Over-rated and Under-rated courses

[DGtourist]

This is probably not the correct thread to bring this up in but here's a question for timg. On the course rating chart if 2.5 is average then can we change the wording beside 2.0 from average to below average and change the wording beside 3.0 from good to above average. I think it would make more sense because "average" and "good" do not correctly represent these levels.

Dude, I go by the wording. I'd have to go back and change every rating.

 

[sidewinding]

Dude, I go by the wording. I'd have to go back and change every rating.

So if a course has the same amount of pros and cons do you give it an average 2?

 

[Olorin]

This is probably not the correct thread to bring this up in but here's a question for timg. On the course rating chart if 2.5 is average then can we change the wording beside 2.0 from average to below average and change the wording beside 3.0 from good to above average. I think it would make more sense because "average" and "good" do not correctly represent these levels.

Good suggestion. I use 2.5 as Average anyway. I think Above Avg is the next step, then Good.

 

[DGtourist]

So if a course has the same amount of pros and cons do you give it an average 2?

I would give a course I felt was average a 2. and if it were a little bit a above avg. 2.5 and a good course a 3 and so on. Because that's how it says to rate it.

 

[sidewinding]

I would give a course I felt was average a 2. and if it were a little bit a above avg. 2.5 and a good course a 3 and so on. Because that's how it says to rate it.

Why would you give an average course a below average score? If I see two discs I assume that the course has more cons than pros. If I see three discs I assume the course has more pros than cons.

 

[DGtourist]

Why would you give an average course a below average score? If I see two discs I assume that the course has more cons than pros. If I see three discs I assume the course has more pros than cons.

It is not a below average score, its an average score. 2 = average. If you assume its below average, that can't be helped. I get your point, but I'm going by the scale Tim made. If he changed it I'd have to go back and bump everything up 1/2 disc.

 

[sidewinding]

It is not a below average score, its an average score. 2 = average. If you assume its below average, that can't be helped. I get your point, but I'm going by the scale Tim made. If he changed it I'd have to go back and bump everything up 1/2 disc.

Wouldn't it be better to fix the scale now while the site is still in it's infancy than to wait until thousands of people have used it to rate courses. Sure it may inconvenience one person who gave a few average courses two's but in the long run it would be better to have a more accurate scale with a valid middle line.

 

[ERicJ]

More than one person would be inconvenienced. Like Tourist, I too followed the instructions and use 2.0 to be the rating for an average course. I'm sure we're not the only ones.

I mean how hard is this... it's not like Tim is asking people to guess, or make up their own ratings.

Seriously, it says: "2.0 - Average". That's not written in Latin, or hieroglyphics... it's friggin' English.

ERic

 

[ERicJ]

Why would you give an average course a below average score? If I see two discs I assume that the course has more cons than pros. If I see three discs I assume the course has more pros than cons.

It is not a below average score, its an average score. 2 = average. If you assume its below average, that can't be helped. I get your point, but I'm going by the scale Tim made. If he changed it I'd have to go back and bump everything up 1/2 disc.

What he ^^ said.

 

[sidewinding]

More than one person would be inconvenienced. Like Tourist, I too followed the instructions and use 2.0 to be the rating for an average course. I'm sure we're not the only ones.

I mean how hard is this... it's not like Tim is asking people to guess, or make up their own ratings.

Seriously, it says: "2.0 - Average". That's not written in Latin, or hieroglyphics... it's friggin' English.

ERic

But 2 is not average. What if it said 2.0 - excellent. Would you still want to keep the incorrect wording?

 

[ERicJ]

But 2 is not average.

Says who?

According to the DGCR scale: "2.0 - Average".

What if it said 2.0 - excellent. Would you still want to keep the incorrect wording?

If "1.0 - Poor" and "3.0 - Good", then: no. That would be silly and Tim would fix the mistake.

As it is the scale is consistent in that in progresses from bad to good as you go from 0 to 5. Why people assume the scale must be linear, I don't get. That must be the logical engineer side of me.

I can see why you might assume a linear scale without having read the values. But once you see the scale spelled out with the numbers and words it really shouldn't be hard to conform to it.

ERic

 

[sidewinding]

Why people assume the scale must be linear, I don't get.

When someone discovers this site they are usually searching for courses. When they go to the search feature and input which rating range they're looking for, they're probably going to want to find courses that are above average. There is nothing there to tell them that when the reviewers rated the courses they were using a non linear scale. Why is it so important to have a non linear scale? Would'nt it make more sense to have the middle be average?

 

[ERicJ]

When someone discovers this site they are usually searching for courses. When they go to the search feature and input which rating range they're looking for, they're probably going to want to find courses that are above average. There is nothing there to tell them that when the reviewers rated the courses they were using a non linear scale.

