An open letter to travelling reviewers...

[Putt for D'oh]

Tell that to the local at a course I reviewed that sent me a message on here telling me my review was completely off basis and that the navigation issue I commented on aren't real.

I see that a lot reading some of the reviews on courses I've played somewhat locally or thinking of reviewing. It is very much one of those local's don't have the issue and very hard to step back and see it objectively especially if one doesn't travel at all and experience how not-obvious navigation can be despite the "obvious" paths from one hole to the next.
I personally hate having to walk up and down a fairway looking for a basket on every hole. A few times a round on a new course is no big deal to me but over and over what feels like every hole, and then have to circle around and look for the next tee only to find i somehow skipped from hole 5 to hole 9 is frustrating. Those problems on many courses REALLY need one to step waaaaay back from their experience on their home course, and rather than take that single snapshot of maybe a course they had that problem put on the non-homer glasses and look at their own course.

I can say these things but understand the reality is pretty hard to manage.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

The wish I gather from the original post, and some subsequent ones (Doofensmirtz in particular) is for more reviewers to step back and consider some perspective. For travelers, not to assume that the conditions you encounter are the norm at that course; for locals, to try to see the course as if for the first time.

I think it best for travelers to just not assume anything. If its your first and only time playing the course, review the course you played. Hopefully, your detailed review will make it obvious to all that any temporary problems are temporary and give subsequent reviewers an opportunity to address that issue in subsequent reviews. I guess, thinking about the opposite situation, I wouldn't want a course's immaculate upkeep to not be mentioned because the reviewer didn't want to assume that it will be mowed again next week/month. The off and on comments about the sometimes swampy condition of Harmony Bends is a good example of varying reviews putting travelers on notice that they may want to consider recent weather and time of year in planning to visit.

Another thing that I think helpful is when a reviewer states that they had a bad score or were treated poorly by the staff or owner. Let the reviewer get all that out in the open so that everyone will know how to judge their review. If they want to slam Maple Hill because they lost a disc and were told not to fish for it, Pyramids because they think the course is gimmicky or Selah because they got thrown in jail for disc diving, as long as everyone knows the butt hurt behind the rating, all is well.

On a different note - I think that if the first page top ten list were more of a "hot courses" list that only counted ratings done in the last 6 months or a year, and there were a super high amount of turnover, maybe there'd be a little less worry about the rating part of the reviews. Have the "all time" list moved to one of the tabs on the "more top courses" page.

 

[wellsbranch250]

On a different note - I think that if the first page top ten list were more of a "hot courses" list that only counted ratings done in the last 6 months or a year, and there were a super high amount of turnover, maybe there'd be a little less worry about the rating part of the reviews. Have the "all time" list moved to one of the tabs on the "more top courses" page.

Interesting suggestion "Hot courses"

 

[Monocacy]

Ideally each course would receive a balance of reviews from locals and travelling players. Motherhood, apple pie, etc. As David said, biases tend to average out after a sufficient number of reviews.

But it can be tricky to rate a course from both local and travelling player perspectives. How do you rate an outstanding course with poor navigation, lots of blind shots, etc.? One might be quite frustrated playing the first time, but the course might become absolutely wonderful with experience. This is why I value reviews over ratings when I am travelling.

I will use one of my absolute favorite and most-played courses, Patapsco Valley State Park, as an example. The course features elevation, distance, variety, high-risk greens, and lots of downhill wooded bombers. In other words, just about everything that I love in a course. To me the course is woefully underrated at 4.01.

But I also remember the first few times playing Patapsco, when the lack of tee signs, a then-poor course map (current map is good), and mostly blind tee shots were quite frustrating. With the long-long configuration averaging > 500' for 18 mostly-wooded holes, the course can also be quite a beat-down for the distance-challenged player (which includes me).

I probably lean towards rating the course from the perspective of a frequent player, but making sure that the review captures issues that might affect the traveling player. But others may legitimately prefer otherwise. As is their right.

 

[rhatton1]

On a different note - I think that if the first page top ten list were more of a "hot courses" list that only counted ratings done in the last 6 months or a year, and there were a super high amount of turnover, maybe there'd be a little less worry about the rating part of the reviews. Have the "all time" list moved to one of the tabs on the "more top courses" page.

