TimG can you just erase worthless reviews?

[The Miniac]

Designer's self-reviews

I feel as though I've designed/built some solid courses. But I've never given one of my courses a perfect 5 rating, as tempting as it might be.
In one case, I had to wait quite a while to post my review, because the first 4 or 5 were perfect 5's and I didn't want to be the one to screw up the perfect rating.
I try to be objective about the end product (though it's NEVER really completed)
And I will ALWAYS have more back-story than anyone else. Let's face it, it's very rare indeed to be able to pull off all you had imagined for your course.
My most recent course was listed before it was ready. So, one early review was a '3' because it still had borrowed single chain baskets and rubber mats, which have now been replaced with two shiny new DC28s and concrete pads per fairway. But the irrelevant review remains.
A newer reviewer also gave it a "3" because two fairways were close together, but the tees were too far apart???? (Played 2 courses. Reviewed 2 courses)
Great. Thanks for getting your review practice at my expense.
I've written a note to the early reviewer and asked him to consider an update, based on recent improvements... no response.
But what does one do about an "unfair" review that is obviously from a noob?

 

[aclay]

My original post:
My concern is more with course designers who review their own courses (giving glowing reviews) and never disclose that they are the course designer. This seems to be seriously unethical. If I know the glowing review is coming from the course designer, I am likely to take it with a grain of salt. I'm not sure the designer should be allowed to review his/her course, but I'm sure that at a minimum he/she should be required to disclose that fact. A redesigned course in my area has two reviews (1 disc and 4.5 discs). Guess which one comes from the course designer?

it is still annoying. and the numbers only average out over time if the course gets enough traffic. at the moment, over 40% of the courses on DGCR have fewer than 5 reviews.


i know the course in question and that review bugged me too. it prompted me to look at the reviewing rules because i could have sworn that at some point in the past there used to be a rule against designers reviewing their own course. isn't there also a "designers review" designation that can appear on reviews from the designer? can i flag a review and get it labeled as a "designers review"?

The course now has 4 reviews and a 2.75 rating. The course designer updated his review within the past week and raised the course rating from 4.5 to 5. I don't see any changes to what he wrote. And he lists cons, so how is the course a 5?

 

[DavidSauls]

And he lists cons, so how is the course a 5?

Depends on how you use the scale. If 5 means perfect, nothing can be improved, then it can't have cons.....and no course can be rated a 5. If 5 means "best of the best", every course, even the very best, will have something imperfect, and thus a few cons.

 

[DavidSauls]

My original post:
My concern is more with course designers who review their own courses (giving glowing reviews) and never disclose that they are the course designer. This seems to be seriously unethical. If I know the glowing review is coming from the course designer, I am likely to take it with a grain of salt. I'm not sure the designer should be allowed to review his/her course, but I'm sure that at a minimum he/she should be required to disclose that fact. A redesigned course in my area has two reviews (1 disc and 4.5 discs). Guess which one comes from the course designer?



The course now has 4 reviews and a 2.75 rating.

This is why it's not worth getting too worked up about an inflated review. Sooner or later, a course will get enough reviews to even out. And if the inflated review works, it will draw more players so that correction comes "sooner".

 

[Three Putt]

I feel as though I've designed/built some solid courses. But I've never given one of my courses a perfect 5 rating, as tempting as it might be.
In one case, I had to wait quite a while to post my review, because the first 4 or 5 were perfect 5's and I didn't want to be the one to screw up the perfect rating.
I try to be objective about the end product (though it's NEVER really completed)
And I will ALWAYS have more back-story than anyone else. Let's face it, it's very rare indeed to be able to pull off all you had imagined for your course.
My most recent course was listed before it was ready. So, one early review was a '3' because it still had borrowed single chain baskets and rubber mats, which have now been replaced with two shiny new DC28s and concrete pads per fairway. But the irrelevant review remains.
A newer reviewer also gave it a "3" because two fairways were close together, but the tees were too far apart???? (Played 2 courses. Reviewed 2 courses)
Great. Thanks for getting your review practice at my expense.
I've written a note to the early reviewer and asked him to consider an update, based on recent improvements... no response.
But what does one do about an "unfair" review that is obviously from a noob?

