Purging the Vendetta reviews

[DavidSauls]

Whippin Post in Paw Paw, WV is currently the 59th rated course - 4.41. rating. Take away Jmk5704's bs review, it jumps up to #31 and a 4.57 rating.

Point being is anyone more likely to play here because a bs review was pulled? Is there a difference in being the 31st or 57th, or 9th, 15th, or 70th rated course? An elite course is an elite course.

This is my feeling about outlier ratings. They don't have much overall effect, for courses outside the Top 10. A 4.5 is a 4.5. Or a 4.5 might be a 4.0, depending on where the rounding falls---is that such a big difference?

The problems with the top 10 are that some people make a big deal of it, and it's sorted by hundredths of a rating point. It might make some difference for for-profit private courses, but otherwise, does it matter? It should be just an item of interest, and this site shouldn't be overhauled to make it somehow "better". Was that the reason for this site to begin with---to develop an authoritative Top 10?

Agenda-driven reviews, where someone clearly intends to boost or bash a course, the latter for personal reasons, are something else. It's not the low rating that bothers me---the fact that the low rating is done, not because the reviewer thinks it's a bad course, but as a method of attacking it. And worse when it seems to be an organized effort by a group of people.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

This is my feeling about outlier ratings. They don't have much overall effect, for courses outside the Top 10. A 4.5 is a 4.5. Or a 4.5 might be a 4.0, depending on where the rounding falls---is that such a big difference?

The problems with the top 10 are that some people make a big deal of it, and it's sorted by hundredths of a rating point. It might make some difference for for-profit private courses, but otherwise, does it matter? It should be just an item of interest, and this site shouldn't be overhauled to make it somehow "better". Was that the reason for this site to begin with---to develop an authoritative Top 10?

Agenda-driven reviews, where someone clearly intends to boost or bash a course, the latter for personal reasons, are something else. It's not the low rating that bothers me---the fact that the low rating is done, not because the reviewer thinks it's a bad course, but as a method of attacking it. And worse when it seems to be an organized effort by a group of people.

I think we're arguing the same point. The problem with 'agenda' ratings is that some people rate courses simply on enjoyment. Hard course = bad score, long round, lost disc = low rating.

Then you have Dave242, for example, who rates courses on 5 points, one of which is Appalachian Mountain-like scenic beauty. No matter how great a course may be, if the surroundings aren't aesthetically pleasing, that course will get a lower rating. Would these reviews be pulled?

It's a slippery slope that Tim has avoided. Just be thankful Pendleton King has a low rating to start out with before its drive-by craze. Image if PK was hovering around the top 10 and the drama that would have been.

 

[wellsbranch250]

This personally has been a very enjoyable thread to read. lots of great points.

I wish there was another section, in ranking lists to include top 25 Trusted Reviewer ranked courses.

There are 8 lists currently, Top all, top destinations,top private, top pay to play, top 9 hole, most played, most favorited, most wish listed.

could add top public or top new course (min 5 reviews, 3 year young or less) or top outside u.s as well.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Check out the review spread for this course. It has two 1 disc reviews and two 5 disc reviews on the first page. It's almost batting for the cycle.


https://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=7293

Having played that course, I actually understand it... but there's no way in hell that course is a 5.0 on its best day. I'd have given it a 3.5.

SoFla has several decent to very good courses, and from what I've played, there aren't many I'd consider significantly better than 3.5 in the state. If that's all you get to play, I can see how Jet Stream might be considered best of the best.

That's a big part of the issue: what yardstick is a given reviewer using as a basis for comparison when they award their 5.0... or low rating, for that matter?

 

[thrembo]

Having played that course, I actually understand it... but there's no way in hell that course is a 5.0 on its best day. I'd have given it a 3.5.

SoFla has several decent to very good courses, and from what I've played, there aren't many I'd consider significantly better than 3.5 in the state. If that's all you get to play, I can see how Jet Stream might be considered best of the best.

That's a big part of the issue: what yardstick is a given reviewer using as a basis for comparison when they award their 5.0... or low rating, for that matter?

I gave it a 4. Mostly because of its beauty though and because of the potential. I did play it pre Irma. Out of 95+ Florida courses played now (DGCR) it is not my highest rated or favorite FL course but I did like it.

 

[Three Putt]

When you let 25-200 people out of hundreds of thousands of disc golfers determine a top 10 list, said list already is worthless.

