Ethics of RE-RATING Courses???

[prerube]

it's even more trivial 4.9, 4.91 and 4.92.
2 hundreths of a subjective point seperate these courses.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

OH SH#T!!!!!!! DUCK!!!!!!

you lost me there...

it's even more trivial 4.9, 4.91 and 4.92.
2 hundreths of a subjective point seperate these courses.

My point exactly - play and determine for yourself.
It's is like trying to determine if the '85 Bears were better than the '72 Dolphins: the fun is in the debate!

 

[jhgonzo]

It's is like trying to determine if the '85 Bears were better than the '72 Dolphins: the fun is in the debate!

There is no "trying to determine" in this...it's all the '85 Bears! Maybe the '72 Dolphins, if they had recorded their own "Super Bowl Shuffle"...perhaps "Super Bowl Folk/R&B Jamboree"?

 

[ERicJ]

but have you replayed courses before you changed your review?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

But when you take a step back and look at your own sorted list of rated courses sometimes it's obvious that there are some courses in the wrong places.

E.g. if you give course XYZ a 3.5 star rating after you've been playing for six months and then you go back a year later after you've played 40 or 50 more courses you may realize that it's really no better than a 2.0 or 2.5 star course.

 

[Dave242]

I agree - I think the sorted list is the way to go if you want consistency.

Once you have a list of 20-30 courses and are happy with the ratings of them, insert new courses into your list by asking something like "if this course and 3-4 others (grouped on my list) were all within 5 miles of my house, which would I play the most?" When you find the right group, insert your new course near them.

Or your could insert the new course based on amenities, upkeep, beauty, or whatever combination of things are important to you.

 

[sloppydisc]

I think everybody should chill out and just go play. All ratings are subjective, and should be used as a rough guide. Don't get too upset if you go and think differently than the reviewer did. His experience and abilities were probably different than yours. And if you are one of the hard-working good guys that help design, build or maintain a course, don't get upset either. If your course gets rated a little low and less people come to play good for you. Less BS to deal with on a weekly basis, and less wear and tear on your home course. Consider it other people's loss, not yours.

It's a shame. The more popualr a sport becomes, the more politics and BS the players have to deal with. I sure hope ESPN doesn't start a weekly show. Then we'll have people paying for good reviews.

 

[mashnut]

I agree - I think the sorted list is the way to go if you want consistency.

Once you have a list of 20-30 courses and are happy with the ratings of them, insert new courses into your list by asking something like "if this course and 3-4 others (grouped on my list) were all within 5 miles of my house, which would I play the most?" When you find the right group, insert your new course near them.

Or your could insert the new course based on amenities, upkeep, beauty, or whatever combination of things are important to you.

I really like this approach, and after you mentioned it I started doing my ratings that way. It makes it a lot easier for me to come up with a number by putting it into my list, and I feel like it makes me more consistent with how I rate the courses.