I really like that idea.

Might encourage a few more reviews as well with players feeling that there is a point to their most recent review

 

[Three Putt]

Flogging a dead horse, but anyway...

I played three courses today. I'm going to review one. My reasons for not reviewing two of the courses go along with the OP's comments.

Autumn Hill DGC in Union, Mo is heavily wooded. It was an overgrown mess with the shule creeping in on the fairways. The lines were tight already, so it was a jungle. However, it's been raining like Hell all this Spring. My back yard has gotten away from me and I can see how the time is would take to weed-whack this course is just not getting done. I'll try to get back in the fall and check it out when the weeds are not out of control.

Evergreen Park in St. Clair, Mo is not a very good disc golf course and I was pretty prepared to blast it as such, but it's a rec course and the park wasn't mowed. It hard to find the fun in a fun course when the grass isn't mowed. Like I said, it's been raining like Hell here and little towns with small budgets are behind on their mowing. I figure I can wait and see if I make it back to this course before I review it. Maybe if the grass is mowed, my hate will tone down .5 discs.

It keeps my number of reviews down to do things like that, but I like to give each course a shot. Somebody designed the thing, took the time to try to spread disc golf. I can wait and see if these parks have a better day when (if) I go back.

 

[Three Putt]

On a different note - I think that if the first page top ten list were more of a "hot courses" list that only counted ratings done in the last 6 months or a year, and there were a super high amount of turnover, maybe there'd be a little less worry about the rating part of the reviews. Have the "all time" list moved to one of the tabs on the "more top courses" page.

Bumping this for the idea.

 

[aclay]

Flogging a dead horse, but anyway...

I played three courses today. I'm going to review one. My reasons for not reviewing two of the courses go along with the OP's comments.

Autumn Hill DGC in Union, Mo is heavily wooded. It was an overgrown mess with the shule creeping in on the fairways. The lines were tight already, so it was a jungle. However, it's been raining like Hell all this Spring. My back yard has gotten away from me and I can see how the time is would take to weed-whack this course is just not getting done. I'll try to get back in the fall and check it out when the weeds are not out of control.

Evergreen Park in St. Clair, Mo is not a very good disc golf course and I was pretty prepared to blast it as such, but it's a rec course and the park wasn't mowed. It hard to find the fun in a fun course when the grass isn't mowed. Like I said, it's been raining like Hell here and little towns with small budgets are behind on their mowing. I figure I can wait and see if I make it back to this course before I review it. Maybe if the grass is mowed, my hate will tone down .5 discs.

It keeps my number of reviews down to do things like that, but I like to give each course a shot. Somebody designed the thing, took the time to try to spread disc golf. I can wait and see if these parks have a better day when (if) I go back.

I appreciate, and to some extent agree with, your premise on not reviewing a course and judging it on something that might be temporary. However, updating course conditions for those who travel would be extremely helpful.

 

[Three Putt]

I appreciate, and to some extent agree with, your premise on not reviewing a course and judging it on something that might be temporary. However, updating course conditions for those who travel would be extremely helpful.

In the case of Autumn Hill I agree as that is a condition that I don't think can be addressed quickly. It's going to take a long-term solution to address that issue.

Evergreen just needs to be mowed, though. That condition could be fixed by this afternoon. To update that condition would take a local who is going to notice when it is addressed, otherwise my course condition that the grass was long could stay in there for years. I honestly decided not to review it when I looked at the pictures on this site, It looked like a different park.

 

[Crooow]

Sporadic

I have played 200+ courses but haven't written many reviews. On reason is that I don't like to review something I have only played once, I recall one new course that I played one day and thought was really great. I came back the very next day and wondered why I was so thrilled the previous day. I have had the reverse as well (disliked it on first play, liked it on second). Sometimes it is weather or navigation that makes the difference. Other times, who knows? I do write reviews for courses that either don't have any reviews or that I feel have a couple of reviews that are way off base. It sucks to drive 3 hours to play a course based on positive reviews and find out that it isn't worth it. I really liked when the Wall Post option was added because then I can throw out some quick opinions or course info without going through a full-out well-considered review.
As for the level of the player affecting the review, I think that can be avoided. For example, the Paw Paw courses were probably in the first ten that I played and I thought "These are ridiculously hard. I love it; I can't wait until I get good enough to par some of the holes."

