Ratio of "Reviews" to "Played" on DGCR

[grodney]

Is there a thread for courses with the highest (and lowest) reviews-to-played ratio? Or an easy way for a user to get it? Or is that a database thing that timg would have to query out?

I was surprised to see ~200 "played" for Selah, with "only" around 35 reviews -- although I'm guessing that ratio (~17%) is probably (much) higher than most courses.

 

[grodney]

Hornets Nest has 1154 plays and 70 reviews; Renny around 1100 and 71... so maybe they've kind of settled into a pretty consistent ratio in Charlotte.

I'm thinking old courses will have lots of people click "played" -- yeah, I played that once. In other words, it might be obvious that people are more likely to write up courses that they just played -- not ones they're just check-marking from years gone by.

 

[JRW III]

I'm sure it's been brought up before, but I would love to be able to do a "quick review" of every course I played--just click "2.5" based on a gut feeling, but not have to organize my thoughts and write up a full review. Would generate many more opinions, though at the cost of minimal peer oversight.

This.

At some point, there is very little left to be said about a course that has not been said before, so a detailed review is not as important. However, it would be nice to have a larger base of players to base the rating off of.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

This.

At some point, there is very little left to be said about a course that has not been said before, so a detailed review is not as important. However, it would be nice to have a larger base of players to base the rating off of.

I'm not an advocate of allowing ratings with without a review. I think you should actually have to say something about a course in order to rate it. Additionally, I don't like the idea of someone rating a course based on how it played a year or more ago, back when they played it.

While I understand that another review of a long-standing course can seem futile if you have nothing new add, at the very least, it can confirm the course is (or isn't) as good (or bad) as it was when many of the older reviews were written, and can serve to reinforce or ammend the course's total rating.

 

[grodney]

Yeah, I think the "quick-rating" concept has been beaten several times on here.

Sooooooo,

Is there a thread for courses with the highest (and lowest) reviews-to-played ratio? Or an easy way for a user to get it? Or is that a database thing that timg would have to query out?

I was surprised to see ~200 "played" for Selah, with "only" around 35 reviews -- although I'm guessing that ratio (~17%) is probably (much) higher than most courses.

 

[scarpfish]

I've got the top 25 played and top 50 of 2013 on a spreadsheet right now (there are some repeats). Still calculating but most courses are coming in at around 6-9%. I'm suspecting the two factors that are going to cause a spike in the percentage are forum hype (obviously more is better), and age of the course (newer courses will see a bigger percentage since not as many members will have played them).

 

[scarpfish]

At some point, there is very little left to be said about a course that has not been said before, so a detailed review is not as important. However, it would be nice to have a larger base of players to base the rating off of.

Wrong. If you have not reviewed a course, we don't have your opinions about your experience at it. Whether your the first one to give your opinion or the 137th is irrelevant. Movie critics don't refrain from doing a review because dozens of other people have said the same thing that they're going to say.

If you're holding back on a review because you think others have already made the point that you're going to make, you're going about it wrong. There is no such thing as too much redundancy with respect to reviews. If things look redundant, that simply shows consensus.

 

[Jukeshoe]

I'm not an advocate of allowing ratings with without a review.

^This.

Plus, timg would have to change the name of the site to DGCourseRating.

@ Grodney re: OP...

I don't ever recall seeing a specific thread with the ratios you're looking for, nor do I know how one would "search" out those kinda stats without doing all the work manually.

 

[JRW III]

There is no such thing as too much redundancy with respect to reviews. If things look redundant, that simply shows consensus.

There most certainly is such a thing as too much redundancy. As a reader/user of reviews, lengthy reviews that add no new insight waste time to read. Short reviews adding consensus are good, but too much of the same thing can be a bad thing.

Not going to change your mind, so I will agree to disagree.

Sorry for the potential thread drift.

 

[tampabay]

^This.

Plus, timg would have to change the name of the site to DGCourseRating.

@ Grodney re: OP...

I don't ever recall seeing a specific thread with the ratios you're looking for, nor do I know how one would "search" out those kinda stats without doing all the work manually.

I agree as well. I've played countless courses while I was out of town and I read the top 20-30 reviews. I find the actual review very useful. I also recently found a course with a pretty inflated rating (I was shocked when I got to this 4.25 course) and it was apparent based on their actual reviews that all the 5 star reviews given to the course were from people who designed it.

 

[scarpfish]

There most certainly is such a thing as too much redundancy. As a reader/user of reviews, lengthy reviews that add no new insight waste time to read.

