An open letter to travelling reviewers...

[jakebake91]

We can't all be out there Stardogging stuff.

That's how one peaks too quickly.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

While I understand the idea behind dismissing/ignoring local reviews because so many of them have a severe homer bias, something locals can (and in my opinion, should) do far more effectively than travelers can, is provide a perspective of consistency of course conditions.
How often is this course flooded?
How well does it drain after a storm?
How often is long grass a problem?
How good is the park/proprietor about trimming back growth/general maintenance?

It's not just the "homer bias" of reviews of locals that undercuts their usefulness. And I agree that homers have the benefit of the knowledge that you've pointed out.

But locals also have the familiarity with a course that lets them ignore, or completely fail to notice, things that are important to travelers. Locals may never notice a lack of tee signs or the information that they lack. Someone whose first round at a course was in a mini or league and who never needed help with navigation may not realize the navigational nightmare that a course presents to a first time user. If your introduction to disc golf came on a course with no tee boxes, that may not be something worth mentioning in a review of that course. No bathroom? Locals always come prepared. Does a local that plays a course every evening because he learned long ago that dust and dew don't mix well forget to mention another con in his review.

Locals sometimes adhere to local customary rules surrounding OB that "fix" a design issue but that a traveler may have no way of knowing. These types of issues are endless.

By contrast, a traveler is much more likely to review the things that are going to be important to another traveler.

So, while I don't disagree with you that locals can have a special insight into a course's character over time (and everything else you've mentioned), their special familiarity with a course can itself be problematic as far as reviews are concerned.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

It's not just the "homer bias" of reviews of locals that undercuts their usefulness. And I agree that homers have the benefit of the knowledge that you've pointed out.

But locals also have the familiarity with a course that lets them ignore, or completely fail to notice, things that are important to travelers. Locals may never notice a lack of tee signs or the information that they lack. Someone whose first round at a course was in a mini or league and who never needed help with navigation may not realize the navigational nightmare that a course presents to a first time user. If your introduction to disc golf came on a course with no tee boxes, that may not be something worth mentioning in a review of that course. No bathroom? Locals always come prepared. Does a local that plays a course every evening because he learned long ago that dust and dew don't mix well forget to mention another con in his review.

Locals sometimes adhere to local customary rules surrounding OB that "fix" a design issue but that a traveler may have no way of knowing. These types of issues are endless.

By contrast, a traveler is much more likely to review the things that are going to be important to another traveler.

So, while I don't disagree with you that locals can have a special insight into a course's character over time (and everything else you've mentioned), their special familiarity with a course can itself be problematic as far as reviews are concerned.

But hopefully the locals who review their own courses can maybe shed some light on how the locals get around some of these things right? Bad reviews are bad, well written reviews are good, regardless of first time traveler or local or hell even the course designer.

It seems to me a good mix of local and traveler reviews are good for everyone, especially if the local reviews can simply take a step back and review their course from the point of view of a traveler. Poorly written reviews come in all shapes and sizes so the real hope is just to eliminate unhelpful reviews.

 

[davetherocketguy]

It's not just the "homer bias" of reviews of locals that undercuts their usefulness. And I agree that homers have the benefit of the knowledge that you've pointed out.

But locals also have the familiarity with a course that lets them ignore, or completely fail to notice, things that are important to travelers. Locals may never notice a lack of tee signs or the information that they lack. Someone whose first round at a course was in a mini or league and who never needed help with navigation may not realize the navigational nightmare that a course presents to a first time user. If your introduction to disc golf came on a course with no tee boxes, that may not be something worth mentioning in a review of that course. No bathroom? Locals always come prepared. Does a local that plays a course every evening because he learned long ago that dust and dew don't mix well forget to mention another con in his review.

Locals sometimes adhere to local customary rules surrounding OB that "fix" a design issue but that a traveler may have no way of knowing. These types of issues are endless.

By contrast, a traveler is much more likely to review the things that are going to be important to another traveler.

So, while I don't disagree with you that locals can have a special insight into a course's character over time (and everything else you've mentioned), their special familiarity with a course can itself be problematic as far as reviews are concerned.

