The recent surge of lame reviews.

[ReedyCreekProduct]

I like succinct reviews that give a general impression. I hate reviews that write a paragraph for every hole. But both styles should be welcomed here.

Some of these "lame" reviews are funny, unintentionally or not, and I don't mind that. The whole family having a picnic and picking up a frisbee thing makes me crack up.

Redneck Machismo's total dismissal of that one course recently: It was so over the top, I got a nice chuckle out of that one.

You can glance at a review and pretty much tell within 3 seconds if the reviewer is someone you can take seriously.

BUT HERE IS THE IMPORTANT THING FOR ME: TAKE THE FIVE DISC RATING SYSTEM SERIOUSLY.

I look up courses for potential play based somewhat on their rating. If people were to go in and poison a course's rating with a bunch of inappropriately low or high disc ratings, that would bother me.

 

[ReedyCreekProduct]

"If the review is based on course design, location, and setting, then I would give it a much higher rating."

Perhaps lame, but apparently he's saying that it has good design, location, and setting. There's something to be gotten here.

"Very nice scenery.
you're located in a city park, however the disc golf course is only used for disc golf (no randos walking across course)
Good course if you can throw pretty far
not too busy."

Maybe not the best wording, but this tells me that I don't have to worry about interference from nondiscers (good!), that it has some long holes, and that it isn't crowded(awesome!).

"This course is for a family who has never played disc golf, are having a picnic there, and pick up a Frisbee and try to hit the signs with their 7 year old daughter. Cannot be actually considered a course."

This is a funny, original way to tell me that this course stinks. I like it. If I want a better physical description, I'll just read an additional review to the course. No biggie.

 

[NDABRUSH]

Reviewing a course for no other purpose than writing the review for other golfers use is great and any true effort is to be commended. Writing a review to drop or raise the course rating is Doochebagy and Lame as hell, especially when it is only a few sentences.

 

[humchris85]

2 1.5 ratings recently by 2 noobs destroying whispering falls in PA...it deserves a 4ish rating but gets slammed for being toooo hard and too difficult and too much walking up and down hills in woods?

We have one here @ The Curtain that was a 1 disc rating, on a course that is typicly over a 4 disc rating. It's just part of the game.:wall:

I have noticed more cruddy reviews coming in of recent as well. It makes it hard for me to want to look at anything not by a TR.

 

[Dave242]

ReedyCreekProduct kinda stated what I was going to say. :thmbup:

For a lot of these short reviews, you can skim them and in 5 seconds figure out that it should be ignored (or take out 1-3 good points). Or you can skip the short reviews and waste 1 second scrolling to the next review.

It takes 1-2 minutes to wade through some of the long reviews and find out that you do not agree with the perspective to a point where you have no reason to believe anything of substance they write.

I prefer wasting less time rather than more time. So, skimming the reviews (bullet point reviews are the best), looking at the rating, looking at the facts on the main page and, looking at the pictures is the best way to effectively and quickly size up a course.

 

[Cyclops]

Short reviews, keep in mind that we are in the age of texting. You should see some of the E-mails I get at work and home. My god, I can't spell and don't always have the best grammar when writing. But how little can you write? If it's that much of a effort than don't bother, do us both a favor........lol. :|

 

[humchris85]

I prefer wasting less time rather than more time. So, skimming the reviews (bullet point reviews are the best), looking at the rating, looking at the facts on the main page and, looking at the pictures is the best way to effectively and quickly size up a course.

I'm with you on this. That's why my review style is typicly done in bullet points. Easy to find out what you need to know.:thmbup:

 

[jongoff09]

After reading the OP, I was thinking the same thing as ReedyCreekProduct posted on #22. All of those are helpful posts in a way. I would play the courses that the first two reviews were for, and I wouldn't play the third one if I was close by.

 

[NWcityguy2]

I bet if you turn your computer off, travel to the course and play it you won't see the review there. In fact the review will probably have no effect on your game either. Rants like these are why I consider "disc golf" and "online disc golf" two different games.

If a course has more than one review then who cares? If the quick pointless review was the only one then who cares either? Would you rather know nothing about a course instead of "It has trees and is fun"? The only real problem I could see is people putting information that is completely false and meant to screw with people. Like if a course is flooded 7 months and year but someone puts up "Dry year round, just bring sneakers and CE plastic that you would cry if you lost".

 

[NateDiscFlip]

Just to go off on my own rant....why is there the people who will not give good points because of lame or no signs....and no benches......

I know a great course in MI by the name of Branstrom(Fremont).....which according to MichiganDiscgolfcourse guide as #5 in the state....but no one would ever know because it is next to flipcity and ludington....

good news....cement teepads this summer may put this course way high on the charts....signs and benches(could use more) are good for now....

for those of you who have never played.....take the time when you stop in to play flipcity....branstrom has one of the greatest variety of holes I have ever played...and I birdied 12 just to let it be known.......as a disc bounced off a tree about ten feet in back of basket...thanks STALKER!

