Objective Course Rating

[bigreddog]

In another thread, people starting talking about criteria/factors they consider for rating courses. They were then talking about how they weight each of their criteria/factors.

I've been bullet pointing what I think are among the most important criteria for years criteria for a while:
Variety
Elevation
Challenge
Aesthetics
Memorable/unique holes
Equipment
Nav and routing
Fun factor

I think that list nails it ! Now what order would you put them in, assuming they are not weighted equally ?

Ever since I started reviewing courses in 2012, I have used a spreadsheet with a similar list of factors and differing weights to try and stay objective in my course ratings. I've made a more user friendly copy of my spreadsheet if anyone wants to do something similar but doesn't want/isn't able to set up a spreadsheet of their own.

Step 1: Open this link to make a copy of the spreadsheet
Course Rating Spreadsheet

Step 2: ONLY CHANGE THE ORANGE CELLS In the factors tab enter the factors that you want to consider in column A, and their weighting (how important they are to you) in column B.

(note: The ones that are currently there that have weights that aren't 0 are the factors I use, the ones with a weight of 0 are ones I think a decent number of other reviewers consider. Feel free to delete/modify any of these factors, just make sure to put the weight to 0 for any you don't want to use)

Step 3: Navigate to the "Rating Entry" tab. You should see a list of your factors and their weights in columns A and B (if you want to modify them, do so in the factors tab, not this one). I have entered 3 example courses in columns E, G, and I. Change cell E2 to whatever course you want to rate, and rank each of your factors from 0-10 E3 and going down (the orange cells below the course name). The rating will show up in E1, directly above the course name. Continue to the right to add more courses.

 

[wellsbranch250]

Ever since I started reviewing courses in 2012, I have used a spreadsheet with a similar list of factors and differing weights to try and stay objective in my course ratings. I've made a more user friendly copy of my spreadsheet if anyone wants to do something similar but doesn't want/isn't able to set up a spreadsheet of their own.

That was way more user friendly than I was expecting. Thanks for sharing.
any guesses on which course i scored first???
if you guessed v-rock, you'd be right a 3.781, although that seems too high.
I'd likely slide numbers around as i got a feel to it. (7,3,2,5,7,5,9,9,5,8,9,5,10,9,9,9).
for reference, i have my course scored at about a 3.35 in my own formula.


I cover many of these categories in my formula as well.
do you factor in course beauty anywhere? perhaps that's under maintenance somewhat?
Or what about egregious safety issues? perhaps that's under overall comfort level? i can think of several courses that would need a negative number there to account for how bad safety factor was.

 

[bigreddog]

That was way more user friendly than I was expecting. Thanks for sharing.
any guesses on which course i scored first???
if you guessed v-rock, you'd be right a 3.781, although that seems too high.
I'd likely slide numbers around as i got a feel to it. (7,3,2,5,7,5,9,9,5,8,9,5,10,9,9,9).
for reference, i have my course scored at about a 3.35 in my own formula.

If you go to the linearity tab and change the cell to a 100 you should see about the same number as what you have in your sheet. I have mine on a sinusoidal curve rather than a linear one. The reason is I feel like if a course is 9/10 on every single possible factor, that should be a 5.0 course not a 4.5. It never actually happens, but to have the worst thing about a course be a 9/10 would be one of the best courses in the world.

 

[bigreddog]

I cover many of these categories in my formula as well.
do you factor in course beauty anywhere? perhaps that's under maintenance somewhat?
Or what about egregious safety issues? perhaps that's under overall comfort level? i can think of several courses that would need a negative number there to account for how bad safety factor was.

Personally I don't factor in aesthetics of the course, though I usually mention them in the "other thoughts section". Amenities like a pro-shop, driving range, practice basket etc. is something else I don't factor in since I view those as independent of the course. One other I know a lot of people factor in is "fun factor", but to me the other categories I have cover the things that make a course fun to me. That said I could definitely see a course that is well maintained being more scenic in general, like if there's trash all over that's not very scenic and also a sign of poor maintenance. And yes, safety issues fall under comfort for me, I have comfort as a combination of physical (benches, water fountains, bathrooms, shade, rough not too thick, etc.) and mental/emotional (not being worried you'll hit other players or park users).

