Course Ratings - smaller increments at the top?

[armiller]

First of all, I never cease to be impressed by how useful DGCR is as a resource. I just noticed this on Avery Jenkins' DGCR member page:

Total Disc Golf Courses Played - 912 Disc Golf Courses and 14,610 Disc Golf Holes in 47 States and 19 Countries - 3 States still yet to Play are: Alaska, Hawaii and North Dakota

...

Courses that I've "Played" not listed on DGCR (55):

Awesome that only 55 were not on DGCR, especially considering that some of those were pretty small or out-of-the-way.

Like many, I occasionally think about ways to improve the review/rating system. While reviewing courses recently, I've realized I would really like to have 0.25 disc increments for courses above 4 (or maybe even above 3.5). Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that courses have improved overall even in the time DGCR has been around. While reviewing, I realize I give a 4 fairly easily since many courses deserve it. But that means things start to get a little bit crowded at the top. One possible solution is to stretch out ratings so that courses that used to be 4.5 could be 4.0, or those that were once 3.5 are now lower. But another option would be to allow reviewers (maybe even just trusted reviewers?) to give 3.75, 4.0, 4.25, 4.5, 4.75, or 5.0. I think many of us make that kind of distinction in our mind or even mention it in a review's text, but it would be nice to be able to separate courses a little more when we get that high. There are some courses I've even been hesitant to review, simply because 4.5 seems generous but 4.0 seems stingy.

Just a thought, but sorry if I'm shaking the boat. The system obviously isn't broke, so I don't know what I'm trying to fix.

(Out of curiosity, has the number of reviews per course per week/month slowed down in recent years? Are we already past the "golden age" of DGCR?)

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

There are 11 different ratings. If you can't separate courses into one of the 11 tiers, that's on you. Or, perhaps, you need to start rating courses lower than 2.5, then it will be easier to appropriately rate better courses.

 

[armiller]

There are 11 different ratings. If you can't separate courses into one of the 11 tiers, that's on you. Or, perhaps, you need to start rating courses lower than 2.5, then it will be easier to appropriately rate better courses.

I typically stick with the descriptions provided by DGCR (from "abysmal" to "best of the best"). Thus far, I never considered the truly bad courses worth wasting my time to review. You must admit there's a lot of gray area. When I consider most courses, I could go either 2.5-3 or 3.5-4. Maybe I tend to be nice in those cases...

At the top, however, it would be easier for me to distinguish courses with a couple more numbers available. In the end I think it's a moot point because when courses have lots of reviews they average out and are a valid tool for picking better courses to play.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'll confess to often being torn between two ratings, and wishing there were quarter-increments.

But in the end, to what effect? The site averages ratings, from people who were confident and people who were torn, but chose high or low. If I could bump my rating of a course by 0.25, it would change the course's rating by, what, 0.01?

The site works just as well when we have to buckle down and settle on a rating, in half-integer increments.

 

[armiller]

It would definitely be more beneficial to courses in the 5-20 review stage. I agree that it's less important as the review status matures

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I agree with HBC and David. You make a good point about .25's being more useful on courses with few reviews, but I say let time do what it does well. Most courses that are very good end up getting 20+ reviews, and unless a bunch of people enter agenda driven ratings, things seem to work out pretty well in the long run.

Some meh, out of the way courses may never get 20+ reviews, but I doubt changing the rating scale is gonna influence anyone's decision to play them; the course bagger will hit it regardless. The cherry picker will probably skip it altogether.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

I typically stick with the descriptions provided by DGCR (from "abysmal" to "best of the best"). Thus far, I never considered the truly bad courses worth wasting my time to review. You must admit there's a lot of gray area. When I consider most courses, I could go either 2.5-3 or 3.5-4. Maybe I tend to be nice in those cases...

At the top, however, it would be easier for me to distinguish courses with a couple more numbers available. In the end I think it's a moot point because when courses have lots of reviews they average out and are a valid tool for picking better courses to play.

You're overthinking it. Courses that are rated 2.5 vs 3 or 3.5 vs 4 are essentially in the same range. What's the difference between a course that's considered 'passable' vs 'reasonable' or one that's 'very good' vs 'excellent'?

Conversely, from a reader/potential course players perspective, are you thinking differently about a course that's rated 3.5 vs 3.7 vs 3.9? In reality, probably not. Just because the 3.5 is closer to 'very good' and the 3.9 is closer to 'excellent', the sum of all ratings/reviews is telling us this is in the top third of all courses.

 

[enragedmullet]

It gets to the point where you're splitting hairs. With more reviews the overall ratings start showing numbers like 3.46 and 2.17. That's pretty specific already. If you read someone like wellsbranch250's reviews, you'll see even more specific numbers due to the way he/they break it down, like down to the thousandth. That's pretty cool but I don't think we need more options for general ratings. Heelboycraig said it best up there. Also, I don't like the idea of 1/4 points for courses rated 4-5, I mean, in that case you might as well just make it a 1-6 or 7 rating system them. If you were going to do it, better for the whole gamut 1-5.

