Hey newbie reviewers, it's not the course, its you!

[Doofenshmirtz]

Can a user review a course without leaving a rating?

The rating and review serve different purposes. There's value in a review that says "this was the wrong course for my skill level," though that's going to be an experience that's hard to rate/rank (in a way that is useful to others). People seem really concerned about the numerical rating (and preserving the rating's validity). The ranking captures something very different than the description of one's experience. And it's not like we don't experience courses subjectively and in different scenarios (ex., wind v no wind), so it's folly to imagine we are all working from and responding to the same rubric.

Can't agree with your reasoning, but it would be nice to be able to review a course without rating it for other reasons. I know that I am going to be biased, for good or ill, about local courses, but I know them better than most. I would love to be able to write a review without having to rate it. Even a designer's review would be nice to read knowing that most people who put that much work into the course won't be able to assign a rating without some pride going into the number of discs assigned.

 

[davetherocketguy]

Why do folks want to reinvent the wheel here? The system timg has in place is just fine. Switch to another rating system and (no matter how its done) and people will whine about that.

 

[BrotherDave]

Agreed, the opinions of what courses need is wildly inconsistent.

I judge courses based on the quality of a course compared to what they had to work with.

Same because context is important. As a caveat, I will say that it can be hard to impossible to know what they had to work with in some cases.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm support people reviewing courses by whichever standards make most sense to them, and letting the results average out.

Though as a potential user of reviews, I'd prefer that they not be based on what the designer had to work with---other than, perhaps, praise or criticism in the "comments" section. It's not Course Designers Review. Whether the designer did a brilliant job with terrible property, raising it to mediocre, or botched the job on a great property and missed the opportunity for a great course, as a player deciding whether to play I'm more interested in how good or bad the result is.

Besides, BrotherDave says, sometimes you just don't know what they had to work with----or what constraints they were under.

 

[Stardoggy]

I'd have to agree with David.

I have zero interest in what kind of job a designer did with available land. All I care about is the quality of the finished product. While I may say something like "it's too bad the adjacent swatch of woods wasn't utilized", it's not going to affect my rating even a little bit.

 

[thrembo]

It might help if people read the rules and tips sections of the "review the course page" before they start reviewing courses.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

Why do folks want to reinvent the wheel here? The system timg has in place is just fine. Switch to another rating system and (no matter how its done) and people will whine about that.

It's not a reinvention of anything. To stick with your metaphor, some people think that the wheel has flat spots and would like to "fix" them.

While it's true that, no matter the system, there will be people with criticisms of it, some people just want to whine about any criticisms of the existing wheel.

 

[GoobyPls]

I'll weigh in here as a noob reviewer.

I've only played eight or nine courses. But I have read lots of others' reviews of courses I have played, which gives me a pretty good idea of what potential readers are looking for. I myself use them frequently when planning travel, as I generally won't have time to play every course in the area (Atlanta being a recent example for me).

I also try not to let my lack of skill influence the rating too much. In fact, if a course is relatively easy for me, chances are that experienced throwers are going to find it boring, and will mention that in the "cons" section. By the same token, I didn't find Buck Creek DGC (an extremely wooded/technical course in Springfield OH) fun at all as a beginner, but I didn't leave a poor rating because of it.

Ultimately, the "good" and "bad" reviews average out anyway with enough reviews. It's better to have more of them that fewer, right?

 

[josephreese]

Only reviews that fit criteria important to me should be considered. Timg, contact me offline and we can hammer this out pronto.

 

[Shamis]

I think it's a helpful review, or at least contains useful information if I'm considering playing that course instead of another. The problem, if you call it that, is that the review probably got 1 or 2 discs less than it deserved for its rating.

I think the review was for something like 1.5 stars on a course with an average review just under 4.

I always wanted to play the hardest courses when I was a beginner. I did terribly, but I always appreciated a good course even if I couldn't play it well.

If for some reason this course had multiple fairways that had no discernible line through the trees at all, then maybe that would be helpful, but just saying trees made it too hard doesn't really cut it.

 

[armiller]

I think the review was for something like 1.5 stars on a course with an average review just under 4.

I always wanted to play the hardest courses when I was a beginner. I did terribly, but I always appreciated a good course even if I couldn't play it well.

If for some reason this course had multiple fairways that had no discernible line through the trees at all, then maybe that would be helpful, but just saying trees made it too hard doesn't really cut it.

Fair enough. I still find it useful because that review actually made me more interested in the course. We're all looking for different things in a course, but the things that reviewer found negative would be attractive to most of us. I guess a review like that doesn't add much, given that there are already better reviews online, but I don't think the foundations of the universe (or DGCR) are shaking cuz of this type of review.

 

[davetherocketguy]

I'm support people reviewing courses by whichever standards make most sense to them, and letting the results average out.

Could not agree with this comment more. What elements are important to one subset of dg'ers may not be important to any other subset. I think it is far more important to let the reviewers speak their mind rather than conform to whatever standards we here deem necessary.