This is unfortunately valid.

I have recently played what DGCR is currently displaying as the #1 rated disc golf course in the Word. Cool. It was great. Is it the best disc golf course in the World? Who knows? I certainly don't. If I review it I guess I'm giving it a five. I have no reason not to, and most people have so what do I know?

I think I have a really good handle on that 3.5 line. Give the course a 3.5 or higher and I'm saying "go play this. This is basically a good course." Under 3.5? You might have to read the review and figure out if the course sounds like fun, because it won't be for everybody. It will be good for somebody, but maybe not you.

Anything over 3.5 and it's like going to a car show and having somebody go "You get to pick one car here and drive off with it." So there is a '53 Skylark, but there is a '70 442 W30 and a '65 Galaxie 500 convertible. There are some Corvette's over there. Oh, and there is a '71 GXT in sublime green, just like the one the guy up the street had when you were a kid. So what are you driving off with? Hell if I know. Depends on the day.

The top 10 list on here is always going to be that way. Was I in a Harmony Bends-kinda mood while I was there, or did I figure out some nit-picky reason in my head to dock it for some reason? Either way, I'm not really qualified to say one way or the other.

But I get to. That's what the site is all about. For better or worse, it's the opinions of disc golfers.

Ever try to be an officer or any sort of leader of a local disc golf club? It's slightly more irritating than herding cats. We are a varied and diverse group. Getting us all on the same page is not going to happen. Anything that gathers the opinions of disc golfers is going to have some...interesting data? Some of it's just going to be flat-out wrong. If you love a course and Redneck Machismo shows up and gets mad because it has (gasp ) trees or Dave242 decides it doesn't have Appalachian beauty and it get's dinged, that sucks and I get that it sucks. It's kinda the price we pay for being disc golfers, though. Buncha crazy floating around disc golf courses. It is what it is.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think we're arguing the same point. The problem with 'agenda' ratings is that some people rate courses simply on enjoyment. Hard course = bad score, long round, lost disc = low rating.

Then you have Dave242, for example, who rates courses on 5 points, one of which is Appalachian Mountain-like scenic beauty. No matter how great a course may be, if the surroundings aren't aesthetically pleasing, that course will get a lower rating. Would these reviews be pulled?

It's a slippery slope that Tim has avoided. Just be thankful Pendleton King has a low rating to start out with before its drive-by craze. Image if PK was hovering around the top 10 and the drama that would have been.

I agree.

My feeling on Dave242, or anyone with outlier tastes, is that's fine. Include them.

If someone's mad because they weren't allowed to retrieve their disc, or couldn't host a tournament, or the owner pulls for the wrong sports team, or something---don't include that. That's not a review, that's an attack.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Vendetta reviews blah. How about eliminating..."I suck at this game and this course is too hard" reviews...

Like the guy who gave Idlewild a 1...

Pros: The course itself was well cared for. Certainly,
a lot of time and money has been put into the course.

Cons: Unfortunately, the course is not at all designed for the average player. I play weekly and have slowly gotten better over the years, but this course has nothing to offer me. It's too long, too narrow and has too many crazy out of bounds. It was frustrating and not enjoyable at all. Lincoln Ridge Park is much better for all the reasons mentioned above.

Other Thoughts: I like a challenge and don't mind playing difficult courses. Be warned that if you are
not a pro, get ready for a beat-down.

Actually, I guess that is also a vendetta review. The course kicked his ass and he wanted revenge.

 

[Mando]

I guess the only one's that really care are the course owners that are being knocked out of the top ten or top 25, but if you are going to delete reviews don't stop at Beaver Ranch. Take a look at the top 50. It's not that hard to fix.

 

[Three Putt]

I agree.

My feeling on Dave242, or anyone with outlier tastes, is that's fine. Include them.

If someone's mad because they weren't allowed to retrieve their disc, or couldn't host a tournament, or the owner pulls for the wrong sports team, or something---don't include that. That's not a review, that's an attack.

It's a bit of a slippery slope.

If somebody dinged a course, gave reasons for why they dinged it in the cons sections and throws in "this course is in the middle of nowhere and the road to it sucks" it opens the door to the question of if the course was really actually bad, or if the reviewer was pissed off before they got there because they miscalculated the amount of time or didn't take rural road conditions into account. Maybe that didn't come into play in the review at all and was just a "by the way the road sucks, too" throw in. We don't know.