That's a good point.

Tim - the pull-down menus on the course browse page should have the words in addition to the numbers.

I never noticed that before, I guess because whenever I search for courses I never filter by rating so I see the unrated courses too. If anything I'll just sort the list afterwards.

Why is it so important to have a non linear scale? Would'nt it make more sense to have the middle be average?

That's what the Grand Poobah has deemed:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5049&post5049

ERic

 

[tomjulio]

Flip City.

You decide if it's over or under.

(Just razzing the FC Zealots b/c it's so fun to jerk their chain. It's all meant in fun guys, so please put the lynching rope away!)

it's a rat hole. it's all a scam.
in all honesty when you show up to play we all laugh at you and make you throw a frisbee flyer through hole #1(the only hole) which is a tire hanging from a tree.

Ok, now you're in on the gag too.

 

[timg]

The scale has gone through iterations since the start of the site. Originally it went up in steps of 1 instead of .5 and 0 wasn't an option until I received a few requests for it. The labels were based on that original 1 step scale with a "5" being kind of off in it's own world, reserved for a perfect course. So really, it was a 4 point scale in my mind.

Now that you have the history.. I would consider 2.0-2.5 to be average with 2.5 being slightly above average but average none the less. That entire range would fall under the "Average" label. So look at the scale as a set of ranges with the labels denoting where that range starts.

Also, I added the labels to the initial browse form.

 

[ERicJ]

Tim,

Any chance we can clarify/assign words to all the numerical values? I know you think it looks more cluttered, but until DGCR removes the subjectivity as best it can this topic will continue to come up. Here's my try at some values (at least how I think of them):

0.0 - Very Poor
0.5 - Lacking
1.0 - Poor
1.5 - Below Average
2.0 - Average
2.5 - Above Average
3.0 - Good
3.5 - Very Good
4.0 - Excellent
4.5 - Phenomenal
5.0 - Best of the Best

Note that it's hard to come up with something that fits between "Poor" and "Very Poor" for 0.5....

ERic

 

[timg]

You could call 0.0 Abysmal and 0.5 Very Poor.

That's a good scale.. I think it would be a little cluttered but I didn't think there was this much controversy over the scale so maybe I should add more labels.

 

[ERicJ]

You could call 0.0 Abysmal and 0.5 Very Poor.

I was trying to keep the same values you had and just fill in the midpoints. But if we're changing the verbage on the bottom rung then "Unplayable" or "Worthless" might work as well.

That's a good scale.. I think it would be a little cluttered but I didn't think there was this much controversy over the scale so maybe I should add more labels.

Please...

ERic

 

[timg]

Ok, I've added words to each step of the scale. Hopefully the controversy will now end

I could also do the following but it's pretty much semantics at that point and nobody would really have to change their ratings since the difference between what "Fair" means and "Average" is debatable. It would just be to satisfy those that can't deal with the "Average" label being at 2.0 My preference is to leave it as is.

0.0 - Abysmal
0.5 - Very Poor
1.0 - Poor
1.5 - Bad
2.0 - Fair
2.5 - Average
3.0 - Good
3.5 - Very Good
4.0 - Excellent
4.5 - Phenomenal
5.0 - Best of the Best

 

[Olorin]

Please change Average to 2.5

I'm re-posting this from a closed thread so that we have it for posterity.

Originally Posted by timg
The scale has gone through iterations since the start of the site. Originally it went up in steps of 1 instead of .5 and 0 wasn't an option until I received a few requests for it. The labels were based on that original 1 step scale with a "5" being kind of off in it's own world, reserved for a perfect course. So really, it was a 4 point scale in my mind.

Now that you have the history.. I would consider 2.0-2.5 to be average with 2.5 being slightly above average but average none the less. That entire range would fall under the "Average" label. So look at the scale as a set of ranges with the labels denoting where that range starts.

Timg,

Please, please change the label for Average to 2.5. Here are my reasons:

• The initial conditions described above have changed so the current reality is now different.
• It's been clearly demonstrated that of the 11 steps from 0 to 5 that the center is 2.5
• The vast majority of people rely on their experience so they consider 2.5 to be the center and 2.0 a little below average. The vast majority of users here won't read your note that 2.5 is also average and only go by the labels, thus you'll have to continually waste your valuable time addressing this question over and over.

Although this is the scale that I use I really do think that this change is for the good of the site. But I'm tired of being a rebel, even though I'll continue to use 2.5 as Average nonetheless.

I'm loathe to take a position opposed to ERicJ, but I suppose that I will anyway. (Let the spreadsheet barrages begin!)

So please, please, pretty please with sugar on top reconsider this scale.