extinct courses, redesigns, etc

[giles]

The OP has a good point about the bEast (cameron park east). The reviews are both rate it very low. I know Booter drove the hour plus from Austin more than once to play it, so it can't be that bad. The reviews basically say, lots of trash and no signage. Nothing about the course itself. Before the redesign it was an awesome course, easily 4 star or better.

 

[giles]

The OP has a good point about the bEast (cameron park east). The reviews are both rate it very low. I know Booter drove the hour plus from Austin more than once to play it, so it can't be that bad. The reviews basically say, lots of trash and no signage. Nothing about the course itself. Before the redesign it was an awesome course, easily 4 star or better.

I checked, it was 4.28 off 9 reviews, now it is 1.75 off 2 reviews. I don't think 9 of the holes even changed. I think they lost 9, and had to put 9 more elsewhere

 

[dreadlock86]

If a course is just in really bad shape, use the conditions to indicate that. I only RIP a course if it's completely removed or in such incredibly bad shape that it might as well be gone (ie. overgrown w/ all baskets broken, etc.).

As far as the redesign thing, I rely on people to give me the appropriate info and then I make the call as to whether a course needs a new page. The only time I do it is if there has been a significant redesign and/or new holes have been added that change the flow of the old layout. So if there is a 9 holer and 9 are tacked on to the end, I wouldn't RIP the old profile but if all of a sudden old #3 is now #7, old #5 is #9, etc. I would.

i assumed there was some sort of vetting going on but of course it can only be as good as the info you get.

i guess it just takes a little more to convince me it is warranted. i thought even the Parma redesign didn't really warrant it. slightly changed flow and only 4 new holes. oh well, it's not my site!

thanks, Tim! you do a great job.

 

[dreadlock86]

oh yeah, this all reminds me

can we get a link to the old layout pages on the new pages? pretty please?

 

[dreadlock86]

I checked, it was 4.28 off 9 reviews, now it is 1.75 off 2 reviews. I don't think 9 of the holes even changed. I think they lost 9, and had to put 9 more elsewhere

i bet the new 9 still uses some of the old holes too. how far away could they have put the new 9?

 

[Sadjo]

When a course is tweeked each year...with one or two holes redesigned, does the time come to get a new listing?

Chattooga Belle Farm has been the ground since July 2010. It is on a 138 working orchard and cattle farm. The owner continues to plant new trees and we had to redesign a few holes a couple of times and will be doing it again within the next month.

One day the original course and the current layout might have only one or two holes that are the same.

 

[DavidSauls]

When a course is tweeked each year...with one or two holes redesigned, does the time come to get a new listing?

That's been the case with Stoney Hill, though we've had a 2 year pause in the alterations. Building a pond and adding a few dramatic, perhaps signature holes, changed things a bit.

But I'd think, unless a significant number of older reviews are misleading, you shouldn't need to start over. If the hole info and photos are up-to-date, and most recent half-dozen reviews accurate, I think that's good enough.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Never thought about this before now, good info. Morningside Park in Knoxville is going through a complete Stan McDaniel overhaul. Still be 18, still in the same park (although more of the park will be used), but completely different holes. I've only seen a couple of them since the baskets aren't in yet but apparently it makes the old layout look pretty bad!

When will the Stan's Mornside makeover be complete? I may be up that way later this spring, and I'd love to see Stan's 'evil' footprint. It'll make me feel like I'm still home.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Stumpy Creek went from 9 holes to 18, Stan &I kept 8 of the original holes and added 11 totally new holes but no RIP. It was a few years back though and I think it would have been RIP'd now.

I asked Tim about this about 2 years ago, and he said that the 9-hole Stumpy layout should have been RIP'ed.

IMO, you need to RIP an old layout for reviews and ratings. In Stumpy's case, hole numbers were changed (old #2 became #5, old #7 became #16, etc), so some of the reviewer info is inaccurate.

 

[scarpfish]

IMO, you need to RIP an old layout for reviews and ratings. In Stumpy's case, hole numbers were changed (old #2 became #5, old #7 became #16, etc), so some of the reviewer info is inaccurate.

Another thing to consider along those lines are the scorebook stats, while they're kind of messed up already (they don't take different pins into account and a lot of folks enter their rounds on the wrong configurations), not RIP'ing the old layout will really mess them up, even if some of the old holes are still intact but have a new number.

 

[1978]

I asked Tim about this about 2 years ago, and he said that the 9-hole Stumpy layout should have been RIP'ed.

IMO, you need to RIP an old layout for reviews and ratings. In Stumpy's case, hole numbers were changed (old #2 became #5, old #7 became #16, etc), so some of the reviewer info is inaccurate.

Tim,
Can you archive the old reviews from before the course was updated to 18? Stumpy Creek? Only 6 original holes remain, and they are all re-numbered.

 

[DiscJunkie]

Northeast Creek Park in Jacksonville, NC got a total re-design and everything was handled exactly correctly (grammar?). The old info was RIPed and the new info was posted before I could get up there.
Very nice.

 

[timg]

To answer a few question, regarding Stumpy Creek, it's too late. Too much has been changed on there to RIP anything at this point. Stuff like that is why I changed it so only I can changed the # of holes on a course. I'll usually get an email like "hey, this is 18 holes now" and then I have to ask a bunch of questions.

Regarding courses that are constantly in flux... uh... I don't know. Stop changing them If it's just progressive changes I wouldn't RIP the course as reviews and scores will kind of go along with the constantly changing course.

scarpfish had a point and it's the other main reason why I RIP courses that have major redesigns (besides the reviews). If a course has a few holes shoehorned in between say hole 13 and 14 (13A and 13B or something) I'll just update the course to 20 holes and put those 2 holes at the end since it's not a major change and it will preserve scorebook order.

 

[1978]

Not RIP, is there a way to archive old reviews that under your new and improved system would only be contained in the RIP course. Especially for courses with a number of older reviews.

I guess it is the DGCR's responsibility to go back and update their reviews once a course has been totally re-designed, but some may never make it back to the course.

Stumpy Creek - I went back and looked, only 2 reviews were un-changed from the original review. I'm sure they bring down the average, but I guess in time they will wash out.

 

[timg]

I'm not sure what you mean, when I RIP a course everything on that page is done and a whole new page is created. There is no relation to the old page in the sense that they share reviews or anything like that. If you're asking can I make some review "not count" for an existing page, no I can't.