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

[BENFTS]

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.

A more direct approach to my point as well, but yes this ^

 

[Giv'r]

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.

I totally disagree. Fun should be more like 90% of the score and the amenities the other 10%. Besides, the things you list are all things that make a course less fun. Although I'm not too sure what you mean by "water", water to throw over or water to drink? Either way just deal with it.

 

[humchris85]

I will investigate that group of reviews this weekend if I can.

^ This is why we love you timg.:thmbup:

 

[tarel]

considering that reviewer joined the site same day he made the review sounds like the pay to play was not worth it and his description felt warranted, or someone at that course pissed him off either way its the internet and he can review what he wants. Does anything deserve a 1? Probably not. if you have a teepad and a basket your already at a 2. If your course is not maintained and over grown and your paying for nothing done than it does leave a salty taste in your mouth.

I work on a few courses in my free time you get positive and negative feedback. I am also redesigning a local course with someone for the township so do not take it personally unless you know this guy take it up with him.

 

[mashnut]

Does anything deserve a 1? Probably not. if you have a teepad and a basket your already at a 2.

Please reconsider this. Too many courses end up with inflated meaningless ratings because people aren't willing to use the full scale. If everything with a tee and a basket was a 2 (almost average!), then suddenly we have a 7 point scale instead of 11. That makes it a lot harder to distinguish between real 2-3 rated courses (decent and worth playing) and 0-1.5 rated courses (not worth going out of the way for).

 

[scarpfish]

Does anything deserve a 1? Probably not.

Yes. And worse than a 1.

if you have a teepad and a basket your already at a 2.

Doubtful. Some examples why.

 

[cmchavis]

The OP still hasn't addressed that this seems to be his course.

The direction of this thread probably would have taken a completely different direction if he had come on here and stated that:

"Someone gave my course a bad review and I want it removed. I cannot believe you would allow it in the first place."

 

[tarel]

Those are some cool pics scarpfish where are they from I would love to play stupid courses like that. I meant more that If a course had actual rubber/concrete pads and a basket than your starting at a 2 and goes from there up or down. At least for me. Even in the worst situation A drive or long approach and then a putt is better than nothing. Im still laughing at hole #6 man that would be cool to play off the wall.

 

[cmchavis]

The direction of this thread probably would have taken a completely different direction if he had come on here and stated that:

No, apparently, I hadn't read what I had written - edit time limits, grrr.

 

[Steve West]

Im still laughing at hole #6 man that would be cool to play off the wall.

One person posted a pick of what they think is a horrible target placement, another person thinks it "would be cool to play".

I think that kind of sums it all up.

There is no single "correct" answer to what a rating should be based on.

 

[jtencer]

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.

Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean by fun. I'm not docking a course if I shoot a bad round. That's on me. I can tell when I'm missing putts or I'm not hitting lines. Now if the design makes it uninteresting by being too hard for me (baskets consistently 70ft past my drive or holes with no discernible path to the basket) it isn't just on me to just get better at golf. It's on the course to provide shorter tees for players that need them. If a course only has pro tees, that's a con for the vast majority of players in our sport and it should be reflected as such.

Let me put it this way: Would you dock a course points if it didn't have any holes over 250 ft? What if they were varied and interesting? If you think it's too easy, you're probably going to think less of the course because it isn't as much fun.

Someone else can come along that can only throw 250 and think it's the toughest most interesting course they've ever played and have a blast. Both opinions are valid and both should be recorded.

Likewise, if 2 players play a longer more open course with a lot of 400-500 ft holes, the player who can reach the green in 1 is going to have a lot more fun than the player that's shooting ho-hum 100ft up shots all round. The fact that the course is boring if you drive 325 should be recorded and reflected in the rating.

In my opinion, 5 disc course should be all things to all players. It shouldn't just be really hard. It should be interesting for everyone (by having multiple tees most likely). That means having a spectrum of difficulty while still being good holes. If someone plays a course and has an awful time because it's way too hard for them, that information is really important to other people of similar skill levels.

 

[jtencer]

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.

That's all reasonable. At this point we're basically disagreeing on percentages. The big thing is that the review is well written and gives reasons for the score. I don't think we should assume that just because someone isn't very good at disc golf that they're irrational or not very good at writing. Those things aren't correlated at all.

It also rubs me the wrong way when someone focuses too much on amenities. I'm there to play disc golf not take a piss so my rating will primarily reflect what I thought of the golf. Of course, that's just my opinion and all reviews are totally valid. I would just hate it if focusing so much on the 'extras' became the norm because that would make the rating system largely useless to me.

