Movement in top 10

[mashnut]

Many players who read reviews are only going to play a course once. If you're a local, you don't need to read reviews to know what the course is like. I think it's valuable to get the local perspective on how the course plays in ideal conditions, but it's also valuable to get the perspective from a fresh set of eyes that will notice things that simply don't matter to people who play there every day (signage, navigation, figuring out which basket to throw to etc.).

 

[JoeBob21]

Blueberry Hill is now back in the top ten after that review was removed.

 

[JoeBob21]

Many players who read reviews are only going to play a course once. If you're a local, you don't need to read reviews to know what the course is like. I think it's valuable to get the local perspective on how the course plays in ideal conditions, but it's also valuable to get the perspective from a fresh set of eyes that will notice things that simply don't matter to people who play there every day (signage, navigation, figuring out which basket to throw to etc.).

very true. Having a review is fine but I dont think that the rating should suffer, maybe there should be an option of writing a review with out having to submit a rating.

 

[mashnut]

very true. Having a review is fine but I dont think that the rating should suffer, maybe there should be an option of writing a review with out having to submit a rating.

Again, I disagree. You're saying that the rating should mostly be based on how locals see the course, taking away ratings from some of the traveling players who have a wide experience and can compare the course to those in other areas.

 

[mndiscg]

Again, I disagree. You're saying that the rating should mostly be based on how locals see the course, taking away ratings from some of the traveling players who have a wide experience and can compare the course to those in other areas.

Agree. Having more local ratings would only increase the level of homerisms.

 

[JoeBob21]

Again, I disagree. You're saying that the rating should mostly be based on how locals see the course, taking away ratings from some of the traveling players who have a wide experience and can compare the course to those in other areas.

I am not saying that at all... I never said anything about ratings should be based off of locals:doh:. I said its hard/impossible to give a fair rating from one experience, unless you are thinking of how the course would play if its in optimal condition. If the best course in the world hands down (hypothetical) gets flooded for a week because of a freak storm and one person decides to play it then, and give a bad rating, is it still not the best course in the world? Ratings of a course shouldnt be determined by one experience, especially if it is during that freak period of time. Ill say it again, IMO you should be able to submit a review about what you think is currently wrong on the course (mowed grass, mud, puddles, mosquitoes etc.)Possibly the course conditions can include these such reviews. You can submit a rating and a review, but i think it should be an option to just do a review. So the ratings dont get effected by one bad experience.

 

[humchris85]

I am not saying that at all... I never said anything about ratings should be based off of locals:doh:. I said its hard/impossible to give a fair rating from one experience, unless you are thinking of how the course would play if its in optimal condition. If the best course in the world hands down (hypothetical) gets flooded for a week because of a freak storm and one person decides to play it then, and give a bad rating, is it still not the best course in the world? Ratings of a course shouldnt be determined by one experience, especially if it is during that freak period of time. Ill say it again, IMO you should be able to submit a review about what you think is currently wrong on the course (mowed grass, mud, puddles, mosquitoes etc.)Possibly the course conditions can include these such reviews. You can submit a rating and a review, but i think it should be an option to just do a review. So the ratings dont get effected by one bad experience.

This is why this site has an update course conditions option. Put up the course conditions, not a review.

 

[tbird888]

I am not saying that at all... I never said anything about ratings should be based off of locals:doh:. I said its hard/impossible to give a fair rating from one experience, unless you are thinking of how the course would play if its in optimal condition. If the best course in the world hands down (hypothetical) gets flooded for a week because of a freak storm and one person decides to play it then, and give a bad rating, is it still not the best course in the world? Ratings of a course shouldnt be determined by one experience, especially if it is during that freak period of time. Ill say it again, IMO you should be able to submit a review about what you think is currently wrong on the course (mowed grass, mud, puddles, mosquitoes etc.)Possibly the course conditions can include these such reviews. You can submit a rating and a review, but i think it should be an option to just do a review. So the ratings dont get effected by one bad experience.

If people were required to review a course after a set number of times playing it, there'd be 100 reviews to read. The review has a field for how many times the course has been played by the reviewer. If you don't want to read the one and dones, skip the review. Disgruntled reviews are few and far between.

 

[DavidSauls]

Certainly, if I were traveling to some new location and wanted an idea whether to play the course, I'd rather ask someone with widespread experience who'd played it once, than someone with limited experience who'd played it a lot of times.

I look at the reviews as an extension of this---primarily advice for people who haven't played a course, a much-improved version of the old method of just asking around (or taking your chances).

People get hung up on the ratings, particularly the "Top 10". If the site were more about determining a Top 10 than creating a reference for choosing courses to play, it could just dispense with the reviews.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Certainly, if I were traveling to some new location and wanted an idea whether to play the course, I'd rather ask someone with widespread experience who'd played it once, than someone with limited experience who'd played it a lot of times.

