Over-rated and Under-rated courses

[Innovadude]

I find it very interesting to see what some courses get rated and why. Sometimes it blows my mind that people say "THE best course of all time" or something along those lines, and give it a 5-star rating, for a course I wouldn't even put in my top-25 list. (DeLaVeaga)

Other times someone gives a course a 1 star, and I think it deserves 3 stars.

Will be interesting to see when more courses get rated more often..I attempt to rate each course I play that is not yet rated on here.

[ERicJ]

I find it very interesting to see what some courses get rated and why. Sometimes it blows my mind that people say "THE best course of all time" or something along those lines, and give it a 5-star rating, for a course I wouldn't even put in my top-25 list. (DeLaVeaga)

Okay, someone has to ask... what is your top 25 list?

Will be interesting to see when more courses get rated more often..I attempt to rate each course I play that is not yet rated on here.

Why confine it to just courses that are not yet rated? The more ratings we get from experienced players the more accurate this site will become.

ERic

[PhattD]

I see a few course that a rated funny. Some are ones I've played and just disagree with the rating. And some I haven't played but I can be pretty sure from the description that 5 discs is too high of a rating. I figure I will rate the courses I'm familiar with and let the ratings average themselves out. I would recommend to anyone that has only played a fe courses to avoid extremme ratings, 1 or 5, until you've seen more courses. If you've only played 5 or 6 mediocre course then finding a course that blows those 6 away isn't nessesarily a 5 disc course. By the same token I'm not lord high mucky muck in charge of course ratings so if you feel your local 9 hole object course deserves a 5 disc rating go right ahead. :)

[Innovadude]

I think I'll be waiting til 1,000 courses to write any more top-lists.
Idlewild, Toboggan, Highbridge Hills, HMO (Hudson Mills Original- pre-last couple years of overgrowing and pay-to-play), Pickard, Whistler's Bend, Milo McIver, Morraine State Park, Patapsco, Flip City, Hickory Hills, Kensington Tunnel, Tower Ridge, Keriakes..etc make the top 25 list.

[Innovadude]

Okay, someone has to ask... what is your top 25 list?



Why confine it to just courses that are not yet rated? The more ratings we get from experienced players the more accurate this site will become.

ERic

I barely have enough time each night to clean up, plan, do picture cataloging, blog on dgrus, update pdga.com directions and review courses. Someday I can add more, but usually I want to watch tv/sleep/relax for a few minutes each day too. :cool:

[DGtourist]

Here's my top ten, I've only played 73 though, I imagine I'll play 500 before I'm done. I hope to get to the point where Dela isn't even there, but I doubt that will ever happen since it rules.

De Laveaga Santa Cruz CA
Colorado Mountain College Glennwood Springs CO
Borderland State Park Easton MA
Beaver Medows Red Feather lakes CO
Cottonmill Kearney NE
Pease Park Austin TX
Thunderhead Steamboat Springs CO
NAD Park Bremerton WA
Sundance Trail Ranch Red Feather lakes CO
Casper DGC Casper WY

[DannyM]

I think that it is personal preferance on a lot of these ratings. I saw someone that had given my home course a 1 disc rating , and a cousre that is not far from here that I have played a higher rating. My home course is very technical, and not rally a "long" course, but the one rated higher is almost ALL wide open, and average 400+ ft per hole. Personally I prefer technical holes, not ones you just rip every hole 2-3 shots and putt in. I would say that my top courses are mostly technical courses, or, a mix of some open holes, with tight, technical holes as well. I'm not one of those "long arm" players that can throw 400ft, so my game is mostly accuracy, therefore those types of courses are what I give higher ratings on.

[Olorin]

I find it very interesting to see what some courses get rated and why. Sometimes it blows my mind that people say "THE best course of all time" or something along those lines, and give it a 5-star rating, for a course I wouldn't even put in my top-25 list.

HBB (Home Boy Bias) is probably the biggest reason that people give 4.5 or 5 discs. I appreciate when people tell you it's their home course so that you can take it with a grain of salt.

[Olorin]

Other times someone gives a course a 1 star, and I think it deserves 3 stars.

Probably lots of reasons for this...


One of the biggest is that people don't understand the idea of course playing levels (Gold, Blue, White, Red, Green). This is roughly analogous to the colored tees in traditional golf. It especially occurs if a Blue level player plays a Red or Green level course. For them the course is way to easy, so they give it a low rating, whereas for others of lower skill it may be just right. The same can happen if a Red level player plays a Gold level course (like Renaissance Gold, Nockamixon, Winthrop Gold).
Personal preference. Some like more open courses, some like more wooded technical courses. I love water holes so I always rate those courses higher.

