Rating Feedback

[timg]

magictenor:
I just redid the review header a bit.. increased the title size, added courses played and added a bit of color. I also renamed "Years Playing" to "Exp" to keep that area from getting too crowded.

John:
I guess I just take criticism better than most then I realize some people won't like what I do or my decisions and I can live with it. If they want to be vocal about it (and have a good reason behind it) then more power to them.

 

[Olorin]

I always feel kind of bad giving a low rating because of the time, money, and work that someone put in to build a course. I see both John and Tim's points, though. It's especially hard when the property had huge constraints to begin with and the designer did the best he/she could with what they had to work with. I only post negative feedback with the intention of pointing out what could be improved. I'm thinking that in my future reviews for the courses below 2.5 I'll only give more general feedback and let people contact me privately if they want more details.

 

[WillA]

I've only reviewed a handful but I don't have any problem giving my opinion and the reason for it. As long as you aren't mean spirited I think giving specific reasons is a very good thing because things that are important to you may not be as important to someone else.

 

[jaymon1]

Reviews: My two cents

Personally, I try to be fair and even-handed in the text of my review, but "honest and unmerciful" in my ratings.

For instance, I would never say a course was poorly designed, but I might say the holes lacked variety, or tended to the short side, and I would never say a course was poorly maintained, but I will comment on the lack of teepads or markers or usable signage. Mostly I want to be a reporter; relay the facts as I see them, but the slant, inevitably, is there between the sentences. I try to write my reviews to help people who, like me, are trying to figure out where best to spend their precious DG time, often in a new city.

And if I'm fair in my review, I'm not too concerned with someone taking issue with my honest opinion. Some courses are widely considered to be subpar, but people have widely varying opinions about what makes a good course too. An easy example is some that post multiple reviews here and elsewhere seem to highly regard long, challenging all woods courses, yet I don't. I won't rate them as high because of the lack of variety and natural scenery; challenge alone does not equal good, IMO. But others differ, and that's how it should be.

And one final thing I hope all readers of my reviews consider is that my reviews don't necessarily reflect how the course always plays, or how it always looks, just how it played and looked for me on often one particular day. I could personally see a wide range of opinions for my home course of Gillies Creek, for instance, depending on whether they played it spring or winter, got lost a bunch going it alone or cruised along with the help of a friendly local, or if the grass had recently been cut and the litter cleaned up.

 

[magictenor1]

I was making a point to Timg about that in an email. I played a course I already reviewed but today 2 holes had been replaced with new ones. Sometimes a course changes and a new review is in order. Good point jaymon1.

 

[timg]

Hey magic,

I responded via email but I'll say the same thing here in case anyone else wants to chime in. What would be the point of retaining a review for a now defunct course layout? Why not just update your old review?

 

[DG_Wizard]

OK, I'm a newb to this site. I've played about 15 courses (some are not listed). Anyway, this might be wrong, but this is what I have done in my review process:

1) I have not given out a 5 yet. This should be reserved for only THE best courses.
2) Most of the courses I have played are in Oklahoma, but I give ratings based on how this course stacks up against ALL the other courses that I have played.
3) I start with a 3 and go from there.
4) I am completely honest about the course that I have played. I have some good reviews and some not so hot ones. The key is to be HONEST. For example, I have my favorite course listed as a 4, not a 5. I say in the review that it is my favorite, but there is still room for that world-class 5.
5) I try and play a course SEVERAL times before reviewing it (at least 2 full rounds). If not, you maybe aren't giving it the chance it deserves.

Ppl will have their feelings hurt regardless of reviews. The important thing is to provide that all important feedback on what is LACKING in the course so that it can be addressed. If ppl are THAT passionate about the course, things will eventually get done. It takes a LOT of work to have and upkeep a world class 5/5 course (at least IMO).

 

[timg]

DG_Wizard,

I think you are right on point with your review process.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

I think there needs to be a more clear and concise way of rating the courses. Of the 12 courses listed under the recent reviews on the main page, the average review is 3.75. Note: this could change as more reviews are posted. Now, this may have just been a great wave of courses that were reviewed, or they're getting rated too high. One course was rated a 5, and the review was only six words long.

In theory, the average should be 2.5 - 3. Perhaps rate courses on the degree of difficulty, which make things more uniform. Here in the Charlotte area, that means Renaissance Park and Winthrop Gold would be the only 5s, and some of the pitch n putt courses would be the 1s. That would possibly eliminate some of the inflated reviews. It would also take away the stigma of someone not wanting to give a course a 1 rating. It would just let players know you can except a fun and easy round, and hopefully, lots of birdies.

