviews saying that it was too hot to enjoy any outdoor activities either on the ship or in port, and that their money was wasted.

I don't get it, I really don't. I have sympathy for those who encounter rough seas , I truly do (so I'm not referring to those situations), but temperatures can be dealt with if you keep a positive attitude.

 

Now, feel free to say that your pet peeve is those who complain about the complaints :p. I am aware of the irony here. ;)

I have suggested in the past that weather become part of the review. Weather has a huge impact on people's vacation. If you get 4 days of rain while touring Europe or 4 days of 74 and sunny on a 7 night holiday how could that not affect your spirits and those that you are interacting with.

I prefer the reviews submitted to Cruise Critic. It would be nice if they could have photos embedded in them.

Reviews written on the forum boards are interesting but can be lost when you try to search for reviews. It is also a big time waster to go through pages and pages of minor comments or thanks for the reviews in order to get to the next posting.

I much prefer a concise, well written review that can be easily found under "reviews". I don't enjoy a lot of personal information which are not useful or helpful. These reviews fall under "creative writing" exercises.

I don't read reviews that are one long chunk without paragraph breaks.

I don't believe reviews that are ALL negative - weather, fellow passengers, food, people on shore, attractions.

If it is a cruise with places where I plan to go, I sometimes check TripAdvisor to see if the same person is always negative.

Last year, the same three people berated the same ship for several weeks in repeated postings. We went and the ship was just fine.

My biggest pet peeve are the "live" report groupies. I want to read the OP's report, see their pics, and learn something about their cruise. I do not want to flip through pages of "joining", "great job", "love this report". If you want to read it, subscribe - no reason to clutter up the thread with a bunch of nonsense :)

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I like reviews that give me specific information about any problems or complaints encountered.

Good: The air-conditioning for the block of cabins on the aft port side of the XYZ deck experienced problems during the entire first week of our cruise. We had temps as high as 88 degrees in our cabin during that period.

Bad: The ship's AC was terrible.

I like words, I'm not so much into photos. I also really like hearing what people did ashore, since that's the main reason I cruise.

I really dislike general responses to reviews from other posters who say things like "It's all subjective." (Some things are not subjective!) and "Even a bad day on a cruise ship is better than a good day at work." (Some people on the Costa Concordia or the stranded Carnival ship might beg to differ with you....)

I am always suspicious of the first-time poster who comes on to rant about their cruise/cruiseline and of course, never returns.

Also dislike the "I agree" and other one-line postings which are just to get their numbers up on CC to make them look like more of an expert than they really are, and you know who you are! :D