[Olorin]

By the same token I'm not lord high mucky muck in charge of course ratings ...

If you're not Lord High Mucky-muck then who is? Any nominations?

([energetically waving hand like Horshack] Oo, oo! Pick me! Pick me!) :D

[magictenor1]

I have seen a lot of courses rated differently than I would rate them. There are a lot of courses I have played but not reviewed because I have only been rating courses as I play them and not going back to courses played previously. Some courses that I don't like enough to even go back to them are getting 4 stars and some I play every chance I get are getting lower ratings. I don't feel that I have any "homer bias" but it probably creeps in to some reviews. Mostly it comes down to personal preference and after all a review is just that, your opinion. If you describe a course well the reader can form their own opinion on whether they want to play a course irregardless of the actual rating you give a course.

[agentdozzer]

I agree i only reviewed a few courses and after i found no one was finding mine usefull i decided to wait awhile before my next review. I have only golfed around cincy, Idle wild is the only five i gave out and since it is been #1 on the site since i started coming i guess it deserves it. I cant wait to make a trip to some of the others in the top ten to compare.

[timg]

Just because nobody clicks helpful doesn't mean people aren't finding them useful so don't let that stop you. Only registered members can say whether a review is helpful or not and there are way more people that aren't registered visiting DGCR so chances are your review is being read and helping someone out.

[Greg Weleski]

I agree with Magictenor1. Reviews are just opinion and are based on many different aspects such skill level and ability to play technical holes well versus distance you can throw for open holes, whether you can put up with crazy amounts of shule or bugs, whether you are left handed or right handed, the season you play a course i.e. summer months are hot and dry/ winter months are cold and wet causing muddy and wet playing conditions and muddy or wet conditions can totally botch an otherwise good rating of a course. The main thing is to give a complete description of your experience of a course so others that read the reviews can have an idea of what to expect. The reviews I think are most beneficial are the long ones with pros and cons and other thoughts, not just a sentance or two and a rating of 0 to 5. Either way people have different preferences and will rate/review courses differently; however the more people that take the time to review a course the better. Whether a course gets a few bad ratings or good ratings won't really make a difference if enough people review it. The most accurately rated courses are the ones with a ton of reviews because one bad review won't really hurt the overall rating if it had 50 other good ratings. But people should definately try to avoid a DG course version of ethnocentrism. Just because a course is dear to your heart since its your home course or where you learned to play doesn't mean it should get a higher rating. I'm going to leave some reviews but only after I've played more courses and gained more experience and insight to what makes a spectacular course. Sorry if I ranted at all. I just don't find the short, vague reviews very helpful.

[Texconsinite]

I agree Greg. The really short reviews tell very little, and force you to play guessing games with the star rating. You read them and you wonder, why exactly did this person give this course 3.5 stars, instead of 4 or 3? But you just don't really know.

[adam423]

nevermind...

[dela]

Don't knock Delaveaga. There is not a single hole on that course that doesn't challenge you. And you must love trees. Yeah, its satisfying to air it out down a big open fairway, but when you nail that perfect 350 footer down a narrow fairway, it feels and looks some much sweeter.

And one more thing: Its Nate Doss's home course.

[tomjulio]

but usually I want to watch tv/sleep/relax for a few minutes each day too. :cool:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!? ;-)

And one more thing: Its Nate Doss's home course.

OH, HBB-Pro! Really though. I believe that Dretzka here in Milwaukee is Barry Schultz's home course, but I wouldn't don't give that course more than a four if in perfect condition.

[Olorin]

Flip City.

You decide if it's over or under. :eek:

(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!)

[sidewinding]

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.

[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. :rolleyes:

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. :rolleyes:

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 (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/browse.php) 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. :eek:

(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... :D

ERic

[timg]

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

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]

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


Originally Posted by timg http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15182#post15182)
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.

[Olorin]

Tim has answered several times that Average = 2.0, as labeled, but that 2.5 might also be considered Average. Now 2.5 is labeled Above Average, though.

I'm just trying to save Tim the time of having to retype this since he's done so several times already.

When you read my reviews you need to know that I rate courses as
Average = 2.5
Below Average = 2.0
So you might want to subtract 0.5 discs from my ratings btwn 1.5-3.5 to get it on the DGCR Standard Scale.