 

[timg]

This topic always seems to rear it's head every couple of months and we usually come to the same conclusion.. that as more reviews get posted, it'll make those 5's less valid. Also, rating courses solely on one thing wouldn't really work. The review is meant to be an all-encompassing score of the quality of a course where things like aesthetics, tee pad quality, signage etc. are all taken into account.

I think no matter how courses are rated here, most locals will always give their local courses higher than average scores. Maybe they haven't played other courses or they just have a strong bias that they can't put aside for an impartial review (and people have admitted as much in their reviews). As the site picks up more steam and more reviews things will balance out. More reviews from non-local players will be a big plus as well since they are less likely to rate a course highly due to proximity or because they helped put in the tee signs, etc. You'll get more honest reviews out of non-locals a lot of the time.

I also just changed the minimum review length to 100 characters (combined pros/cons/other thoughts). Hopefully that will force some of those one-liner reviewers to at least write a couple of sentences.

 

[magictenor1]

I definitely would not rate courses based solely on difficulty. An easy course could be a 5 if it was fun to play and had all the facilities you could ask for. Not everyone who plays is a high level player. I totally agree that the written observations are important. It lets people know your reasons and can help someone draw their own conclusions as to whether they would like a course,much more so than just a #. On a scale of 1 to 5,I see 3 as average. I personally have not seen a course I would give a 5 and I have played over 30 courses

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Maybe have a rating in several categories, instead of just one overall rating. For example, have ratings for difficulty, course design, amenities (benches, restrooms, etc) and general (location, park cleanliness,etc). It would be just an extra step to let users know why a course was rated a certain way. I do agree that as more people rate course, you'll get a more accurate rating.

 

[Olorin]

Maybe have a rating in several categories, instead of just one overall rating. For example, have ratings for difficulty,

Rating difficulty is very problematic to do objectively and it requires a solid understanding of course design principles. Ideally, it also requires a consistent standard for determining par, which DG does not have. The key criteria is that course difficulty is determined by the level of the course (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green). These colors can be thought of as similar to the different tees used in traditional golf, but it's also problematic to assign the course level.

One thing for sure is that difficulty is NOT measured by how hard it is to shoot 54!

 

[Olorin]

Maybe have a rating in several categories, instead of just one overall rating. For example, have ratings for difficulty, course design, amenities (benches, restrooms, etc) and general (location, park cleanliness,etc). It would be just an extra step to let users know why a course was rated a certain way.

The now defunct PDGA course evaluation program had 3 categories: Design, Basics, Amenities (D-B-A) but that added complexity and became problematic how to weight the factors. For example, a course with high ratings in Basics and Amenities could skew a rating for a course with a low Design rating.

 

[magictenor1]

Ratings for different categories could work. I like to have amenities such as bathrooms since I tend to stay at the course for long periods of time but if that was not important to you, you would have the basis to make your own evaluation. Difficulty could be a category. If you are a great player you might want 1 type of course and a duffer or beginner might prefer an easier one.

 

[timg]

Yes, but then how do you know who a great player is and who a duffer is? The difficulty rating would end up being meaningless since there is no way to really make the distinction online.

I'm pretty content with the system as is with one overall score and a (hopefully) informative written review.

 

[magictenor1]

I have no problem with that. The key really is getting a lot of information on the courses. I love the site and I think you do a great job with it.

 

[timg]

Thanks I think the simpler the review process is, the more likely people will be to share their thoughts. So far it seems to be doing well for the most part and I really enjoy reading a lot of the reviews.

 

[weatherbill]

been travelling all over the US andhitting up the DGC's along the way.

florida - orlando area
turkey lake - best in the area
bennet park - good courses as well
river city park in dabery - very nice!
daytona DGpark - ok, very shaded becasue of the trees, but windy

sevannah georgia -tom tripplet park - okee dokee course - got lost on some holes - tough to find holes

richmond VA bryan park - was awsome! very nice park

brandywine park in wilmington delaware - not worth it

segley woods park - philly - one of the best on my road trip. lots of baskets close enough to ace and very nice woods not dense

huntington wv - rotary park - very nice park, but got lost on hole 8...needs better signage

elizabthtown KY - freeman lake park - one of the best courses on my journey, very nice park and design!

bowling green KY - Kereiakes Park - just amazing, one of the best! awsome design, natural tree layout is incredible, very good amenities, benches, signs, wood chips around baskets....amazingly kept and mowed fairways

franklin KY - simpson park- don't bother, very plain open fields - boring