Classic Review lines

[DFrah]

Thanks, I'm sure everyone handles them a bit differently, but that makes sense. As long as they aren't part of the default course search, I don't see why they need to be rated on the same scale.

A 9er without signs or defined tees isn't much different than a practice area. Somehow I end up driving out of my way to bag courses like that, while I'll skip a nice 3 or 4 hole "practice area" without even thinking twice. I'll play 6 holers, no problem, but for whatever reason the bagging addiction doesn't extend to practice areas for me.

That's fair. Them not being in the default course search is a big part of my reasoning too. I don't feel a need to bag them except in the areas I'm absolutely trying to 100% (home, and the UP).

That one I linked is definitely the best practice area I have ever played.

 

[wolfhaley]

Sheetz Practice is a single basket in a small patch of grass, surrounded by concrete and asphalt. There are no defined tees. Consequently, you can tee off from anywhere. Consequently, most of the places you can tee from are asphalt or concrete.

I am guessing that explaining the joke did not make it funnier.

Sigh

Hey man, I got it, and I loved it. Craigs OG review too. It's a basket at a gas station.

Anybody mislead by your review didn't look at the course info page, media page and had their filters set to include practice areas. The name of the course is Sheetz Practice for fuck's sake . Nobody is going out of their way to play this one. Even if they did, they'd be able to bag it in about 3 minutes, take a leak, fuel up and get a burnt croissant w/ cheese.

The only thing misleading is that the "course" was established in 2024 on the info page. Yet the two pictures were taken in 2022. Hmmmm..... Something's not adding up here @DiscGolfCraig

P.S. The Gold layout on Udisc is hilarious looking @Olorin

 

[wolfhaley]

It's interesting to me how some people complained about new members coming in and reviewing Black Widow so highly. These people gave those reviews thumbs down but now we have what I would call a 0.0, some would call a 0.5 and we're "playing along" and giving these reviews with ratings way crazier than the Black Widow ratings, thumbs up. Is it because the reviews are "funny" or they are trusted reviewers and fear the wrath of people like Craig? These reviews are the definition of not helpful. We need to make votes anonymous again IMO.

You stated above that YOU'D call it a 0.0. Ratings are subjective though, no? To take a page from ru4por, reviews>ratings. I'll counter with the arguement that not only are Monocacy's and Craig's reviews more helpful than most of the reviews for Black Widow. They cover all the points and then some. The Black Widow reviews are useless and what I'd personally consider NOT helpful. They almost seem coached. "The owner is a really nice guy" and "There's a tiki course onsite too" seem to pop up quite a bit. He's came out and said he wants his course to make the top courses list, and he's counting.
It seems fake AF honestly. To your last point, totally agree. Votes should be anonymous except to the actual reviewer.

I'm more worried about reviews that claim untrue things about a course than I am the rating of said course. A rating of 4 or 5 is subjective; saying a course has concrete tee pads e.g. is not.

Again, ratings are subjective. Sheetz does have concrete, or at least asphalt tees. It's a practice area so you "tee" off wherever you want.

It's not that I don't get it, it's that others might not get it. By saying this course is a par 37 and 7,000 feet long there are some people that might actually believe that and go out there and find this single practice basket. The "joke" isn't that funny. If you give me false information about a course that is the very definition of not helpful which is why I thumbed you and Craig down. At least you are nice about it and didn't call me a dick unprovoked which was uncalled for. Thanks for being civil

Mono just pulled up the Udisc info for Sheetz Gold and basically copied and pasted that par and distance into his review. That's exactly how the "Gold" layout is listed on there. And technically there's no reason why someone wouldn't be able to actually play that layout. I'd guess between 2 and 3 AM is the best time to do so. Though there's no reason it couldn't be attempted between 2 and 3 PM either, just not advisable it seems. I guess we'll just agree to disagree about these 2 exceptional courses in NC, both of which, neither of us has played. At least I've played a course in NC, ya Dick

 

[Shadrach3]

Do you guys have a separate rating scale for practice areas? I've never reviewed one, but if I used the normal scale this sounds like a .5 disc course based on the 2 reviews.

This is a good question and, as you noted in a later post, it it is relevant to courses, not just practice areas.

To take it a step further: the loose/general consensus on DGCR seems to be to rate all courses as they compare to each other, on one continuum. Championship 18er, putter course, city park, backyard layout with overlapping fairways - these all live on the same scale from Abysmal to Best of the Best. This results in practice areas getting atrocious ratings and 9ers rarely rising above halfway. But should that be how we look at courses, or should we look at them with credit for how well they execute what they're trying to do?

I don't know, but I find myself weary of playing a lovely basic course and then giving it a 2.0 or 2.5. And I can support DFrah giving a good rating to a practice area with no defined tees.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

To take a page from ru4por, reviews>ratings. I'll counter with the arguement that not only are Monocacy's and Craig's reviews more helpful than most of the reviews for Black Widow. They cover all the points and then some. The Black Widow reviews are useless and what I'd personally consider NOT helpful. They almost seem coached. "The owner is a really nice guy" and "There's a tiki course onsite too" seem to pop up quite a bit. He's came out and said he wants his course to make the top courses list, and he's counting.
It seems fake AF honestly. To your last point, totally agree. Votes should be anonymous except to the actual reviewer.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

I guess the review pissed off Doofenschmitz. See he came in and gave blanket down votes for both reviews for the course.

Weird that you would think that I was somehow "pissed off" simply for labeling your unhelpful review as unhelpful. It seems pretty telling that you would make that up. Anyway, when I travel, I search the map based on course rating, typically starting with a 3.5. What I would find in that area is something that is not a course with a 3.5 rating (as of today) thanks to two people who apparently wanted to make a joke out of that rating. But I wouldn't find out about it until after I've clicked on the basket icon and read through a dumb review posted as a joke. I've really always appreciated the reviews/ratings here as opposed to UDISC. Littering the ratings and map with single baskets you happen upon is a great way to begin ruining this site's usefulness. Angry? Not one bit. But unhelpful is unhelpful.

 

[Cerealman]

Littering the ratings and map with single baskets you happen upon is a great way to begin ruining this site's usefulness.

I agree. I have no use for practice areas and wouldn't want them to show up on the map search.

Thankfully, practice areas are typically set to OFF for the filters.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Weird that you would think that I was somehow "pissed off" simply for labeling your unhelpful review as unhelpful. It seems pretty telling that you would make that up. Anyway, when I travel, I search the map based on course rating, typically starting with a 3.5. What I would find in that area is something that is not a course with a 3.5 rating (as of today) thanks to two people who apparently wanted to make a joke out of that rating. But I wouldn't find out about it until after I've clicked on the basket icon and read through a dumb review posted as a joke. I've really always appreciated the reviews/ratings here as opposed to UDISC. Littering the ratings and map with single baskets you happen upon is a great way to begin ruining this site's usefulness. Angry? Not one bit. But unhelpful is unhelpful.

Hence the objective review compared to UDisc's ratings. For more than a year (probably 2-3 years), it was the highest rated course in North Carolina.