• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

How can a review of a course be so far off and still be allowed

The review was removed because you probably said you didn't finish the course (which is a requirement).


Can you clarify this for me......In the ground rules before writing a review it says to not rate the course unless you have played a majority of the holes. Which is the case?....

I bring this up because I had this discussion in regards to Austin Ridge Bible Church. There is a review that states they walked of the course at hole #12 which would account for the majority.

Not trying to stir the pot just genuinely curios. Thanks.
 
Docsmock, I know exactly how you feel. Below is the latest review of Idlewild, which makes no sense to me. She(I think its a girl) likes it but doesn't like it. I can live with the 3.5 rating but give us something that we can improve on or fix or keep it in the fairway. Her rating only dropped it down .1 of a point but it takes about 10, 5 disc rating to move it back to 4.79. Just saying.

I go out of my way to play 3.5 courses, often they're ones that have something great to offer that doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone. I personally really like Idlewild, it got a 5 from me, but just because it has a lot of 5s doesn't mean that you can't give it a 3.5 and justify it. If I were you, I'd be happy with a spot in the top ten and an overwhelmingly positive set of reviews (you're mad about a rating that is described as "very good".
 
.
Can you clarify this for me......In the ground rules before writing a review it says to not rate the course unless you have played a majority of the holes. Which is the case?....

I bring this up because I had this discussion in regards to Austin Ridge Bible Church. There is a review that states they walked of the course at hole #12 which would account for the majority.
.
Not trying to stir the pot just genuinely curios. Thanks.

At the time the rule was all the holes. I've relaxed it a bit since then to a majority. In your example I'd consider 2/3rds to be a majority.
 
Let everything in, let everything count. Any attempt to meddle with it will reduce the accuracy and amount of information (I suspect there is a better statistic to use than Average to assign a single number, but if there is, it wouldn't be much better.)

Only including the middle 90% (say) of reviews in the displayed average is still counting the other 10% of high and low reviews - those reviews help determine where the middle lies. So, every review of 1/5 will still lower the rating of a course, just never in such a way that a 5/5 (or other single very high review) would not cancel it out (and vice versa).

This increases accuracy by not allowing outlier positions to have more power to move the rating than consensus opinions.

And of course, those reviews would still be displayed, so the information is not lost.
 
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it."
-GEORGE BERNARD SHAW-
 
I apologize in advance for the long rant. Unfortunately that is my style and this topic is somewhat near to an irritant of mine.

I think it is perfectly fine for everyone to review a course differently. If my girlfriend was reviewing here she would give short little Alex Clark (Mckinney, Tx) a 4.5 because it is pretty and the holes are relatively easy. She hates Turner (Grand Prairie, Tx) because of the "stupid" length. With her 180 ft drives the course just isn't any fun to her. She has been playing just as long as me, but is not ever going to bomb drives. Because I can throw 450 but not accurately I tend to like courses I can bomb. So I like Turner a 4.0 or 4.5.....but my GF gives it a 1.5. Whose rating is more "legit"? The one that you identify with.

Point is, most of the people here are avid discgolfers and most are pretty good. But why should a person who isn't as skillful like/enjoy a tough course like Turner or for that matter Blueberry Hill? Why SHOULD she give a high rating just because of things like "had to use all the discs in your bag" or " technical course with great elevations". She hates all that and carries 6 discs so those aspects, often prized by people here are not important to her. Basically I am saying this site is like a bunch of snobby film critics. Sorry but some people don't like that artsy, well acted movie and want a retarded movie like Transformers. Sure we look down on them, but that doesn't make their opinion worth any less.

My GF would likely hate every single course in the US over a 4 rating due to its length and she should. It is no fun throwing 7 times when everyone is parked in 2 on a 550 ft hole. Would you suggest she not write reviews? Stop playing? No. The solution is to only judge course reviews by people that like courses you like. Just like movie critics. There are critics I hate and critics I love. I choose which to follow. That's how this should be. Right now there is a feature to only look at reviews from the top reviewers. I think that would pretty much cover most of the people here that get butthurt by the reviews. That feature is great. Just look at those reviews, please, if you have an issue with well written reviews. Erasing reviews you do not like smacks of Nazi Germany IMHO.

