Over-rated and Under-rated courses

[Olorin]

All of my 2.5s have now been changed to 2.0s.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

 

[Greg Layton]

All of my 2.5s have now been changed to 2.0s.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Are you moving your 2.0s to 1.5s, your 1.5s to 1.0s, your 1.0s to .5s, your .5s to 0.0s, and deleting all your 0.0 reviews? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[timg]

I would argue that 2.5 is actually below the "average range". If you take two reviewers on the oposite end of things like indiana jonesy guy and myself...he has an average course rating of 3.05 while I have an average course rating of 3.01. So technically, a 2.0 is well below average and a 2.50 is even slightly below average. That's where the controversy comes in.

When you guys said "let's pick a number to put the word average beside" why did you choose 2.0?

The scale was originally like this:

1 - Poor
2 - Average
3 - Good
4 - Excellent
5 - Best of the best

Then I added 0 by request and shortly after, I fleshed it out with half points so you could "add detail" to your number rating. I think if I had just picked another adjective to describe that spot this thread wouldn't be taking place. "Fair" instead of "Average" and then you wouldn't have the must be in the middle expectation.

In any case, the nice thing about this site is that in the end, it is a dictatorship (a benevolent one!) and the scale won't be changing from it's current incarnation. The only thing I would possibly consider is making 2.0 "Fair" and 2.5 "Average" just to appease the people that have a problem with the wording. As it is, there is no longer any ambiguity now that each step is labeled although I did like it better the other way.

 

[Olorin]

Are you moving your 2.0s to 1.5s, your 1.5s to 1.0s, your 1.0s to .5s, your .5s to 0.0s, and deleting all your 0.0 reviews? Inquiring minds want to know.

No. The top and bottom ends remain the same, so only those closest to 2.5 need to be adjusted. I am revising some 1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5 downward though.

 

[Olorin]

I would argue that 2.5 is actually below the "average range". If you take two reviewers on the oposite end of things like indiana jonesy guy and myself...he has an average course rating of 3.05 while I have an average course rating of 3.01. So technically, a 2.0 is well below average and a 2.50 is even slightly below average. That's where the controversy comes in.

Sorry, but this is flawed logic. Your personal average rating of the courses you've reviewed is not the same as "Average" for all courses in existence. Your averages are merely the averages of the courses that you've rated. An avg of 3 only means that you've played and rated Good courses. (3.0 = Good.) If you only played and reviewed many poor courses then your personal avg would be ~1.5

 

[sidewinding]

An avg of 3 only means that you've played and rated Good courses. (3.0 = Good.) If you only played and reviewed many poor courses then your personal avg would be ~1.5

Everywhere I go I play and review all the courses I can, good and bad. I don't pass up on the bad courses.

I doubt that all courses around the country could be divided evenly from 0.0 to 5.0. I would speculate that >50% of all courses are above 2.5 disc rating.

Then you have to ask the question "What is average?" With a pro/con rating system you can give each pro and con a point value and then subtract the cons from the pros. If the number you get is 0 then you would rate the course a 2.5 or in the special case of DGCR 2.0.

 

[garublador]

"Fair" instead of "Average" and then you wouldn't have the must be in the middle expectation.

This is exactly what I was going to suggest.

When you see the word "average" in this context it suggests a statistical value. IMO, we don't know what average really is for disc golf courses and won't unless a significant number of courses are rated objectively using the same scale. It could be higher or lower than the exact middle of the scale. It does seem a bit pessimistic to put that value at a 2, I'd hope it's more like a 3 but I've been blessed with living in areas with good courses. I'd guess the average course I play here is closer to a 3.5-4.0. The courses I played in the Twin Cities (not necessarily all the courses there, just the ones I typically played) probably averaged 2.5-3.0.

 

[timg]

Ok.. how about everyone weighs in on this

0.0 - Abysmal
0.5 - Very Poor
1.0 - Poor
1.5 - Passable
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

Fair and Average pretty much mean the same thing so it's open to interpretation but I thought it would satisfy those that have a problem with the label positions while those that have rated courses according to the existing labeled scale can leave their ratings alone.

We could also remove the word "Average" all together which I kind of like more. Again, no score adjustments necessary.

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

 

[sidewinding]

Ok.. how about everyone weighs in on this

0.0 - Abysmal
0.5 - Very Poor
1.0 - Poor
1.5 - Passable
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

Fair and Average pretty much mean the same thing so it's open to interpretation but I thought it would satisfy those that have a problem with the label positions while those that have rated courses according to the existing labeled scale can leave their ratings alone.