 

[cox3]

I've never done a rubric but I've been asked what mine would be recently and I already have an idea in my head so this is how I would put it on paper:

Infrastructure - 0-1.5
Design - 0-1.5
Aesthetics - 0-1.5
Number of holes - 0-0.5

Number of holes is easy...
18+ - 0.5
<18 - 0

Infrastructure - 0-1.5 total

Tee pads - 0-0.5 (perfect would be 12'+ in length concrete [correctly textured] or turf [depending on the turf...]; any other surface, shorter, or slick would be deductions... exact amount varying by specific situation)

Baskets - 0-0.5 (DiscGolfPark Pros are the gold standard but I would give the full amount to any double chained, top tier baskets that are installed correctly and generally in good condition)

Signage - 0-0.4 (hole signs should be numbered correctly with correct distances listed and enough of a graphic to tell you where the basket is from the tee... Pin locators should be present and accurate if multiple pins are available... Navigation should be easy or signage should be present...)

Extra amenities - 0-0.1 (benches, restrooms, parking, etc.)

Design - 0-1.5 total

Challenge - 0-0.3
Fairness - 0-0.3
Shot variety - 0-0.3
Score spread optimization - 0-0.2
Number of tee/basket combinations per hole - 0.0-0.2
Overall flow - 0.0-0.2 (no crossing fairways, no excessive walks between holes, no conflict between holes, etc.)

Aesthetics - 0-1.5 total

Subjective, including: elevation, water features, physical features, man made features, "wow" shot opportunities, types of trees, overall beauty, peace/seclusion, cleanliness, etc. (not all of these need to be present to gain the full total)

 

[Olorin]

In another thread people starting talking about criteria/factors they consider for rating courses. They were then talking about how they weight each of their criteria/factors.

I've been reviewing disc golf courses since 1999, and here are my weighted review criteria.

 

[roblee]

If the criteria were truly objective all the ratings for a course would/should be the same. Viva la objectivity!

 

[Tyler V]

I've never used a rubric like this, but this is a great resource to play around with to figure out how to go about getting more course design-specific details into reviews, which is something I feel like I could do a better job of. Thanks for sharing this - Like Wells said, very easy to use!

 

[DFrah]

Very interesting, thanks for the share! I might try to check out one or more of these rubrics just to see how it lines up with the actual ratings I have assigned in my reviews.

I object to the thread title though. It will always be subjective.

 

[autocrosscrx]

It is really just a more methodical way of being subjective. The weighting system is subjective and the rating of each factor is subjective.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

But it helps ensure you're being subjective about all the right subjects.

 

[bigreddog]

If the criteria were truly objective all the ratings for a course would/should be the same. Viva la objectivity!

If everyone had the same criteria with the same weighting applied to it then yes, but some people have different things that matter to them. The best example I can think of is navigation/routing, some people don't factor it in at all since once you've played a course a couple of times it doesn't matter, while others weigh it heavily since their reviews are more to help people who haven't played the course.

 

[autocrosscrx]

I think that rubrics are how people end up going to Dairy Queen and ordering a hamburger combo and no ice cream dessert.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

In the spirit trying not to take myself too seriously, what we're really talking about here is...

How the are we gonna decide where the hell we want to throw frisbees?

 

[ray1970]

Am I the only one who keeps misreading the title and wondering who cares about ratings for object courses?

 

[roblee]

".... some people have different things that matter to them.....

Agree. Hence the subjective and proper nature of course evaluation.

 

[bigreddog]

Agree. Hence the subjective and proper nature of course evaluation.

Of course review criteria is subjective, but I think each individual reviewers should try to be consistent/objective from review to review.