I keep trying to read and comprehend this post, but HOLY ****, man! Gregg Hosfeld posted? You have to be kidding me!

The problem with any user-data driven site is we can't account for the difference between a guy who has traveled across the country for 40 years playing disc golf at the highest levels vs. dude who just played his second course after discovering the game last month. I wish there was. There isn't, though. I mean, I'm assuming based on information you entered that you are Gregg Hosfeld. I could create a profile and say I'm Gregg Hosfeld, though. So it's tricky.

It's double tricky here because disc golf is an insular thing. There are no non-playing "fans" of disc golf. There are no companies that I'm aware of that are not run by Frisbee freaks involved in disc golf (I could be wrong, Vibram was in for a bit so there may be others.) We are disc golfers. You earn your reputation on the course. That is how it has always been. Being Gregg Hosfeld counts for something. If we were hanging out after a round talking about courses we liked and disliked, it would count a lot. That's not what we have here, though. One dude, one vote. It's what we all think, for better or (probably) for worse.

Which would drive me flat-out crazy if I was Gregg Hosfeld. :| That n00b? He gets the same vote as you. Which is insane, but nobody has figured out a better way.

Maybe there is a way to highlight a review written by somebody with a resume like...is there anybody else with a resume like this?

1987 World Champion, 2008 & 2010 Grandmasters World Champion, 2009-2012 Grandmasters US Champion, 1995 Masters 150 class World Champion, PDGA Hall of Fame Inductee 1998, World Record Holder for Most Courses (1196) Played, Senior Course Designer, Co-Founder of World Champion Disc Golf Design

I mean it wouldn't do anything for the rating, but if it was bordered or highlighted somehow that would draw more attention to it, or maybe kept on the front page instead of by date where it could get buried? Something like that?

I really hope this was legit Gregg Hosfeld after I typed all that.

 

[DavidSauls]

But what does one do about an "unfair" review that is obviously from a noob?

Have patience. By the time there are 10 reviews, that one will only affect the rating by 0.2 or less. By 20, 0.1 or less, and it hardly matters. Plus, it will have sunk far enough down the page to never be read.

 

[sidewinder22]

Let's face it, it's very rare indeed to be able to pull off all you had imagined for your course.

I've pulled off much more than I had ever imagined. Although I had some really low expectations.

 

[joecoin]

...But what does one do about an "unfair" review that is obviously from a noob?

There's a postulation that says, if you give 100 people each a one hundred dollar bill, two of them will find a problem with it.

Nothing you can do about it, just ignore it.

 

[aclay]

Depends on how you use the scale. If 5 means perfect, nothing can be improved, then it can't have cons.....and no course can be rated a 5. If 5 means "best of the best", every course, even the very best, will have something imperfect, and thus a few cons.

This is from the guidelines on this site: Remember, a "5" is considered the ultimate. There is absolutely nothing that could be done to improve the course. It is perfect in every possible way.

Given that directive, a course should (must?) be perfect to earn a 5. That seems pretty straightforward. I have always tried to follow that. Am I the only one?

 

[DavidSauls]

This is from the guidelines on this site: Remember, a "5" is considered the ultimate. There is absolutely nothing that could be done to improve the course. It is perfect in every possible way.

Given that directive, a course should (must?) be perfect to earn a 5. That seems pretty straightforward. I have always tried to follow that. Am I the only one?

You are correct, that is the guideline. And if followed, it seems to me that there is no such thing as a 5---no course can be perfect, and there's always something that can be improved.

Or maybe there can be one 5 in the world, because the differences between 2 courses rated 5 would indicate something that one or the other doesn't have.

I don't know how many people take that literally, but from reading reviews, it's clear that a lot of people don't, and give out 5s for "the best of the best." At least as they define "best".

 

[aclay]

You are correct, that is the guideline. And if followed, it seems to me that there is no such thing as a 5---no course can be perfect, and there's always something that can be improved.