 

[Shutrbug]

...I recall one new course that I played one day and thought was really great. I came back the very next day and wondered why I was so thrilled the previous day. I have had the reverse as well (disliked it on first play, liked it on second).

That's a good point. I did not review the local courses I played at first, because someone else had already posted a stellar review and I didn't think I could add anything. I did finally review one local one that I hadn't yet played until that day, and I was blown away! Now I've played some of the local courses again with other new players like myself, and got a completely new perspective.

My first play through was awesome - and the new people with me (kids) were excited about disc golf. We didn't mind searching for discs because we all stunk, so that was part of it. But once we got better, it was ok. Then we played that course with a new adult who didn't think he would like disc golf, and a kid who didn't want to be there at all. It had also recently rained. Every shot went in the woods, we lost discs in the water that we couldn't retrieve... My friend said, "I don't think this is the sport for me." It made me realize how the course may not be so beginner friendly if you didn't have a forgiving attitude, even though the reviews said it was. So this is good advice that I'll use when writing something that I want to be impartial.

...As for the level of the player affecting the review, I think that can be avoided. For example, the Paw Paw courses were probably in the first ten that I played and I thought "These are ridiculously hard. I love it; I can't wait until I get good enough to par some of the holes."

That's how I approach the hard courses now. I stink - but I know I stink - so let's not punish the hard courses with a bad review... because one day I'm gonna be awesome! No sense punishing the beginner courses then, either.

 

[JuanA]

How do some of you take into account the course "for what it is"?

For example, how do you rate a smaller city park course that may hit all of your wish list items, but is short and not as challenging as a larger forest or mountain course?

My local course is in a beautiful park that is well taken care of by the town and local club. Large trees with watered and mowed grass everywhere. Concrete tees and good signs round out the package, but I can't give this course a high rating after going to places like Bailey and Lake Dillon (which I both feel push an honest 4+ rating).

Is this something you would mention in the "Other Thoughts" section?

Also, another shout out to those of you that update course conditions! I've been trying to do that much more often, especially if conditions are bad.

 

[wellsbranch250]

How do some of you take into account the course "for what it is"?

For example, how do you rate a smaller city park course that may hit all of your wish list items, but is short and not as challenging as a larger forest or mountain course?

My local course is in a beautiful park that is well taken care of by the town and local club. Large trees with watered and mowed grass everywhere. Concrete tees and good signs round out the package, but I can't give this course a high rating after going to places like Bailey and Lake Dillon (which I both feel push an honest 4+ rating).

Is this something you would mention in the "Other Thoughts" section?

Also, another shout out to those of you that update course conditions! I've been trying to do that much more often, especially if conditions are bad.

Different reviewers will weight your descriptions differently. If a course has large concrete tees, descriptive attractive tee signs and traversable well maintained fairways, that's a pro from my point of view. An identical course with natural tees, numbered post only signage and a very run-down appearance would likely score at least 0.5 lower in my books.

 

[aphilso1]

How do some of you take into account the course "for what it is"?

For example, how do you rate a smaller city park course that may hit all of your wish list items, but is short and not as challenging as a larger forest or mountain course?

My local course is in a beautiful park that is well taken care of by the town and local club. Large trees with watered and mowed grass everywhere. Concrete tees and good signs round out the package, but I can't give this course a high rating after going to places like Bailey and Lake Dillon (which I both feel push an honest 4+ rating).

Is this something you would mention in the "Other Thoughts" section?

Also, another shout out to those of you that update course conditions! I've been trying to do that much more often, especially if conditions are bad.

Woods golf isn't objectively better than park-style golf, it's just different. Water Works in KC is a parks course and is worthy of 5*. But it takes advantage of length, elevation change, well placed pins, and (typically) wind to create its challenge, rather than solely relying on tight tunnels like you'll get more of in the woods.