Course ratings: Do we rate as they are now, or based on potential?

[t i m]

I always rate as is. where you talk about the course you can mention potential and circumstances. I reviewed Paul B Johnson after Hurricane katrina and it had some issues due to damage. I rated it as is but noted the difficulties it was having. when everything is back to normal you can update your review.

Here's a related question: is it ethical to update your rating/review based on secondhand info. Take the circumstance above: if the course rating was given based on hurricane damage, and it becomes obvious from later reviews that the course is cleaned up and back in pristine shape, is it okay for magictenor to upgrade his rating based on the added info and add a footnote to his review explaining what he did?

(For the record, I'd say yes, it's okay to change ratings without replaying based on new info. For instance, if I played a course and had docked them 1.0 points for no teepads and crappy baskets, and I saw that they'd added "5x10' concrete pads and Mach Vs throughout," then I'd have no problem changing my review score and adding a footnote. Other thoughts?

 

[tamahawk]

Here's a related question: is it ethical to update your rating/review based on secondhand info. Take the circumstance above: if the course rating was given based on hurricane damage, and it becomes obvious from later reviews that the course is cleaned up and back in pristine shape, is it okay for magictenor to upgrade his rating based on the added info and add a footnote to his review explaining what he did?

I'd say yes to this as well!
If newer reviews or secondhand information tells a previous reviewer that the course has changed, been cleaned up, tee signs added, whatever, they should update and revise the review.

If I notice a review has out-of-date information, I will usually send the person a PM to let them know what the updates are since their review. This is to give the reviewer a chance to update the review, and keep the reviewer from potentially getting a negative vote for the out-dated info.

 

[solomon.trenton]

prime example. check out my review of richard stockton in NJ.

 

[ERicJ]

Rate it as it is when you playing, e.g. Boettler Park.

Giving ratings on what may or may not happen is silly.

 

[TalbotTrojan]

I definately agree with rating a course based on what it was like when you played it. However at the same time I think that if you play an established course it is a bit different than playing a course that is under construction or being rennovated. If I can see the work that is going on and I like it I am more likely to bump my rating up half a disc and if I don't like it down half a disc, but that is about the biggest varience that you should ever see for something like that.

 

[Dave242]

I voted rate it "as it existed when you played it". One common exception to this approach I make all the time is when I play a course in the winter I visualize what the course would look like in the summer. Natural beauty and seclusion are key factors for me (0.5 to 1.0 discs), so it would be unfair for me to mark a course down since I happened to show up in the winter. This is something that is easy for me to do in my head as I constantly am scanning the holes and the vistas as I play through.

 

[cc0049]

I voted rate it "as it existed when you played it". One common exception to this approach I make all the time is when I play a course in the winter I visualize what the course would look like in the summer. Natural beauty and seclusion are key factors for me (0.5 to 1.0 discs), so it would be unfair for me to mark a course down since I happened to show up in the winter. This is something that is easy for me to do in my head as I constantly am scanning the holes and the vistas as I play through.

It seems like everyone is voting "as is", but there seems to be a lot of exceptions to the rule.
What about when the grass isn't mowed at the time you play it. There is a course nearby my house, North Park, that is usually mowed down and plays very nicely. This time of year, when it rains a lot and the grass is growing like crazy, it is difficult for the city to mow it, because it is raining and wet most of the time. If someone were to play it during that time, they may think that the grass is always that high and that would be a major con that would bring the rating of the course down. The fact is that for 95% of the year, the grass is mowed down and well kept.
I think that the rating should reflect how the course plays for the majority of the year. It is definitely okay to comment on the tall grass in your review, but don't let it weigh down the course rating unless you know that the course is like that most of the time. Someone from out of town may not have any way of knowing this for sure, and that would just make their review less accurate.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that any of the current reviewers made this mistake. I'm just giving this as an example of another reason not to always review a course "as is" without taking other things into consideration.

 

[t i m]

It seems like everyone is voting "as is", but there seems to be a lot of exceptions to the rule.
What about when the grass isn't mowed at the time you play it. There is a course nearby my house, North Park, that is usually mowed down and plays very nicely. This time of year, when it rains a lot and the grass is growing like crazy, it is difficult for the city to mow it, because it is raining and wet most of the time. If someone were to play it during that time, they may think that the grass is always that high and that would be a major con that would bring the rating of the course down. The fact is that for 95% of the year, the grass is mowed down and well kept.
I think that the rating should reflect how the course plays for the majority of the year. It is definitely okay to comment on the tall grass in your review, but don't let it weigh down the course rating unless you know that the course is like that most of the time. Someone from out of town may not have any way of knowing this for sure, and that would just make their review less accurate.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that any of the current reviewers made this mistake. I'm just giving this as an example of another reason not to always review a course "as is" without taking other things into consideration.

