Resetting Reviews

[jjtwinnova]

There are courses all over the world that need a makeover. Some have no tee signs and teepads, old rickety baskets. I'm sure someone has taken a neglected course and spruced it up again to make it a top notch course that is world championship caliber. More likely, a 9 hole course upgrades to an 18 hole course. Most 9 hole courses get lower reviews than 18 hole courses, but once upgraded they are top notch. This may take a 3 star course up to a 4+ star course. What I am saying is, after a large course renovation, should the course reviews be reset?

TLDR: Should renovated courses get a fresh start?

 

[Stardoggy]

A perfect example is Stoney Creek near us. Started as a 9 hole Eagle Scout project, and has now been expanded to a completely kickbutt 18. It will probably be a top 5 WI course when done, but as of now, still has the same page, with relatively low reviews.

 

[DavidSauls]

The answer is, "Yes".

The question is, "How large a course renovation?".

Or, at least, sometimes it is. It seems that if the course has changed enough that the earlier reviews no longer accurately describe it, they should be retired.

The trickier question is what to with a course that didn't have a wholesale renovation, but incremental changes over the years, to the point that it is now substantially different.

 

[dreadlock86]

^^^indeed


re: incremental changes, that's an interesting question. at first i thought it wouldn't bother me but then i thought about it. if you changed one hole a year, you'd have a totally different course in a decade. once again it is about how large the changes are.

but i still think the trickiest question is "how much of a course needs to change in order to warrant a new course page?"
imagine your home 18. two holes get changed. probably no big deal.
three holes get changed. four holes. at what point is it a different course?

plus, is it just that pin positions have changed? tee locations changed? some holes completely lost while other holes are totally new? rerouting the navigation through the land, reordering the hole numbers, starting on a different hole...
some changes alter the feel and experience much more than others.

 

[Jaxully]

I agree that some courses do warrant a reset as well. Maybe there could be a petition option that has to reach a certain amount of support. Or even an application process pleading why the course deserves a reset. Just a couple ideas.

 

[eegor]

Courses have their ups and downs like people do. My local course had major sewer construction done one summer and the reviews were all one star or less. All of the rest of the reviews have been 3 or larger (with the exception of two drunk guys that couldn't find the #4 tee). That year (2008) of reviews doesn't reflect the course for what it is... or was for that matter.

Concrete tees and signs have been added and the city does a lot more mowing than they used to. Is the rating fair? Not for the current course. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/revie...in=&exp_max=&exp_played=&exp_reviewed=&page=4

 

[DavidSauls]

I agree that some courses do warrant a reset as well. Maybe there could be a petition option that has to reach a certain amount of support. Or even an application process pleading why the course deserves a reset. Just a couple ideas.

There is, more or less. Just contact timg through the "contact us", explain the situation, and he'll make a determination.

 

[jjtwinnova]

As the OP, I would say that it would require a major remodeling to constitute a total reset. This would mean it deletes both good and bad reviews. Now, if a course gets slowly better over time, the fact is that that's what a course is supposed to do.

 

[DavidSauls]

re: incremental changes, that's an interesting question. at first i thought it wouldn't bother me but then i thought about it. if you changed one hole a year, you'd have a totally different course in a decade. once again it is about how large the changes are.
.

It's always on my mind because our private course is constantly evolving. Since the earliest reviews we've built a pond, wiping out several holes that were in that valley and creating some pretty dramatic ones over and around the water. We've gone from 18 holes to 30 in overlapping layouts, with significant changes to some of the remaining original holes. With more changes in the works.

But it's not a big deal to us. The early reviews were pretty good, and didn't say anything that would mislead anyone (and, at any rate, I doubt anyone reads all the way through to the earliest ones, except me). We could get a little bump in the ratings if we discarded the pre-2013 ones, but I, for one, enjoy reading the early reviews from time to time.

But it makes me think of other courses that have undergone major changes, a little bit at a time, such that the original reviews are no longer accurate.