 

[magictenor1]

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.

Nice post. reviews are opinions and everyone is entitled to theirs. as long as you explain why you don't like a course i am good with it.

 

[magictenor1]

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.

It's merits according to who? that's the entire point. what I look for in a course is not what you look for or what the guys girlfriend looks for. tell what you like and don't like about a particular course and then the reader of the review can makeup their own mind if it's their type of course based on that information.

 

[docsmock]

Any response to this docsmock?

I do have a response to you if you so need it 17 years experience. Helped Houck on Searight in Austin Tx. I suppose you know him, well maybe heard of him. Yes it is my course and I take everything with a grain of salt.But this person doesn't have any salt. Pro players come here which in my opinion are the pickiest and they only compliment me on the left,right short ,long mix's of the layout. I just finished signing a contract with a mountain resort to design a course for them.I am just saying that review is unsat, or very false and should be looked into. New Hampshire is just now growing as a disc golf state. I am also the NH State Rep for NEFA so I spend alot of my time introducing DG to large amounts of people fund raisers,Disc golf demos on the state Capitals lawn,over 7,00 people got introduced that day and mainly schools. I have 3 schools that come to my course for field trips. A college that pays for there students green fees so they play for free. I bet this is the only thing this disc golfer has ever done for the sport. See why I am so impressed with his review.This is all,I know I have a good technical,open on some holes for you to throw the bomb drives, actually a little of everything except water. My name is Marty Vaughn so every one doesn't have to guess who docsmock is Just a disc golfer with alot of heart. Rock n Roll and keep on smiling for that is key

 

[Hampstead]

It's obvious from your post that you have been working hard to spread the word of disc golf.
That is commendable.
It's unfortunate that somebody wrote a review of your course that you don't like.
It's also unfortunate that you feel the need to censor that person's opinion because you disagree with it.
Rock n Roll and keep on smiling indeed.

 

[slicemaster]

For accuracy, Brushy Creek is 18 holes. Any reviews that state otherwise belong to be in this thread.

And for more accuracy....just because this site calls the course "Brushy Creek MUD DGC" doesn't mean that anyone else in this town does. Everyone I have ever played with or talked to calls it Cat Hollow.

Brushy Creek Sports Complex is a nine hole course that was rated above Roy. G recently by a reviewer. That is what I was referring to.

 

[b-mart]

This goes both ways. The opposite happened on a travesty of a course that I played in Marysville, WA. All of us who have reviewed it have made the same valid points and given similar reviews, and then someone gives it a 3.5 and gives each of the rest of us an "unhelpful" vote. It doesn't matter. Most, if not all, of my "unhelpful" votes have probably been because somebody was mad that I didn't absolutely adore their home course. My ratio is good enough and I know that my reviews are good enough that I could care less.

The course in question here is Strawberry Fields in Marysville, WA, and if you go check out the reviews you'll quickly see that that one person's opinion is balanced out by only five other reviewers who are objective, including three of the best reviewers in WA and a very well traveled reviewer (cefire). Reviews that are so far off the mean are annoying, sure, but in the end they aren't going to be the one paid attention to by someone considering a course.

It's like Yelp. You're going to get morons. My business has several very negative reviews on Yelp, yet I have new clients showing up every week saying they chose us because we have such great reviews online. You just have to learn to sift through the crap.

 

[Dave242]

I always go to the outliers first when trying to quickly sum up a course. In most cases those reviews do the best at capturing the best/worst of the course. I do not have the patience to read through tons of words. Along that line, I like bullet points and when people make it easy in their reviews to understand how they are rationalizing their rating.

If there is an additional penalty above and beyond the thumbs and the whole personal fulfillment of getting TR medals, it will further encourage the group think of this site.

 

[jtencer]

Brushy Creek Sports Complex is a nine hole course that was rated above Roy. G recently by a reviewer. That is what I was referring to.

Why is that even worth mentioning. Brushy Creek Sports Park is a great course and is excellent in the summer providing plenty of shade. From the looks of things it's also tighter than Roy G. Also it has some interesting water hazards that as I understand it Roy G does not.

Are you of the opinion that all 9 hole courses should be rated lower than all 18 hole courses? I haven't played Roy G yet, but from the looks of things whoever this was didn't trash the course, he just liked a different one better. Why is that even worth mentioning in a thread like this? Could it possibly be to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to censor anyone's opinions since obviously some people *cough* would censor even minor disagreements?