A true solution might be the ability sort reviews based on status: Occasional/ Beginner, Experienced, Pro. Big arm/small arm. Or even backhand/right handed vs lefties/flickers. Maybe even a separate rating for all those aspects? Maybe even a rating on aesthetic beauty of the course, which is very very important to many people. Maybe that's too many ratings but you should be really able to sort reviews based on max drive length. I think this could cover most of the differnces between beginners and pros and would take the guesswork on how people classify themselves as players. It also should be easy to implement from a software standpoint. Reviewers could update their status and old reviews would self populate. People under 250 ft drives flat out should be liking, and playing different courses than experts. It is extremely frustrating to watch budding beginner players get discouraged by the antics of experienced players. Whether it is reviews that don't fit them to Rec divisions in PDGA where everyone on their card throws 400+ ft and shoots under par to the obnoxiously rude pro who is angered by casuals who have no real reason to understand course etiquette anymore than you understand dinner etiquette in Indonesia. Disc Golf as a sport in general often does a terrible job turning the occasional player or junior player into a regular player. For the price and accessibility of DG particularly here in DFW with its million courses, I cannot believe there are so few junior and woman players playing. Why not let your juniors play free in tourneys with sign up of dad or mom? Noone wants to pay $15-$25 for their kid to play in a division with one other kid at the most for 1 day when a soccer league is like $50 for the season. Leave the trophy and players packs at home and let the kids play for free. I don't care if you have to set up a temp course. Let's do the same for players girlfriends while we are at it. Make woman's novice be $5 with entry of your partner and make it possible for me to play more tourneys as my lady can go with me and have fun without having to pay $25 for the pleasure of getting beaten by 40 strokes by some half male chromosomes Advanced monster. And the TD are always like, the novice/rec woman/youth just aren't signing up....its because of the prices and beatdown effect. I promise you let them play for free or $5 they will show up and show up with more serious players.

Seems like easy steps to get more people involved and I think it starts without being so snobby about what courses are "good" or not. Believe me, you will get more tough courses to play by getting more noobs to play....in the long run....as the number of regular players increase, so will the number of courses that YOU want to play....just know my girlfriend's favorite courses need respect too for what they are.
 
Last edited:
^^ I think she should look at the course as a whole not how she plays the course. Are there restrooms, teepads, quality signage, ect, these should be the metric for a course with how you play a course accounting for less than half the review score.

Like I said in another post I smashed on sunset park because it was a long pitch and putt course but the real reason for my rating was the lack of variety in holes and swarms of pedestrian/sports traffic occupying a good number of the holes. My .02
 
Last edited:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion......just the way it is.....somebody ranked Brushy Creek (a 9 hole course) higher than the new $300,000 18 hole championship course in Austin.


I agree that it is a bummer but some folks just got beef.

For accuracy, Brushy Creek is 18 holes. Any reviews that state otherwise belong to be in this thread.
 
^^ I think she should look at the course as a whole not how she plays the course. Are there restrooms, teepads, quality signage, ect, these should be the metric for a course with how you play a course accounting for less than half the review score.

Like I said in another post I smashed on sunset park because it was a long pitch and putt course but the real reason for my rating was the lack of variety in holes and swarms of pedestrian/sports traffic occupying a good number of the holes. My .02

Imo restrooms, teepads, and signs are a very small part of a course. Teepads are important if the ground is uneven. Signs are import if the flow is hard to follow or baskets are hard to see/find.

Personally, I put almost all of my weight on "fun factor" which encompasses a wide variety of things. Obviously, a review will include lots of details, but a rating is inherently subjective and how much you enjoyed playing the course is a very important part of that.

If she doesn't think a course is any fun and she says, "I hated this course because I only throw 180 and it's boring for me." There isn't anything wrong with that.
 
The occasional nonsensical ding review doesn't hurt the usefulness of this site. It's easy to scan through the reviews and recognize one that doesn't fit.

It's more of a problem, imo, to have courses like this one with homies trying to make their course look great by creating aliases and writing multiple reviews (in between times running bicyclists off the road in their van).