Or maybe there can be one 5 in the world, because the differences between 2 courses rated 5 would indicate something that one or the other doesn't have.

I don't know how many people take that literally, but from reading reviews, it's clear that a lot of people don't, and give out 5s for "the best of the best." At least as they define "best".

Are the people who don't take that literally the same people who seem to fly into a rage on this site when someone else says there are rules that we can disregard?

 

[DavidSauls]

Are the people who don't take that literally the same people who seem to fly into a rage on this site when someone else says there are rules that we can disregard?

When we started getting payouts for wins on this website, I'll be the side of strict adherence.

 

[aclay]

When we started getting payouts for wins on this website, I'll be the side of strict adherence.

You make a fair point about the money, so perhaps my analogy was off.

However, the point of a review is to help others know about the course and to decide whether or not to play it. People read the reviews and sometimes travel hundreds (or thousands) of miles to play a course. The very nature of a review is subjective, but when we don't follow the guidelines, then we stray even further from being helpful. I know this sounds nit-picky, but words have meaning. When we use them to mean something else, we make the communication less effective.

 

[DavidSauls]

Rules for competition are different than rules for something like this. But you're right, we should adhere to the guidelines as best we can. But it seems obvious from the existing reviews, that this particularly one is not being taken literally.

Or maybe it is, by 90% of the reviewers who never give a 5, and I'm just seeing the 10% who do.

 

[wellsbranch250]

Remember, a "5" is considered the ultimate. There is absolutely nothing that could be done to improve the course. It is perfect in every possible way.

I personally do not think this review tip is a good one. The word "absolutely" would, if taken literally, makes 5's impossible. I could remove a pine cone from a course and argue that I improved the course in terms of footing. However, because there are still other pine cones out there causing footing issues, the course can still be improved.

Best of the Best

I do agree with the more flexible term which occupies the rating dropdown box.

Martin Dewgarita, who played over 1000 courses once wrote.

Top 1.5% receive a 5 rating

it seems like a nice threshold, but I wouldn't disagree with anyone who feels its 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10. I just like to see consistency and a written back-up of the review score. I think aclay has done a nice job of hitting both these angles in his recent reviews.

 

[thrembo]

For me: One 5 in 126 reviewed (175+ played). Hobb's Farm is my only 5 (so far) and I don't have that many 4.5's either (6 out of 126 reviewed).

 

[aclay]

I have written 35 reviews and played 142 courses and never given higher than a 4. I have played Trey Texas and Selah, although I did not review them. It's been too long for me to write a decent review now, but my memory is that all four courses would be 4.5. I have Flip City on my wish list. Sounds fantastic, but I doubt it would be a 5 for me. I'm sure there is something (of substance) that could be improved.

I appreciate how seriously people are taking this.

 

[markmcc]

Having an unattainable top rating makes no sense. If that is the case then what we really have is a 0-4.5 scale, with 4.5 being the "Best of the Best".

Ratings are subjective, plain and simple. It is up to the reviewer to decide what the "Best of the Best" is, and that should relate to the maximum rating allowed, which on this site is a 5.

 

[aclay]

Having an unattainable top rating makes no sense. If that is the case then what we really have is a 0-4.5 scale, with 4.5 being the "Best of the Best".

Ratings are subjective, plain and simple. It is up to the reviewer to decide what the "Best of the Best" is, and that should relate to the maximum rating allowed, which on this site is a 5.

I don't think I made my point well enough. I don't think a "5" is unattainable. I just haven't seen one yet. If you think there are "cons" for a course, it could be improved and is not a 5, according to the guidelines for this site. Since this is not my site, I try to use the guidelines that were established by the owners of this site. If I don't like those guidelines and don't want to follow them, I am free to start my own site and use the guidelines I like.

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't think that "unattainable" comment was directed at you, as much as the guideline itself.

The idea is that no course is, or can be, "perfect".

And that no course cannot be improved.

So the guidelines give us a scale of 0-5, but the 5 is unattainable.