 

[jjtwinnova]

Alot of people agree with this... This is more of a petition rather than a poll.

 

[joecoin]

What about going the other way? A great course that through neglect or for safety reasons is changed so much it is no longer great?

 

[jjtwinnova]

What about going the other way? A great course that through neglect or for safety reasons is changed so much it is no longer great?

Interesting thought and a great point. That being said, I don't think that's as much of an issue with top rated courses. If someone goes through the trouble of checking this site for ratings, they would probably also read recent reviews, and therefore understand that the rating went down since the beginning. All of this could be argued the other way, but I think the bigger issue is with a great course has a poor rating due to problems it had when it first was made/pre-renovations.

 

[DavidSauls]

What about going the other way? A great course that through neglect or for safety reasons is changed so much it is no longer great?

I've known some courses whose quality deteriorated after losing holes to other park projects.

I know of one course that was cut from 18 holes to 9. Without looking it up, I trust the reviews were reset after that.

 

[jjtwinnova]

I want to hear some input from people who said no.

 

[NDABRUSH]

What about when a course is redesigned and the reviews are erased because there is no RIP for the old design. Kiwanis park in Lufkin Texas was a 9 hole course when I played and reviewed it. It is now 18 holes and is still on my played list even though I have not played the new set up. What is missing, are the reviews and the old course itself which should have a RIP next to it. All of the other closed down courses that I have played have it next to them. Just curious if anyone else has noticed something like this.

 

[Ranger Rick]

actually DGCR has a policy for this, but it involves retiring the old course and uploading it again as new.

 

[BrotherDave]

I want to hear some input from people who said no.

First off you're talking about ratings, not necessarily reviews. Like somebody else said, some courses get better (redesigned), others get worse (i.e. natural disaster/redesigned by Jon Owens). It would be way too much work for TimG to reset ratings for a course all the time so with the exception of drastic changes (old layouts turned into extinct courses basically) it would be a logistics nightmare for him. The ratings even out over time anyway, that's why the reviews are dated.

 

[scarpfish]

What about when a course is redesigned and the reviews are erased because there is no RIP for the old design. Kiwanis park in Lufkin Texas was a 9 hole course when I played and reviewed it. It is now 18 holes and is still on my played list even though I have not played the new set up. What is missing, are the reviews and the old course itself which should have a RIP next to it. All of the other closed down courses that I have played have it next to them. Just curious if anyone else has noticed something like this.

We had a recent RIP course come back from the dead. Same piece of land but entirely different layout. It was gone a good 5+ years. Timg opted to resurrect the existing listing rather than start a new one. The old reviews (and there wasn't that many) were wiped.

In another case, we had an 18 holer get reduced to nine. Again, the old listing was recycled, but this time the old reviews stayed.

In both cases, no new reviews have been submitted.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Courses that undergo several minor changes over the years is kind of difficult to address.

As for a more definitive redesigns, I looks at it in terms of:
- completely new holes the previous layout never had
- holes that have the same fairway, but new tee or pin locations that make them play substantially different
- holes remain completely unhanged
- holes that are lost

IMHO, if 33% or more of the holes are completely new, RIP the old course and relist as a new course.
Decision becomes tougher when most of the changes involve old fairways, but ultimately, I ask myself, "How different does the new layout feel and play?"

 

[jjtwinnova]

First off you're talking about ratings, not necessarily reviews. Like somebody else said, some courses get better (redesigned), others get worse (i.e. natural disaster/redesigned by Jon Owens). It would be way too much work for TimG to reset ratings for a course all the time so with the exception of drastic changes (old layouts turned into extinct courses basically) it would be a logistics nightmare for him. The ratings even out over time anyway, that's why the reviews are dated.

I am not talking about ratings, I am talking about reviews as well. If you look at some old reviews for certain courses, they will list cons that have been fixed in a large renovation, such as new teepads and tee signs, new baskets, reopened fairways, added 9 holes. These reviews aren't fair to the course because if someone were to read it, they might not want to go there.