This happens now and then. I've rated some courses pretty harshly and got a bunch of down-votes in the process from what are presumably course homers. It's like they've become blind to the issues. When that outsider comes in and points out obvious flaws the homers become petulant and try to exact some measure of revenge for their beloved course with some down-voting. I find that crap humorous.

That said, I try VERY hard to ignore or not let negative reviews of my home course affect me in a similar fashion. Its so tempting to toss out a down-vote for a a negative review in spite of it being well written and thought out.

 

[blazerico]

which course/review sparked this rant?

 

[bayouace]

My gripe is a Thumbs Down for an obvious humerous comment comparing climate at the course and where the reviewer calls home.

 

[dreadlock86]

...it does dig into my mild tendencies toward OCD that I still have a lot of courses played that I may never review...

seriously. and the first time a course i hadn't gotten around to reviewing went extinct.... triggered!



doofenshmirtz hit the nail on the head in his last post. as a course bagging reviewer, i definitely see both sides of the argument. i try to use the Course Conditions update as much as i can remember and to distinguish between design and conditions. i like to think i do a good job separating them; if thumbs are feedback then i guess i am.

 

[dreadlock86]

Personally there are several things that i will note in my cons section that make no impact on my score. First for example, ants, snakes, ticks, poisonous plants, etc, have zero influence on my scores. For course beauty, i try to envision what the course would look like during the summer. I cant think of any courses that look better with all the leaves off the trees (maybe a desert course?). I do not penalize a course just because i showed up in winter. I also do not take rating points off for flooded fairways or drainage issues with the exception of one local course that has been flooded 15 of my 24 appearances. I once gave a 4 rating to a course with several flooded fairway. I will research recent precipitation amounts. That particular course had 20 inches of rain over a 2 week period. That's not the courses fault. The same goes for overgrown fairways. When its been wet, They can't mow the grass. I try my best to overlook these issues cause they are all seasonal, temporary or "you're out in the woods you whiny bitch" issues.

i think this might be a factor a lot of people overlook as review readers.

i do the same thing: listing things that are worth knowing but don't affect my rating. a big one there for me is navigation. i only ding a course for navigation if it is really really bad. most of the time there is a map somewhere and i consider it on me to do the research ahead of time, particularly when i'm traveling. even without a map, experienced players tend to have a sense of design and can follow trails.

but when i go to review that course and give it a poor rating (because i think the course is poorly designed not because of the navigation) locals might read that and think "this guy is just pissy cuz he got lost, plus he probably threw +12. shoulda just played with a local."

 

[tallpaul]

which course/review sparked this rant?

I believe this was omitted intentionally; which was a good move.

 

[blazerico]

I believe this was omitted intentionally; which was a good move.

someone could message me

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

someone could message me

I figured it was the review for Harmon where HC complained the mowing wasn't completed before he played.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

But hopefully the locals who review their own courses can maybe shed some light on how the locals get around some of these things right?

Certainly, if they recognize the issues. Look, good reviews are good reviews no matter who writes them and no matter the rating. I think that people who undertake the task of writing a meaningful review are always going to end up providing helpful information. Even when it is repetitive, the confirmation of other reviews provided is reassuring to someone who is deciding whether to detour a few hours and play that course. But I have also read plenty of seemingly well written, homer reviews that described a course that doesn't really exist.

Bad reviews are bad, well written reviews are good, regardless of first time traveler or local or hell even the course designer.

I agree with this. But if a course has only a few meaningless reviews and you run across one that seems to be well written and well considered but that ignores everything the local reviewer doesn't deem important, it can lead to a big disappointment. The problem is that with this type of sparsely reviewed course, you can't always tell the difference between a good and bad review.

It seems to me a good mix of local and traveler reviews are good for everyone, especially if the local reviews can simply take a step back and review their course from the point of view of a traveler. Poorly written reviews come in all shapes and sizes so the real hope is just to eliminate unhelpful reviews.

As long as there are a sufficient number of reviews, I would agree. But an accurate review can be poorly written and a homer, misleading review can be well written. One such example qickly comes to mind, but I played it before that review was posted and can't blame my misfortune on the silly homer who thinks that 9 baskets in a briar patch thirty miles from civilization is awe inspiring.

