• 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)

Movement in top 10

Whether or not it's overrated, vindictive ratings don't help the accuracy of the ratings system either.

Inflated pat on the back ratings by drive by reviewers don't help the accuracy of the ratings system either. I'm not excusing the hatred being spilled out in that review but nobody is taking down all of the bs two line 5 disc reviews by the people who have only contributed to the site once in their entire lives either.
 
Inflated pat on the back ratings by drive by reviewers don't help the accuracy of the ratings system either. I'm not excusing the hatred being spilled out in that review but nobody is taking down all of the bs two line 5 disc reviews by the people who have only contributed to the site once in their entire lives either.

This is the damn truth
 
Not liking my/our courses is very different than not liking me, making false accusations of things I have done, and calling me names is the work of someone who has some sort of personal vendetta. To the person who wrote this latest garbage, I don't know what I did to you to make you so angry, but I feel bad that I made you feel that way, and I would change it if I could, I am also sorry that you did not enjoy your day at Phantom Falls. As for me being a douchbag, I think we all know who the DB is in this situation. Regards to all - Paulie

Paulie,
Do you know who wrote this review? Is it from any angry local?

I think we've all learned you can't reason logic with some of these trolls. As you said, if a great course doesn't meet one's expectations, even that rating should still be reasonably close to the course's overall rating. When somebody comes to your course, or any course for that matter, it's the player's duty to know what they're getting themselves into - elevation, length, walking distance, terrain, etc. It's nobody else's fault that you show up at a wooded course in shorts, then get all cut up; you show up at a hilly course, and don't have the proper footware; or in your case, show up at a shorter course, and complain about the lack of distance.

For you Paulie, and all the other private course owners, keep up the great jobs you all do with your courses. :clap:
 
Paulie here – I try to remove myself from the fray that a highly ranked course causes. I learned long ago that having a highly ranked course is somewhat of a curse, making the course, and you as an owner, a target. I do not usually stick my beak into these discussions, but this one I can't let slide.

For the record, I have never treated anyone who visits any of my courses with anything but courtesy, and respect. I am very customer service oriented, and pride myself in making all visitors to PF, BS, or MM feel like they are special, and try to make them feel "at home". There are many outright lies in this latest review, and the one that is most concerning to me is putting my character in question. I want to be very very clear about this, I have never, nor would I even consider, creating an alternate ID to put more phony reviews on this site. I value this site, and my integrity way to much. I have never taken credit for the Conifer course nor the Bailey course. If I have said anything in regards to these other local mountain courses, it is in reference to me being one of the many founding members of the Foothill Flyers DG Club who is responsible for the design and instillation of these mountain jewels, and explaining the order of instillation, and some history in regards to there creation. I also spend some time during the ½ hour orientation explaining where your customary donation money is spent. For the record, I schedule only one tee-time per day, so how much money could I really be "raking in". I also hire a groundskeeper for two days a week, and lease some of the property used to make the course. Every course has expenses and mine is no different. Where can you have 6 to 7 hours of fun for $20 anyway? There is one (and only one) bit of truth in this review, the truth is that with my age and injuries I can NOT throw much further than 300ft. All the other info on this review is outright lies and garbage.

In regards to Phantom Falls DGC, When you call me for your mandatory tee-time, I make it very clear that this is a "shorter, accuracy based, intermediate/advanced, and beginner friendly" DGC, nor do I hide the fact that there is a customary donation of $20 for around 6 to 7 hours of fun. If you chose to come to PF you have made a conscious choice to come to an accuracy based, ace run rich, fun factor, "shorter" 39 hole DGC that takes all day to play.

I am very passionate about growing our sport from the ground up by focusing on kids, women, and beginners (the future of our sport) and we have made some beginner friendly courses that groups can have for the day all to themselves. I understand that there are those who are not going to like the nature of these "shorter" beginner friendly courses, but we am also not forcing you to play them, we have many other local courses with much longer holes to chose from. You must also understand that there are many DG'ers who enjoy these types of accuracy based courses very much. Just look at the 11 TR's and 1 Diamond TR that gave PF an average rating of 4.58, so the notion that Phantom Falls is a course that deserves a rating any less that say 3 or 3.5 is revengeful at best. In my opinion the last two people are just reviewing PF so they can slam PF, and significantly lower its DGCR rating.

Not liking my/our courses is very different than not liking me, making false accusations of things I have done, and calling me names is the work of someone who has some sort of personal vendetta. To the person who wrote this latest garbage, I don't know what I did to you to make you so angry, but I feel bad that I made you feel that way, and I would change it if I could, I am also sorry that you did not enjoy your day at Phantom Falls. As for me being a douchbag, I think we all know who the DB is in this situation. Regards to all - Paulie

Thanks a LOT, Paulie. I can't believe you.

Now Phantom Falls is on my 'bucket list' to play.

:p
 
Inflated pat on the back ratings by drive by reviewers don't help the accuracy of the ratings system either. I'm not excusing the hatred being spilled out in that review but nobody is taking down all of the bs two line 5 disc reviews by the people who have only contributed to the site once in their entire lives either.