That makes no sense, as the newer reviews are the first to show in the default setting. Most people will read those first before they proceed to the older ones. When those newer reviews are half-assed two sentence crap jobs, guess what happens when people read them....

This happens --> :thmbdown: :thmbdown:

Short reviews adding consensus are good,

No, they not. They reak of laziness and groupthink, and are often posted by people who just want to manipulate a course rating. We should never discourage people from giving their best effort. We should also never encourage half-assery. People who write crappy two sentence reviews deserve every red thumb that they get.

 

[gfellerjm]

While I understand that another review of a long-standing course can seem futile if you have nothing new add, at the very least, it can confirm the course is (or isn't) as good (or bad) as it was when many of the older reviews were written, and can serve to reinforce or ammend the course's total rating.

I'm defiantly one who feels that if they course have been reviewed multiple times there little need for my insight. However BogeyNoMore makes a good point and I may start review courses that have not been reviewed in the last year. With that said I seek out unreviewed courses to play and review, such as we will be going to Pagosa Springs this May and there are two courses there, one reviewed and one not. If we only play one course it will be the unreviewed one so that I can review it for all those here.

 

[scarpfish]

Here are results of the 66 courses (either 25 most played or top 50 reviewed of 2013) on my spreadsheet...

Course Name - Location - year established - # of reviews - # of played - reviewed/played %

1. Phantom Falls Pine, CO 2002 143 314 45.54%
2. Magic Meadows DGC Pine, CO 2012 27 67 40.30%
3. Smugglers Notch - Brewster Ridge Jeffersonville, VT 2006 18 65 27.69%
4. Black Falls DGC Montgomery, VT 2002 22 91 24.18%
5. Flip City Disc Golf Park Shelby, MI 1980 190 815 23.31%
6. Holler In The Hills Brownsville, KY 2009 67 305 21.97%
7. Beaver Ranch/Conifer Park Conifer, CO 2007 143 716 19.97%
8. Branson Cedars Resort Treehouz DGC Ridgedale, MO 2012 21 109 19.27%
9. Rollin Ridge Reedsville, WI 2011 39 211 18.48%
10. Sipapu Ski & Summer Resort Vadito, NM 1997 23 131 17.56%
11. Selah Ranch - Lakeside Talco, TX 2011 35 200 17.50%
12. Wildcat Bluff Urbana, IA 2007 33 190 17.37%
13. Winter Park Kewaunee, WI 2004 38 225 16.89%
14. Foundation Park - Champ 18 Centralia, IL 2006 41 252 16.27%
15. Selah Ranch - Creekside Talco, TX 2011 30 198 15.15%
16. Camp Sankanac DGC Spring City, PA 2010 28 191 14.66%
17. Sky High DGC Wrightwood, CA 1999 33 226 14.60%
18. Deer Lakes Park Tarentum, PA 2006 59 408 14.46%
19. Ashe County Park Jefferson, NC 2006 48 341 14.08%
20. Whistler's Bend Roseburg, OR 1991 49 358 13.69%
21. Tyler State Park Newtown, PA 1994 96 702 13.68%
22. Idlewild Burlington, KY 2000 146 1088 13.42%
23. Shawshank Huntsville, TX 2004 24 184 13.04%
24. Moraine State Park Portersville, PA 2004 57 447 12.75%
25. Lincoln Ridge Park Independence, KY 1981 92 730 12.60%
26. Stafford Lake County Park Novato, CA 1997 63 509 12.38%
27. Maple Hill DGC Leicester, MA 2002 67 550 12.18%
28. Bud Hill - Original Millington, TN ? 35 288 12.15%
29. Coyote Point DGC @ Lake Casitas Ventura, CA 2005 44 366 12.02%
30. Bailey DGC Bailey, CO 2010 17 142 11.97%
31. Colorado Mountain College, Glenwood Glenwood Springs, CO 1998 25 218 11.47%
32. Blue Ribbon Pines DGC East Bethel, MN 2006 90 789 11.41%
33. Brakewell Steel / Warwick Park Warwick, NY 1999 48 428 11.21%
34. Bear Creek Grapevine, TX 1996 82 733 11.19%
35. Mt. Airy Forest Cincinnati, OH 1993 88 832 10.58%
36. Highbridge Hills - Blueberry Hill Highbridge, WI 2004 50 511 9.78%
37. Hawk Hollow Spotsylvania, VA 2001 18 184 9.78%
38. Veteran's Park Arlington, TX 1988 73 782 9.34%
39. Bryant Lake Park Eden Prairie, MN 1999 70 773 9.06%
40. Horning's Hideout - Meadow Ridge North Plains, OR 2009 35 387 9.04%
41. Morley Field San Diego, CA 1977 80 890 8.99%
42. Jordan Creek Whitehall, PA 1992 54 611 8.84%
43. Water Works Park Kansas City, MO 1997 80 914 8.75%
44. Milo McIver State Park (Riverbend DGC) Estacada, OR 1996 55 631 8.72%
45. Pier Park Portland, OR 2003 75 872 8.60%
46. Justin Trails - Big Brother DGC Sparta, WI 2007 18 212 8.49%
47. Golden Gate Park DGC San Francisco, CA 2007 86 1023 8.41%
48. Lindsey Park - Gold Course Tyler, TX 2009 16 191 8.38%
49. Lake Lewisville Park Lewisville, TX 1998 61 736 8.29%
50. Pickard Park Indianola, IA 1999 24 290 8.28%
51. DeLaveaga Park Santa Cruz, CA 1983 72 959 7.51%
52. The Woodshed Paw Paw, WV 1994 21 287 7.32%
53. Dretzka Park Milwaukee, WI 1993 51 704 7.24%
54. Whippin' Post Paw Paw, WV 2000 17 238 7.14%
55. Reedy Creek Park Charlotte, NC 1989 55 784 7.02%
56. La Mirada Regional Park - Front 18 La Mirada, CA 1976 57 827 6.89%
57. Circle C Metro Park @ Slaughter Creek Austin, TX 1993 59 865 6.82%
58. Highbridge Hills - Granite Ridge Highbridge, WI 2004 29 427 6.79%
59. IDGC - WR Jackson Memorial DGC Appling, GA 2007 32 472 6.78%
60. Acorn Park St. Paul (Roseville), MN 1981 46 710 6.48%
61. Renaissance Park Charlotte, NC 1998 71 1107 6.41%
62. Hudson Mills Metropark - Original Dexter, MI 1992 44 707 6.22%
63. Highbridge Hills - Highbridge Gold Highbridge, WI 2004 24 389 6.17%
64. Hornets Nest Park Charlotte, NC 1996 70 1154 6.07%
65. Kilborne TPC Charlotte, NC 1991 48 800 6.00%
66. Kaposia Park South St. Paul, MN 1990 46 789 5.83%