Though as a potential user of reviews, I'd prefer that they not be based on what the designer had to work with---other than, perhaps, praise or criticism in the "comments" section. It's not Course Designers Review. Whether the designer did a brilliant job with terrible property, raising it to mediocre, or botched the job on a great property and missed the opportunity for a great course, as a player deciding whether to play I'm more interested in how good or bad the result is.

Besides, BrotherDave says, sometimes you just don't know what they had to work with----or what constraints they were under.

I think of this very thing often. In my reviews I feel that I often try to see it from the designers point of view and give them a little bit benefit in that respect but it's hard to know for sure. I guess I just don't want to seem uncompassionate in my criticisms lol. Plus it doesn't really affect my rating, like you say I base my score on the final result.

 

[The Shide]

Can a user review a course without leaving a rating?

The rating and review serve different purposes. There's value in a review that says "this was the wrong course for my skill level," though that's going to be an experience that's hard to rate/rank (in a way that is useful to others). People seem really concerned about the numerical rating (and preserving the rating's validity). The ranking captures something very different than the description of one's experience. And it's not like we don't experience courses subjectively and in different scenarios (ex., wind v no wind), so it's folly to imagine we are all working from and responding to the same rubric.

On DG Scene, you can grade/review without writing a single word. Just putting a letter grade without explaining why is limp, for lack of a better word. If you are going to rate a course, you should give some narrative of some sort. I've only written two reviews here, stopped when I received an email from someone blasting what I had written, as a newb. Admittedly I did a poor excuse for a review. I had left a disc at the course & wanted to relay that message, but did not realize I did not have to write a review to do so. Long story, short, I don't write reviews here anymore, however I will do grades on the Scene with a brief telling of my experience at the course.

 

[DavidSauls]

Could not agree with this comment more. What elements are important to one subset of dg'ers may not be important to any other subset. I think it is far more important to let the reviewers speak their mind rather than conform to whatever standards we here deem necessary.

"Averaging all reviews" --- excluding the ones that are so bad Tim deletes them --- goes beyond just giving everyone a voice.

If 10% of reviewers think benches and trash cans are very important, then a course's overall rating will be affected proportionately---by 10%.

I don't know if a collection of reviewers fairly represents the broader DGCR membership, or disc golf population, but I think letting in all those viewpoints into the average serves the purpose of generating a rating useful to the spectrum of players.

Individual users can filter what we read, in our own mind, to decide which reviews to value, and thus which courses to play.

 

[Steve West]

It's not a reinvention of anything. To stick with your metaphor, some people think that the wheel has flat spots and would like to "fix" them...

That usually means they're trying to roll it sideways.

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

That usually means they're trying to roll it sideways.

Most know the difference. Some don't.

 

[KniceZ]

Observations:
I tend not to review because when I read the existing reviews most everything that could be said has already posted in the first 10-15 reviews. Why should I spent time rewriting the same stuff. Do we really need 200+1 reviews of Flip City. And what else needs to said about Hawk Hallow and it only has 20 reviews.

However Sometimes I would like to leave a rating if there's a couple outliers that are skewing the average from what I think it should be. My single review isn't going to shift Flip City but it might help when there's only 10-15 reviews.

Because of this thread I've spent a little time looking at the review filtering. Great feature!!!! Is there any way to get these filters added to the course directory search.

 

[The Valkyrie Kid]

Maybe give the noob reviewers a break. No doubt, we've all read some pretty poor reviews written by noobs but I believe as long as their rating is somewhere close to course average, they're acceptable. The bigger issue, IMO, is when a noob or anyone else rates a course 2-3 stars above or below it's average rating because of some personal bias or other factor. I've read some "War and Peace" reviews written by experienced reviewers that bore me to tears.

I try to take that into consideration when rating a course, especially one where I didn't enjoy the experience. For me, as a 65 year total recreational player, this usually happens when the course is way beyond my playing abilities. But my enjoyment factor has also been affected by horrible weather conditions (Playing a course in a thunder storm), severe winds, homeless encampments, clouds of biting insects, poorly marked courses and fatigue/boredom (playing my 7th course of the day or 50th in a week). You have to be able to recognize these factors and rate the course fairly.

 

[GoldeyeGolf]

I've played all the courses in the Chicago area that Valkyrie Kid has reviewed, and I think they are some of the most spot on reviews I've read. So, if you're looking for a good, honest review, check out the VK's work first, would be my advise. There's a good chance he's been there.

 

[armiller]

I don't even remember the guy's name, but I drove through Pennsacola and really appreciated his reviews of the three courses at Blue Angel Park. Thanks again!

In short, most established courses are going to have some good reviews (along with bad ones), and it's pretty easy to find what you want unless there's a review shortage. Sorry if some pathetic newbie's review is the reason your fave course didn't make the front page of DGCR.