Good points. Grass mowing is definitely a factor on a lot of courses in the summer, and can radically affect how a course plays. Same with lots of rain, since many of our courses are in flood plains that become swamps after storms...

I don't know what the quick answer is, because I definitely think out of town visitors with one look at a course give some of the most helpful course reviews, since they give a fresh perspective -- especially on issues like navigation and signage -- that are invisible to locals. And a visiting reviewer offers one of the most helpful perspectives for other visitors (which many of us are as we travel around).

I think this is where reading the reviews comes into play, for that extra perspective that is necessary. When I'm visiting an area, I look at all the courses -- not just the "top rated" ones, to see what seems like I will enjoy playing the most. When you look at all the reviews -- the local and traveler reviews together -- you get a pretty fleshed out perspective on the course.

 

[scarpfish]

I'd say yes to this as well!
If newer reviews or secondhand information tells a previous reviewer that the course has changed, been cleaned up, tee signs added, whatever, they should update and revise the review.

If I notice a review has out-of-date information, I will usually send the person a PM to let them know what the updates are since their review. This is to give the reviewer a chance to update the review, and keep the reviewer from potentially getting a negative vote for the out-dated info.

This I don't agree with. A review is that one person's perspective when they saw that course when they played it. The perspective should only be revised if that person plays the course again after the changes have been made. How exactly do I give a proper new grade to a course based on secondhand information when it's improper to grade it in the first place if I've never played it.

In some respect, out of date reviews have value because they sort of paint a picture of where a course has been, compared to where it is now, and that sort of thing illustrates to me that said course is well taken care of, or has been improved, or conversely is starting to wither, or has been cursed since installation.

As for getting a negative vote on outdated information, well, I think the one voting should have the consideration to look at the date on a review before giving the obligatory thumbs up or down. Some part of me also wonders if a time limit is in order for voting on old reviews, particularly when a lot of newer ones for that same course have been posted.

 

[cc0049]

Some part of me also wonders if a time limit is in order for voting on old reviews, particularly when a lot of newer ones for that same course have been posted.

I think that is a good idea.
Or you should be able to put your review on hold so that it can't be voted on when you know you need to get back and play the course so that you can update your review.
I do not think that you should update your review based on secondhand information either.

 

[mashnut]

It seems like everyone is voting "as is", but there seems to be a lot of exceptions to the rule.
What about when the grass isn't mowed at the time you play it. There is a course nearby my house, North Park, that is usually mowed down and plays very nicely. This time of year, when it rains a lot and the grass is growing like crazy, it is difficult for the city to mow it, because it is raining and wet most of the time. If someone were to play it during that time, they may think that the grass is always that high and that would be a major con that would bring the rating of the course down. The fact is that for 95% of the year, the grass is mowed down and well kept.
I think that the rating should reflect how the course plays for the majority of the year. It is definitely okay to comment on the tall grass in your review, but don't let it weigh down the course rating unless you know that the course is like that most of the time. Someone from out of town may not have any way of knowing this for sure, and that would just make their review less accurate.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that any of the current reviewers made this mistake. I'm just giving this as an example of another reason not to always review a course "as is" without taking other things into consideration.

On the other hand, if I were coming from out of town to play your course, and none of the reviews mentioned the fact that I should bring a machete to get through your jungle of grass (exaggeration, I know), then I would be pretty disappointed that the possibility was never brought up. I think that a reviewer who only played the course when the grass was out of control would be the best one to hear from about those playing conditions, but locals could add in their reviews that this is only a condition for certain parts of the year.

 

[valkyriefb11]

I usually just rate the course on how it is when I play it. But if the course has a lot of potential, but isnt fulfilling its fullest potential, Ill note that in my review and be more forgiving in my rating/review. If a course has no potential and stinks ... Im gonna rate it low and review it harsher.

 

[Dave242]

I feel validated about a PM reply I sent just 1 week ago.
-----------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by (someone)
We have done alot of work in the year plus since you have visited our course, your 1.5 rating is a joke.:| Please do not rate a new course a year after you played it. It was a work in progress and we have made progress.

That is great news! That course had a ton of potential that I could easily see when I played it....and I stated as such. Thank you and your friends big time for your work to move it along! When playing it I could easily see it becoming one of my top favorite courses if things were tweaked correctly.