 

[Jukeshoe]

How's this for a review? Please tell me I'm doing it correctly...

Pros: Lots off grass. Can't hardly hit a tree for trying.
Cons: Still a few trees. Why can't they not make tthese courses impossible for all but top pors?
Other Thoughts: Puked behind the bush on 8, by teepad. Buddy lost disc in grass. They need to get rido f some of these hills. Wno't be playing here agin unless some serious work gets put into this poor excuse fo a course. Don't bother.

4 1/2 discs.

 

[Cyclops]

How's this for a review? Please tell me I'm doing it correctly...

Pros: Lots off grass. Can't hardly hit a tree for trying.
Cons: Still a few trees. Why can't they not make tthese courses impossible for all but top pors?
Other Thoughts: Puked behind the bush on 8, by teepad. Buddy lost disc in grass. They need to get rido f some of these hills. Wno't be playing here agin unless some serious work gets put into this poor excuse fo a course. Don't bother.

4 1/2 discs.

Laughing......great review there. I get a bit miffed when I see either end of the grading scale. Here's a example of a recent one just posted.

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=88&mode=rev#21334

Okay 5 discs? I normally read some other reviews for the course and try to get a better feel for the true picture. Kudo's to Harr sounds much more realistic and fair (good review). I check the photos and hole distances to see if it looks right. Anytime I see a rating of 1 or 5 discs I question the integrity of the review. I have played some fantastic courses that I thought were first class but I don't think I would give them a 5. A 4 or 4.5 seems much more realistic to me. Because a course kicked my arse doesn't mean it gets a 5 disc rating. I might just be having a bad day or the design is above my skill level. I hate to review a course if I only played it once. I think people just don't read the scale before grading, 5 = best. How do I know what is the best? Isn't that subjective to my preference for design?

I guess you have to take the good with the bad. The review is as subjective as the person reading it.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Laughing......great review there. I get a bit miffed when I see either end of the grading scale. Here's a example of a recent one just posted.

Pls :thmbup: me.

I need all hlep I can git.

 

[bcr123psu]

How's this for a review? Please tell me I'm doing it correctly...

Pros: Lots off grass. Can't hardly hit a tree for trying.
Cons: Still a few trees. Why can't they not make tthese courses impossible for all but top pors?
Other Thoughts: Puked behind the bush on 8, by teepad. Buddy lost disc in grass. They need to get rido f some of these hills. Wno't be playing here agin unless some serious work gets put into this poor excuse fo a course. Don't bother.

4 1/2 discs.

Great job Juke. I rated a course a 0 because there was puke on hole 8. I feel bad now because it was all your fault and it's impossible for me to change my review

*knows he can update his reviews*

 

[Cyclops]

Pls :thmbup: me.

I need all hlep I can git.

U'r coul Bra, I hoked u up. :hfive:

I rated a course a 0 because there was puke on hole 8.

Dam homie I didn't no we wus pos to down grade for puke. I'l do bet'r nex time on my reviews.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Great job Juke. I rated a course a 0 because there was puke on hole 8. I feel bad now because it was all your fault and it's impossible for me to change my review

I et 1 to many sammiches.

 

[tallpaul]

Course could be uprated by .25 or downrated by .25 depending on coloring of puke when dry and whether this adds to colorful ambiance of said course. What kind of sandmichess Juke?

 

[Jukeshoe]

Course could be uprated by .25 or downrated by .25 depending on coloring of puke when dry and whether this adds to colorful ambiance of said course. What kind of sandmichess Juke?

Mustard Sammich on Rye. 1 1/2 Sammich Rating
Pros: Its a sammich.
Cons: This sammich was missing...a lot. Rye suxxors hard.
Other thoughts: Note to self: vodka+this sammich=puke

 

[Jukeshoe]

All joking aside, I wonder how many people find this site, think its cool, sign up and review one of their local courses, and then never log on again? I'd imagine that the majority of the poor reviews are from casual players who are bored some evening and decide to take a stab at reviewing, rather than the people who are on here fairly frequently.

 

[bcr123psu]

All joking aside, I wonder how many people find this site, think its cool, sign up and review one of their local courses, and then never log on again? I'd imagine that the majority of the poor reviews are from casual players who are bored some evening and decide to take a stab at reviewing, rather than the people who are on here fairly frequently.

This would seem to make sense, though I think it would be closer to 50/50.

It would be interesting to see the results back from a query that captured certain summary information, such as:

Number of courses played
Number of reviews
Thumbs up
Thumbs down

Grouped by courses played. Making certain assumptions, we could make some inferences based on the results to test your hypothesis.