I look at the reviews as an extension of this---primarily advice for people who haven't played a course, a much-improved version of the old method of just asking around (or taking your chances).

People get hung up on the ratings, particularly the "Top 10". If the site were more about determining a Top 10 than creating a reference for choosing courses to play, it could just dispense with the reviews.

I've always liked the idea of letting people rate courses without giving reviews, a la Urbanspoon. You'd probably get a better, truer rating with more reviews - the homeboy bias would cancel out the angry, drive-byes. And for those who want to write a review, you'd probably have to read through less crappy ones to get to the well-written, in-depth ones that are most helpful.

 

[apparition]

Is there a way to view the top courses as reviewed only by Trusted Reviewers? When scouting courses, the first thing I do is check that "Only Trusted Reviewers" box

 

[Jukeshoe]

It'd be infinitely helpful to have a filter that weeds out, say, anything with more than 10 :thmbdown:s or a certain ratio of downs-to-ups when looking at a course's review page.

It'd work just like the Trusted Reviewers Only filter but would (hopefully) help separate all the garbage two-line reviews (which usually get :thmbdown:-bombed anyway) from the more useful (but perhaps not TR-generated) ones.

Timg? It'd be sha-weeet!

 

[DavidSauls]

I've always liked the idea of letting people rate courses without giving reviews, a la Urbanspoon. You'd probably get a better, truer rating with more reviews - the homeboy bias would cancel out the angry, drive-byes. And for those who want to write a review, you'd probably have to read through less crappy ones to get to the well-written, in-depth ones that are most helpful.

I have mixed feelings about that. Sometimes I'd like to rate a course---I have a firm grasp of what rating I'd give it---but I'm hard pressed to think of what to say that hasn't already been said a dozen times. So I don't review it at all.

On the other hand, tying ratings to reviews gives an idea why people rate a course a certain way, and is informative.

 

[timg]

It'd be infinitely helpful to have a filter that weeds out, say, anything with more than 10 :thmbdown:s or a certain ratio of downs-to-ups when looking at a course's review page.

It'd work just like the Trusted Reviewers Only filter but would (hopefully) help separate all the garbage two-line reviews (which usually get :thmbdown:-bombed anyway) from the more useful (but perhaps not TR-generated) ones.

Timg? It'd be sha-weeet!

Sort by "Most Helpful"

 

[JoeBob21]

This is why this site has an update course conditions option. Put up the course conditions, not a review.

I guess Im not getting my point across very well... and tbird888, I never sad anything about people being required to give a review. Lots of putting words into MY own keyboard mouth in this thread

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Sort by "Most Helpful"

Sweet, thanks for pointing that out!
1) How long has that been there
2) How does "Current Mix" sort? The others all make sense to me, but when I selected Current Mix, it seemd to just sort by most recent. What did I miss?

 

[timg]

All those options have been there for years. Current Mix sorts by most recent but also includes recently updated reviews. So if a review was originally written a year ago but updated this morning, it should show up at the top of the list.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Actually a pretty usefull feature. I feel like saying thanks is getting mundane, but... thanks!

 

[Jukeshoe]

Sort by "Most Helpful"

Sweet, thanks for pointing that out!
1) How long has that been there

Oh snap!

Never occurred to me!

Thanks Tim!

 

[superberry]

I've recently played Idlewild, Hornings Hideout, Pier, Wilder, Dabney, and decided to skip Milo. I must say, I was underwhelmed by them all with respect to their positions as top courses, but some were extremely fun to play. Without any bias, and 150 courses played in 14 states, I truly enjoy Winter Park and the incredible variety of unique terrain so much more!

Hornings has some variety when you consider the number of courses, but can't even come close to the beauty, variety, and awesome design of the Highbridge courses. Meadow Ridge (their gold course) never deserved to be anywhere near the top 10 IMO. That's not to say it wasn't fun, there's just not enough overall variety other than distance. It's purely a wooded ridge course (yes, very fun personally). I really wish I had time to get down to Whistlers Bend because that looks more up my alley.

Then we have Idlewild, and I still contend Lincoln Ridge is much more fun to play. Idlewild may entice big guns to rip the occasional great drive threaded through the trees, but I could throw buzzz drive, buzzz straight, 50' putt, tap in to hole out, over and over again and not risk the awful poison ivy over-ridden super thick mega rough. Throwing over the water was great, but the lettered holes after hole 3 were mainly blah and skippable if time was an issue. The fake greens with concrete retaining walls and astrotruf looked cool in the pictures, but were kinda tacky and ugly in person.

Reviews to come. Maybe when it's raining and I can't work on all the course design and construction going on around here.