Where do we draw the line? Is it OK to knock a course from a 4.5 to a 3.5 because you were mad about a road, but if you drop it down to a 2.5 it's a no-no? Is there is a degree of bad reviewing we are OK with? Where is that line? Isn't the thumbs down supposed to address this? It gets really muddy.

 

[hiflyer]

What I'm getting from all this:

It's okay if you wanna rate up for personal agenda, but if you rate down, be prepared for the immediate backlash.

 

[AHagglund]

Another option: Instead of giving a course an "average" score, give it a median score instead. Median is actually a better statistic than an average in most cases because it automatically filters out outliers but ends up pretty close to average anyway. Also, instead of courses being ranked ahead of each other by arbitrary margins (4.61 vs. 4.58 or something), you would have 5.0 courses, 4.5 courses, 4.0 courses, etc.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

What I'm getting from all this:

It's okay if you wanna rate up for personal agenda, but if you rate down, be prepared for the immediate backlash.

I don't think any of the DGCR faithful would agree with this at all. I think our collective opinion would be more along the lines of:

"Rate the course based on your personal criteria, as it was when you played it, without any agenda, other than providing your honest point of view."

 

[eegor]

Ratings from disc golfers are simply that. I certainly don't agree with every rating I see about courses I know about, but to that disc golfer on that day... it is what it is.

The Beaver Ranch "vendetta" ratings were politically motivated from people that actually love the course. This is obvious deception and if it's known, should be dealt with. Leaving one or two that are obvious will not affect those of us that actually read these reviews.

As for the marginal player thinking Idlewild stinks because it kicked his ass, that's his opinion, he told you why and he gets to express his opinion just like the rest of us do. If I'm going to be in the area and I'm looking up Idlewild, his review only makes me want to play it more. I love tough courses. As for the ratings drop, that's tough. All of the top ten have "I don't think this place is worth $20/day" and "in the middle of no where" reviews that dock them for it. News flash!!!! There are a lot of really cheap disc golfers! They see $20/day or a lot of gas to get there and it's a negative. They get to rate too. In the end, over deleting reviews is worse than letting bad reviews remain. There are all kinds of people and all kinds of disc golfers. All of us need to be heard or this site become exclusionary.

 

[brutalbrutus]

I guess I forgot the sarcasm font? I was just making a point about where do we stop with deleting reviews...

 

[BrotherDave]

A course that just got redesigned just got slammed with a 1 disc rating and here's one of his cons:

We tried to understand the directions of this course and found it difficult to figure out where the next tee was. Bring your boots and bug spray because your open toed shoes will certainly find warm squishy matter if you so happen to choose the wrong path.

Lol. Slagging a course b/c you might step in horse poo if you walk down the wrong trail.

 

[DavidSauls]

What I'm getting from all this:

It's okay if you wanna rate up for personal agenda, but if you rate down, be prepared for the immediate backlash.

A rash of 5.0s was removed from a course, when it became apparent that it was an organized attempt to boost its ratings.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's a bit of a slippery slope.

If somebody dinged a course, gave reasons for why they dinged it in the cons sections and throws in "this course is in the middle of nowhere and the road to it sucks" it opens the door to the question of if the course was really actually bad, or if the reviewer was pissed off before they got there because they miscalculated the amount of time or didn't take rural road conditions into account. Maybe that didn't come into play in the review at all and was just a "by the way the road sucks, too" throw in. We don't know.

Where do we draw the line? Is it OK to knock a course from a 4.5 to a 3.5 because you were mad about a road, but if you drop it down to a 2.5 it's a no-no? Is there is a degree of bad reviewing we are OK with? Where is that line? Isn't the thumbs down supposed to address this? It gets really muddy.

I agree.

The management of this site has guarded against the slippery slope by only removing the most egregious examples. That extreme caution and reluctance to remove reviews has kept us high on that slope.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

A course that just got redesigned just got slammed with a 1 disc rating and here's one of his cons:

Lol. Slagging a course b/c you might step in horse poo if you walk down the wrong trail.

What's wrong with rating a course low if it's literally sh!tty?

Guess that reviewer wouldn't like Hawk Hollow. :\

 

[Jay Dub]

IMO the rating system here works fine, it's not perfect but any tweak that's made to it won't make it perfect either.
If a golfer makes their decision to play or not play a course based on the rating alone or only on one review that's on them.