Tons of different tweaks could be made but it's not going to improve the system already in place. We could always ask for like a checklist w/ 1-5 options on each facet of a course that would accompany reviews, but even that'll get redundant when someone elaborates in the comments. As said by OP - ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[scarpfish]

If we had the ability to use .25 or .75 ratings, I'd use them, but they're really not necessary, and integrating them into the site's features would be way more pain than it's worth.

If someone isn't happy with their old review ratings they can change them, or perhaps not do reviews until they've played enough courses and enough time to have some frame of reference in what good vs. great is.

 

[MikeK]

I have always wanted .25 increments.

What's wrong with being more precise?

 

[Moose33]

There have been one or two times when I have wanted a stammer increment, but that was primarily just trying to give amazing courses that weren't of the 5 star quality as close to that as possible. In reality a 4.5 is just fine for those. Even though I have been yelled at for not giving Flip City a 5.

I get where your coming from, but I don't think that part of the system is a huge concern.

 

[markmcc]

What's wrong with being more precise?

As an engineer, the subject of "precision" comes up often. But you have to look at what you are measuring in order to determine what precision is appropriate. In the case of disc golf course reviews, I would offer that there is nothing particularly precise about any of them. The ratings are personal opinion based on a wide variety of factors, none of which are precisely measurable.

I've reviewed 165 courses over about 5 years and I know that I've not used exactly the same criteria course-to-course. I believe that it is impossible for anyone to stay absolutely consistent in their reviews over a long period of time, no matter how hard they try. Even in the case of someone like Wellsbranch250 who reports his review rating to three decimal places (and I like his reviews a lot) we shouldn't think that he rates courses to a precision of 1 in 1,000. The three decimal places are simply an artifact of how his math works out.

I find 11 choices of rating to be plenty. And the .5 increment to be appropriately "precise" for what we are doing here...

 

[davetherocketguy]

LOL...This thread amuses me. When I write a review I often think the same...it'd be nice to have the 1/4 points.

When I go to pick a course to play. I know I can lookup the average (which is figured to the hundredth place on this site) a 1/4 point difference in average reviews makes no difference to me.

While we reviewers are looking for the 1/4 points I really don't think its going to make a noticeable difference to those that just read the reviews.

 

[Countchunkula]

I would definitely use the .25 disc increments. I don't focus on the site provided descriptions for each rating. I rank the courses I have played and give each course a rating based on where it slots in my overall list. There are definitely courses that I have given the same numerical rating to, which are of noticeably different quality.

Then again I haven't reviewed many courses in the past few years, so my opinion is less important than the opinions of active reviewers.

 

[armiller]

I definitely agree that the increment wouldn't be so important for the course's rating as it is for me being comfortable with my ratings reflecting where I would put that course on the list of all courses I've played (or reviewed). Some might argue I give 4s too easily, but I've given a decent number. I'd love to be able to have people look at my ratings and have a better idea which of those courses I'd recommend.

But I'm sure Mark would agree: the most important thing for precision in the long run is sample size, not me being allowed to give a 4.25 instead of 4 or 4.5.

 

[Stardoggy]

I think we should have .1 increments, especially since the ratings go to x.xx precision.

Also, if you're not doing reviews/ratings the courses below 2.5, you're doing the site a disservice. Review them all.

 

[DavidSauls]

Yeah, I want to give some 4.9s to tell owners and designers that they're soooooooooo close!

 

[scarpfish]

How many other review sites give their reviewers quarter point options? How many don't give half point options like we do have?

I'd suspect that there are way more of the latter.

 

[kerplunk]

I have always wanted .25 increments.

What's wrong with being more precise?

As an engineer, the subject of "precision" comes up often. But you have to look at what you are measuring in order to determine what precision is appropriate. In the case of disc golf course reviews, I would offer that there is nothing particularly precise about any of them. The ratings are personal opinion based on a wide variety of factors, none of which are precisely measurable.

I've reviewed 165 courses over about 5 years and I know that I've not used exactly the same criteria course-to-course. I believe that it is impossible for anyone to stay absolutely consistent in their reviews over a long period of time, no matter how hard they try. Even in the case of someone like Wellsbranch250 who reports his review rating to three decimal places (and I like his reviews a lot) we shouldn't think that he rates courses to a precision of 1 in 1,000. The three decimal places are simply an artifact of how his math works out.

I find 11 choices of rating to be plenty. And the .5 increment to be appropriately "precise" for what we are doing here...

I will add that precision and accuracy are different things, with accuracy ultimately being more important in this case. If the current system is adequately accurate, there really is no need for more precision.

I actually initially agreed with the .25 increments, until reading the whole thread.

 

[armiller]

Also, if you're not doing reviews/ratings the courses below 2.5, you're doing the site a disservice. Review them all.

It's all about the time. I have to confess that thus far I've been way more of a "moocher," benefiting from all you guys' hard work. Now I'm a little more motivated, but you have to admit it takes some time to do good reviews, both taking a bit more time on the course as well as spending some time writing... but a lot of you folks have inspired me to give a bit more effort, esp. on courses with very few reviews.

As a side note, I've "followed" a number of folks but don't see any result. Do I have to sign up for premium to get any notifications of their new reviews? Also, does premium allow me to put something on my reviewer profile? Or will that come with TR status?