Note the # of reviews each of those that loved the course have written.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=5356&mode=rev#40707
 
Only including the middle 90% (say) of reviews in the displayed average is still counting the other 10% of high and low reviews - those reviews help determine where the middle lies. So, every review of 1/5 will still lower the rating of a course, just never in such a way that a 5/5 (or other single very high review) would not cancel it out (and vice versa).

This increases accuracy by not allowing outlier positions to have more power to move the rating than consensus opinions.

And of course, those reviews would still be displayed, so the information is not lost.

That would work; I just don't think it is worth it to improve the single figure that is supposed to represent "This Course's Typical Rating". Everyone understands Average, so I wouldn't complicate it.

Your phrase "Consensus Opinion" is where I think an improvement might be made. I'd like to see a measure of just how much consensus there is. It would require showing one (or perhaps two) more numbers.

For example, you might show where the middle two-thirds falls: Top o the Hill would show that two-thirds of the ratings are between 3 and 4 (inclusive) – with or without that one outlier.

(Because of the generally small number of revues, the middle 90% is too big a slice – it would usually be all of them, or maybe all but one.)

There are any number of single-figure measures of how much the ratings agree with each other. You could use the % of reviews that are within X discs of the average, with X being 0.5 or 1 probably. Even plain old Standard Deviation could work.
 
SD isn't well understood by the general public, though it would be a pretty interesting thing to have available. I really like the idea of a % of reviews within .5 either way of the average.
 
How can a review of a course be so far off and still allowed you ask?

Because reviews are opinions. There is no right or wrong rating for a course and I find it pathetic that people are sending PMs around to "bad reviewers" trying to get them to change it. Who even cares about how highly your course is rated on the internet ffs. People need to spend more time enjoying the course instead of worrying what other people think about it methinks.
 
Imo restrooms, teepads, and signs are a very small part of a course. Teepads are important if the ground is uneven. Signs are import if the flow is hard to follow or baskets are hard to see/find.

Personally, I put almost all of my weight on "fun factor" which encompasses a wide variety of things. Obviously, a review will include lots of details, but a rating is inherently subjective and how much you enjoyed playing the course is a very important part of that.

If she doesn't think a course is any fun and she says, "I hated this course because I only throw 180 and it's boring for me." There isn't anything wrong with that.

I could not disagree with this more. A course should ne reviewed on its merits. Not based on the skill level of the reviewer. Its not the courses fault if you have a poor round.
 
The occasional nonsensical ding review doesn't hurt the usefulness of this site. It's easy to scan through the reviews and recognize one that doesn't fit.

It's more of a problem, imo, to have courses like this one with homies trying to make their course look great by creating aliases and writing multiple reviews (in between times running bicyclists off the road in their van).

Note the # of reviews each of those that loved the course have written.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=5356&mode=rev#40707

I saw these ones too. I keept thinking that someone would link them here. One of them looks like the guys wife wrote it, and it looked like she didn't even play disc golf.
 
I will investigate that group of reviews this weekend if I can.
 
Imo restrooms, teepads, and signs are a very small part of a course. Teepads are important if the ground is uneven. Signs are import if the flow is hard to follow or baskets are hard to see/find.

Personally, I put almost all of my weight on "fun factor" which encompasses a wide variety of things. Obviously, a review will include lots of details, but a rating is inherently subjective and how much you enjoyed playing the course is a very important part of that.

If she doesn't think a course is any fun and she says, "I hated this course because I only throw 180 and it's boring for me." There isn't anything wrong with that.

Sure, just some quick examples. ^^

Fun is a big deal and I am guilty of my biased reviews but fun really should be no more than about half your score IMO. I want to know what is there, parking, water, lots of traffic, a nosy park ranger on the look for those of us looking for the "green disc" and so on. If a course is really left hand friendly and your missing a ton of shots because your right handed, well then that review will probably say, this is how crappy things were and just might miss highlighting the nicer points.

I guess what I really mean is that if you can only drive 180' please say so in your review and please don't say everything sucked due to a less than stellar time playing. We have the other thoughts section for that.
 

Latest posts

Top