 

[grodney]

Thanks, scarp -- an interesting sampling.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Thank you for data mining that, scarpy!

 

[jchoate7]

Maybe a "quick review section" can be made up then? Maybe something along the lines of a survey that can be generally used across all courses. Each question can have the 5 star system. Then have the overall of the course have a rating. This way you can see what exactly is liked disliked about the course and it wouldn't take too long for someone to sit down and actually rate a course instead of writing a detailed review of it.

 

[scarpfish]

Maybe a "quick review section" can be made up then? Maybe something along the lines of a survey that can be generally used across all courses. Each question can have the 5 star system. Then have the overall of the course have a rating. This way you can see what exactly is liked disliked about the course and it wouldn't take too long for someone to sit down and actually rate a course instead of writing a detailed review of it.

This has been suggested before. The problem with it is that people have differing opinions about how much certain aspects of a course should be weighed.

 

[grodney]

This has been suggested before. The problem with it is that people have differing opinions about how much certain aspects of a course should be weighed.

Off-topic-ing my own thread, but I've suggested before that players rate/grade a short list of "objective" aspects of a course.

Totally separately then, when a user searches for courses, that user sets his/her own weights for what is important.

It would be sort-of a site-level implementation of this:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...yODZsZkpLbzRYdzZMTXVkN05CNEE&usp=docslist_api

I'm not necessarily recommending this for DGCR. It's just something I dreamed up way back when.

 

[JedV]

I don't bother posting reviews because I have no desire to write 3 part essays or get slammed for being lazy.

I guess that I am lazy.

I have however uploaded photos where needed.

 

[sugarnot]

I've not reviewed or even listed courses I've played simply because it isn't that big of a deal for me on here because most of what I play is within a couple hours drive so I don't feel I really have anything to add that hasn't already been said.

That being said I do think the review process is rather extensive and would be more likely to do reviews if there was a quick review option of Overall rating with the stars, and then maybe a quick break down (star system again) of something like course maintenance, difficulty, amenities, ease of layout/design, and other surrounding features (gas/food/camping etc) with a comments box for any extra notable info