I like it alot.

And while you're at it, if 5.0 is Best of the Best why not make 0.0 Worst of the Worst? Abysmal sounds a little generic.

 

[timg]

I think giving it a label like that would encourage some to use 0 more and few courses really deserve a 0.

 

[Olorin]

When you see the word "average" in this context it suggests a statistical value. IMO, we don't know what average really is for disc golf courses and won't unless a significant number of courses are rated objectively using the same scale.

Not necessarily. The word "Average" has a semantic range with several meanings.

The MW dictionary says,
Function:adjective 1: equaling an arithmetic mean 2 a: being about midway between extremes <a man of average height> b: not out of the ordinary : common <the average person>

I think that "being about midway between extremes" is exactly what I take average to mean on DGCR

 

[timg]

Well my intention was for it to mean "b: not out of the ordinary"

 

[Olorin]

Ok.. how about everyone weighs in on this

0.0 - Abysmal
0.5 - Very Poor
1.0 - Poor
1.5 - Passable
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

Fair and Average pretty much mean the same thing so it's open to interpretation but I thought it would satisfy those that have a problem with the label positions while those that have rated courses according to the existing labeled scale can leave their ratings alone.

I love it! (No surprises there! )

Keep the word Average. I suspect that users new to this site will want to establish the baseline at Average.

I'm even willing to go back and change back all of my recently revised 2.0s (all 3 of them).

 

[timg]

It's amazing what highlighting the word "Average" in MS Word and choosing synonyms comes up with

I kind of like using "Decent" instead "Average".

 

[Olorin]

Can of average worms

I don't even want to discuss this, but there's a lot of latitude, based on a variety of variables, about what different reviewers will even consider "Average" anyway. I bet that if 10 Trusted Reviewers visited 10 "Average" courses, and were instructed that 2.5 equals average, that they would be rated at 2.0 to 3.0 (or maybe from 1.5 to 3.5). But hopefully the numbers would plot on a bell curve with 2.5 at the center and the 1.5s balanced by the 3.0s. I suppose that if 100 TRs did this on one course that 2.5 might well be the mean. And that's one of the central premises of lots of reviews.

 

[Olorin]

It's amazing what highlighting the word "Average" in MS Word and choosing synonyms comes up with

I kind of like using "Decent" instead "Average".

"Ordinary" is another good choice.

 

[sidewinding]

Synonyms are fun!

5.0 - Superb
4.5 - A dandy
4.0 - Solid
3.5 - Swell
3.0 - Not Bad
2.5 - Middle of the road
2.0 - Mediocre
1.5 - Inferior
1.0 - Sad
0.5 - Shitty
0.0 - Unspeakable

 

[timg]

Any other comments before I decide whether the "Decent" scale goes into effect?

 

[sidewinding]

I like average for the middle better. Decent implies slightly better than average.

 

[ERicJ]

I would argue that 2.5 is actually below the "average range". If you take two reviewers on the oposite end of things like indiana jonesy guy and myself...he has an average course rating of 3.05 while I have an average course rating of 3.01. So technically, a 2.0 is well below average and a 2.50 is even slightly below average. That's where the controversy comes in.

When you guys said "let's pick a number to put the word average beside" why did you choose 2.0?

Sorry, but this is flawed logic. Your personal average rating of the courses you've reviewed is not the same as "Average" for all courses in existence. Your averages are merely the averages of the courses that you've rated. An avg of 3 only means that you've played and rated Good courses. (3.0 = Good.) If you only played and reviewed many poor courses then your personal avg would be ~1.5

Olorin hit that one on the head. I think generally most people will have slightly high personal averages. I think most people are more inclined to gravitate towards good courses than bad.

I know that on the out of state road trips that I've gone on I have targeted only the highest rated courses. Intentionally avoiding the expected dogs has upped my personal average as I'm playing/reviewing more good courses than bad. I don't have the time on those trips to waste on bad courses.

Even though I've played and reviewed just about every course in the Houston area there are still a couple (Mason Park and Clinton Park) that have gotten such bad press that I'm not interested in even trying them. But if I did I'm pretty sure they'd rate near Abysmal.

I doubt that all courses around the country could be divided evenly from 0.0 to 5.0. I would speculate that >50% of all courses are above 2.5 disc rating.

Assuming that Average=2.0, or even Average=2.5, it's just not possible by the definition of average that >50% of the courses are above a 2.5 rating.

ERic