I'm just saying that both are in the same category to me. Any rating that isn't honest or has some ulterior motive whether that results in an inflated or deflated score decreases the effectiveness of the system. I just don't think it's at all helpful to go give a 1 disc review just because other people have given high ratings to a course that you think is really a 3. Give it that 3 and really justify it and that's a whole lot more helpful than ranting about a course being overrated.

(I want to reiterate that my comments aren't about any specific course being overrated, I haven't played Phantom Falls so I can't comment on that)
 
Don't post much and haven't been around like some of these cats but *Forrest Gump accent* ...I know what disc golf is...

PF is more than a course. It is an experience. An all day experience.

I loved Iron Hill, Nockamixon and Renney Gold. Very different.

Each course has it's own character. No need to bash folks who are trying to expand the sport.
 
Last edited:
Inflated pat on the back ratings by drive by reviewers don't help the accuracy of the ratings system either. I'm not excusing the hatred being spilled out in that review but nobody is taking down all of the bs two line 5 disc reviews by the people who have only contributed to the site once in their entire lives either.

I'm currently mulling over ideas about how I want to handle this. When I do decide on something I think the top 10 will see a major shake-up.
 
Thanks for a rational, yet passionate response Pauly!
 
I personally like short technical courses and it sounds like I would love this course.
 
I'm currently mulling over ideas about how I want to handle this. When I do decide on something I think the top 10 will see a major shake-up.

TMG – In my humble opinion the major, and very important difference between the for mentioned "pat on the back" reviews, and the "lowball" reviews is that those "pat on the back" people felt compelled to do so because they believed that they had played a very special DG course and truly believe(d) that it was worthy of that rating. Those who are "lowballing" a highly ranked course with an average TR rating of say 4 or 4.5 and giving it a 1 or 2 are clearly trying to right some self perceived wrong. They know darn well that this course does not deserve a 1-2-or even a 3, but they give it a very lowball rating falsely thinking they are "in charge" of taking that course down a notch. It is not there job to manipulate any courses rating (up or down) based solely on there opinion, no matter how eloquently they do it. They are in essence giving a false rating because they are fully aware that the course they are "lowballing" does not deserve the rating they just gave it. They are then working on some bias that others don't necessarily have, like P2P, hole length, bugs, state bias, owners personality, etc., etc., etc.. I would be skeptical, and question the motives of any review/reviewer that gives any course a rating very far from the courses Trusted Reviewer's average rating.

If you are looking for a solution to this problem, I suggest that with every 20or 25 reviews a course receives, the DGCR site would automatically throw out the lowest and the highest rating, so when a course gets 100 reviews it will have self corrected 4 or 5 times, thus keeping a more accurate overall average rating, This would negate some of those who have alterior motives trying to manipulate the ratings in both directions. Just my 2 cents.

TMG thanks for developing, maintaining, improving, and running the best DG site on the web - Paulie
 
If you are looking for a solution to this problem, I suggest that with every 20or 25 reviews a course receives, the DGCR site would automatically throw out the lowest and the highest rating, so when a course gets 100 reviews it will have self corrected 4 or 5 times, thus keeping a more accurate overall average rating, This would negate some of those who have ulterior motives trying to manipulate the ratings in both directions. Just my 2 cents.

TMG thanks for developing, maintaining, improving, and running the best DG site on the web - Paulie
from strictly a #'s/ratings standpoint, I like this idea - scrapping the highest and lowest ratings every 25 reviews sounds statistically reasonable, but can it be done to the ratings without actually deleting reviews?

Say you wrote a detailed and glowing review of a top course, and gave it a 5.0... yours could be the "high" score among a bunch of 5.0's that gets thrown out as an outlier. Does that mean your review gets deleted? :\
 
Last edited:
I also want to make it clear that I'm not trying to attack Paulie or anyone else who has taken the immense amount of time and effort to build and maintain a course in Colorado. I've done a lot of joking around about Colorado people and how they inflate courses but it's just joking and I don't take it very seriously and hope others don't either. Hopefully one day I can get out to Colorado and play all of these obviously beautiful courses.

Beyond that, I have to slightly disagree with Paulie in his remarks about the honesty of reviews by drive by reviewers. The private course "pat on the back" ratings as I called them earlier have been a thoroughly discussed topic on this site. I don't think it's any secret that sometimes these courses get a higher rating solely because of the private aspect of the course which has many facets I'm not going to go back in to now.

In my opinion when you get these one course reviewed reviews you're getting something that isn't completely honest. Perhaps in the mind of that person they are giving what they consider an honest rating of the experience they had at the course but without going through the process of playing a number of courses, and coming on this site and reviewing a multitude of courses, I don't think they are truly capable of being fully honest to the rating system.

It's impossible for anyone to say that a person who comes on to list one course played and review just one course has no motive other than to share their experience. To say only the bad reviews are dishonest people trying to skew the rating system is not really looking at the entire picture. I'm willing to bet there is a healthy percentage of good reviews on this website in which the sole aim of the review was to inflate or build up a local course, or a course where they hung out for a day with a private course owner and wanted to give something back by giving a high rating.