My review shows that I played it early 2008 and the title is "C = needs more development". Obviously I was right in my assessment that it needed development and you agreee with that. In my book (180 courses played), your course had just an average ability to draw me back to itself. It was a fair and honest rating based on how I rate courses (complete and obnoxiously long explanation is in my profile). If/when I play again I will revise my review.

If Tim (owner/admin of this site) does not want people to review courses that are new, he needs to block the ability of people to do so. Please take that issue up with him if that is important enough with you. Until then, my review will stand as a marker to how far the course has come and how much TLC you have put into it.
--------------------

Based on the feedback of this PM, I did go back and revise my review to make it more clear that my review was based before current upgrades were made.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

It's not really another matter. Either you rate it "as it is when you played it" or you don't according to this poll...or you choose option 3, which is essentially useless information.

Umm, ok. So, I'll play along with your logic. If someone plays a course in the middle of the night, loses a bunch of discs, and shoots a 200 because they can't see anything, the course should be rated a zero because it's unfair and/or too difficult? Is it the course's fault that the person is an idiot by trying to play when it's pitch black outside? Remember, you said it's not another matter.

So, apparently you missed the point about playing a course two days after a hurricane. Extraneous and extreme circumstances like that should not be included if you're trying to give a fair and accurate review of a course. And unless hurricanes are hitting your neighborhood on a regular basis, I'd say playing a course 2 days after a hurricane strikes would not give a reviewer a true sense of what the course has to offer.

 

[ERicJ]

Umm, ok. So, I'll play along with your logic. If someone plays a course in the middle of the night, loses a bunch of discs, and shoots a 200 because they can't see anything, the course should be rated a zero because it's unfair and/or too difficult? Is it the course's fault that the person is an idiot by trying to play when it's pitch black outside? Remember, you said it's not another matter.

So, apparently you missed the point about playing a course two days after a hurricane. Extraneous and extreme circumstances like that should not be included if you're trying to give a fair and accurate review of a course. And unless hurricanes are hitting your neighborhood on a regular basis, I'd say playing a course 2 days after a hurricane strikes would not give a reviewer a true sense of what the course has to offer.

I agree with that. You've got to use some common sense when doing your ratings.

 

[cc0049]

I'd say playing a course 2 days after a hurricane strikes would not give a reviewer a true sense of what the course has to offer.

This is EXACTLY my point. Thank you for reiterating.
This is why I did not vote the first choice, because it does not allow for times when common sense dictates otherwise. That's why I think the only reasonable option on this poll is the 3rd option.
If there were a choice that said, "The course as is is when you played it, except for in certain extenuating circumstances...like hurricanes etc.", then that would be the best choice for me.

 

[magictenor1]

I have to say that I played a course that had had extensive hurricane damage and almosta year later the course was still feeling severe affects. I know some courses that still had FEMA trailers blocking holes a year after the hurricane. This is info a potential user needs and would affect a review. I still say rate as is but update when things change. I also would not update based on second hand info.

 

[t i m]

I have to say that I played a course that had had extensive hurricane damage and almosta year later the course was still feeling severe affects. I know some courses that still had FEMA trailers blocking holes a year after the hurricane. This is info a potential user needs and would affect a review. I still say rate as is but update when things change. I also would not update based on second hand info.

See, I think I'm okay updating a post based on secondhand info. In the example above, if someone could confirm that all the FEMA trailers had moved, then give it back the .5 stars it lost because of them.

If it didn't have baskets, but you learn they installed Mach Vs, then give it the .5 points it might have lost for being an object course... when things are very cut-and-dry changes that you don't need to see firsthand to appreciate, I have no problem updating a rating based on secondhand info.

If a course added two baskets on every hole, and I was familiar with both short and long basket placements, I might add .5 stars for having dual permanent baskets... even if I didn't see them in person.

Other improvements, though, I don't think I could include. Like teepads. Teepads vary tremendously in quality, and in placement (are they too close to teesigns or trees, is there adequate runup space, etc...). I don't think I could upgrade a course based on hearsay about teepads. I would have to see it in person. Changes in layout would also have to be seen firsthand.

Upgrading a course without firsthand perspective is possible when its a really cut-and-dry improvement that can be easily pictured. When it's something more subjective, then I think you'll need to see it yourself before rating a course.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

These 2 reviews for Anderson Park in Carrboro, NC sum up this issue perfectly http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=3288&mode=rev. One review gives the course a 3.5 because of the "potential" and the other gives a 0.5 because of the current conditions. So, who is right?