 

[Motorpro]

The unspoken truth is that a lot of lowball ratings are from people who weren't good enough to play an advanced skill-level course. The course isn't unfair. Your 250-foot drives just won't play well on a 12,000 foot course.

That is true but so is the opposite. Just because a course has 250 to 300 foot holes doesn't make it bad. It just doesn't play well for 950 rated players.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

The unspoken truth is that a lot of lowball ratings are from people who weren't good enough to play an advanced skill-level course. The course isn't unfair. Your 250-foot drives just won't play well on a 12,000 foot course.

That is true but so is the opposite. Just because a course has 250 to 300 foot holes doesn't make it bad. It just doesn't play well for 950 rated players.

That's one of the things that makes Harmony Bends so great - appropriately challenges a wide range of skill levels better than any course I've seen. The only skill level it really isn't suited for is the true novice.

 

[Monocacy]

The unspoken truth is that a lot of lowball ratings are from people who weren't good enough to play an advanced skill-level course. The course isn't unfair. Your 250-foot drives just won't play well on a 12,000 foot course.

There is certainly truth to this. But as Bogey said, excellent design can cater to multiple skill levels, even on a long hole or long course. Thinking of Milo/Riverbend hole 2 (1,175') and Hawk Hollow hole 8 (975').

 

[thrembo]

That's one of the things that makes Harmony Bends so great - appropriately challenges a wide range of skill levels better than any course I've seen. The only skill level it really isn't suited for is the true novice.

Same for Hobbs, the most accessible course for all skill levels that I have played so far. HB is still a few years down the road on our bagging schedule (proly get Flip and Idlewild before HB).

 

[Three Putt]

I figured it was the review for Harmon where HC complained the mowing wasn't completed before he played.

One the the St. Louis County courses got dinged a couple of weeks ago; it had been raining like Hell for a month and the County also had maintenance diverted because of flooding. It was pretty much a given that the County courses were going to be less than stellar. I ran into overgrown parks for weeks with everyone struggling to figure out mowing triage.

Of course I know that. The review said something about the town the course is in "stepping up its game" when that town has nothing to do with maintenance of a County course. So it was an out of town golfer, not really aware of how bad the weather has been, not aware of who has jurisdiction over that park and not aware of the major flooding the area was preparing for. They just know that they went to play a course and the grass was really high.

Bottom line was the grass WAS really high. In the snapshot of that day, the reviewer was justified, even though when I read it I thought "This is B.S." It's just the limitations of a snapshot review. It is what it is.

 

[c_a_miller]

It's not just the "homer bias" of reviews of locals that undercuts their usefulness. And I agree that homers have the benefit of the knowledge that you've pointed out.

But locals also have the familiarity with a course that lets them ignore, or completely fail to notice, things that are important to travelers. Locals may never notice a lack of tee signs or the information that they lack. Someone whose first round at a course was in a mini or league and who never needed help with navigation may not realize the navigational nightmare that a course presents to a first time user. If your introduction to disc golf came on a course with no tee boxes, that may not be something worth mentioning in a review of that course. No bathroom? Locals always come prepared. Does a local that plays a course every evening because he learned long ago that dust and dew don't mix well forget to mention another con in his review.

Locals sometimes adhere to local customary rules surrounding OB that "fix" a design issue but that a traveler may have no way of knowing. These types of issues are endless.

By contrast, a traveler is much more likely to review the things that are going to be important to another traveler.

So, while I don't disagree with you that locals can have a special insight into a course's character over time (and everything else you've mentioned), their special familiarity with a course can itself be problematic as far as reviews are concerned.

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.

 

[prerube]

If a course is only reviewed by locals, you will only get Homeboy Bias.
you need people who have seen the best and worst that can be offered.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm generally in favor of more reviews, by anyone. More information, more insight. Taking the good with the occasional bad. With enough reviews it averages out, and with few reviews, I'd rather have something than nothing.

The locals and the travelers both have lots to offer: the locals, experience with the course; the travelers, fresh eyes. Either may or may not bring experience of other courses or even regions.

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.

The