I don't know how Timg plans on addressing this issue or even if he should but I think one step that could be taken is that your ratings do not count towards a courses overall score until you've reviewed a certain minimum number of courses. However I realize that like many things on this site people could just make up a bunch of crap to get the end result they want out of it.

I hope Paulie doesn't get down on the ahole review listed earlier. I do enjoy it when somebody comes on here and gives an honest review of a course that is lower than what many have already set it at. They're always interesting to read and consider, and if you have read my sig it's obvious I have been that person and have had some blowback come my way from people I have angered. However the personal attack **** via a review is pretty lame, if you have something to say somebody say it to them.

... and that's my serious post of the month
 
Last edited:
The guy that gave phantom falls a 2.0 is the only one to do so. Also, the only other two courses he has reviews for he gave a 5.0 to, the only one to do so.

Interesting?

Phantom falls really is something else. For the price, I would honestly rather play Conifer or Bailey. If they were the same price and I lived a little closer, I would be there often to say the least.
 
I just don't think it's at all helpful to go give a 1 disc review just because other people have given high ratings to a course that you think is really a 3. Give it that 3 and really justify it and that's a whole lot more helpful than ranting about a course being overrated./QUOTE]

:clap: :thmbup:

Unfortunately, that's not how some people think. I love that DGCR is not just a site of experts, but allows everyone to contribute. However, with this comes things like having to overlook an occasional over-emotional exaggerated review.

If I had not yet played PF, I would still want to. No single review of any course is going to change my mind. I am concerned about playing courses and having fun, not coming up with an official top 10.

(And by the way, Paulie is doing amazing work and his friendliness and hospitality exceeded all my expectations.)
 
It's impossible for anyone to say that a person who comes on to list one course played and review just one course has no motive other than to share their experience. To say only the bad reviews are dishonest people trying to skew the rating system is not really looking at the entire picture. I'm willing to bet there is a healthy percentage of good reviews on this website in which the sole aim of the review was to inflate or build up a local course, or a course where they hung out for a day with a private course owner and wanted to give something back by giving a high rating.


New013 - You have a very good and valid point here! I think in this situation, where a reviewer gave a course with 136 reviews and an average rating of 4.71 a 2 disc rating (the only & lowest one), and 2 other courses a 5 (the only and highest ones), I believe we have a clear ratings manipulator. But I can clearly see your point, and you have a very solid argument in other cases. Cheers - Paulie
 
I don't care for vindictive reviewers, but I don't care for groupthink minded reviewers either who seem to think they have to give a course another rubber stamp 5 because so many before them did. IMO, if you go to a place on the recommendations of so many others that it is awesome, you're going to let that contaminate your ability to be objective when it comes time to do your review. Pretty much every course that has had presence on the Top 10 list, or ones that have brushed close to it, have this issue in their reviews.

So I can't exactly call that PF 2.0 review a sham. Its nice to see someone go against convention and have the cojones to say what they mean for a change. When a course has 137 reviews, that person can only do so much "damage".
 
New013 - You have a very good and valid point here! I think in this situation, where a reviewer gave a course with 136 reviews and an average rating of 4.71 a 2 disc rating (the only & lowest one), and 2 other courses a 5 (the only and highest ones), I believe we have a clear ratings manipulator. But I can clearly see your point, and you have a very solid argument in other cases. Cheers - Paulie

With 136 reviews, how much do these two low-ball ratings matter? Hundredths of a disc? It's only in the Top-10 fervor that people care; on most courses, the occasional outlier rating hardly affects the overall rating, which is what people are looking at.

The 1.0 review was offensive, but casts doubts on the rating he gave. But I'd chalk the 2.0 to just a different opinion of what's good and not, and if this site is going to be a consensus of opinions, it shouldn't be a consensus of opinions that agree.
 
I've never played a 5 star (perfect) course. If I ever find one I will write a review on it.
 
I don't know how Timg plans on addressing this issue or even if he should but I think one step that could be taken is that your ratings do not count towards a courses overall score until you've reviewed a certain minimum number of courses. However I realize that like many things on this site people could just make up a bunch of crap to get the end result they want out of it.

I like this idea. I would say at least 5 reviews. And 10 played. The top ten should be as chosen by real reviews.

But don't make that criteria public. That way people won't be able to manipulate. With Timg being the final step before a review counts
 
I like this idea. I would say at least 5 reviews. And 10 played. The top ten should be as chosen by real reviews.

My idea has been to have two voting tiers.

One is allow anyone who's played a course to give a rating without writing a review, a la Urbanspoon, et al. This would allow a lot more votes, and all the good and bad reviews would somewhat cancel out.

The other is to keep the current written-review ratings, but increase the word count for each review. Usually the people writing good reviews are much more objective.

Basically, if you've played a course and want to give a rating, you can do so. If you want to write a good review with your review, you can do that also.
 

Latest posts

Top