[Olorin]

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

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

I can certainly live with this. Just be prepared to keep pointing people back to this answer when the next batches of new users ask again (and again and again and again...). You might want to make a concise FAQ to point them to.

[timg]

I don't think most people are quite this caught up in the labels as you might think. Out of almost 3000 people registered I think this is an issue with maybe.. 10 people? With every option spelled out, the only people that would continue to question the scale would be those that want to change it.

The best thing would be to just remove the labels entirely and avoid the drama. They were just meant to act as guides to help the scoring process.

[gcoghill]

I may need to go back and change my reviews, I had always thought of 3 as Average -- my thinking was from 1 to 5, 3 was in the middle (1 & 2 below, 4 & 5 above). I never noticed the zero disc rating, or maybe that was recently added in response to this thread.

The zero rating seems odd because there is no way to determine if the course was actually given a disc rating. If I saw all the discs empty on the course overview page, I would think the course received no ratings yet, when in fact it could have received 13 zero ratings. To me 1 should be the lowest.

Giving the half-discs actual tier names (and adding the zero disc tier) basically just bumps this scale to a 0-10 scale. I had always thought of the half-rating (in any review) as less of a specific level and more of an "in between" rating to indicate "it's better than good, but not great" as opposed to specifically "Very Good".

When I browse the courses by ratings, my mind sees anything below a 3 as 'below average' and I usually put that course on the "not worth it" list.

1: Poor
2: So-So
3: Good
4: Great
5: Excellent

[timg]

The 0 rating has been there for a long time. If a course has no reviews, it'll say "No Reviews" but if it has a 0, it'll show 5 blank discs.

Regarding how you interpreted the scale, that is how I imagined others doing it (except with 2 being "average/fair/insert synonym here"). Obviously, some prefer it to be a little more concrete instead of open for interpretation. I really would have preferred to leave the scale as is.

[DGtourist]

I seems like lots of people look at it as 1-5 and not 0-5.0.

[DGtourist]

The 0 rating has been there for a long time. If a course has no reviews, it'll say "No Reviews" but if it has a 0, it'll show 5 blank discs.

Regarding how you interpreted the scale, that is how I imagined others doing it (except with 2 being "average/fair/insert synonym here"). Obviously, some prefer it to be a little more concrete instead of open for interpretation.

Is this the negative side of always taking suggestions? You do a good job man, I don't care how you move that 1/2 disc in the middle. This site will still rule either way.

[gcoghill]

Yeah, "Fair" is better than So-So :)

Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing the "No Reviews" as opposed to zero discs. But as someone who frequents the site and has written reviews, I still think of zero discs as not having reviews (well until now that is). I guess what I am saying is that a casual visitor might think the same.

I am just posting to give some feedback regarding how it looks to me for informational purposes; I am cool with however Tim sees fit. That's how UI design goes I suppose, you do what seems best and then get the feedback from actual usage and tweak from there.

[timg]

I like suggestions, they are what helps to make the site better. I should just remove the word "Average" and replace it with a synonym. That seems to be the sticking point.

[timg]

Yeah, "Fair" is better than So-So :)

Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing the "No Reviews" as opposed to zero discs. But as someone who frequents the site and has written reviews, I still think of zero discs as not having reviews (well until now that is). I guess what I am saying is that a casual visitor might think the same.

I am just posting to give some feedback regarding how it looks to me for informational purposes; I am cool with however Tim sees fit. That's how UI design goes I suppose, you do what seems best and then get the feedback from actual usage and tweak from there.
I remember a while back someone wanted a 0 rating so I added it. I had to do a bunch of tweaks to get it to show 5 empty discs vs. "No Reviews".

[Olorin]

I should just remove the word "Average" and replace it with a synonym. That seems to be the sticking point.

Please don't change the word Average. Also, the labels only help to avoid confusion, not to increase it. From reading these threads it seems that most people DO want to know the standard for average. I think it's the starting point, and most people want an objective standard to go from. Then the next question is how much above or below that is it?

Also, I'm glad you have a 0 for the really abysmal courses that should be avoided or need a major overhaul.

[DGtourist]

We did know the standard. It seems now that people want to change it.

[DGtourist]

people are already overrating courses too much as it is. I bet I have about 10 courses were I have given it the lowest score, trust me, I'M NOT the one being misleading here. I just got like 3 more neg votes, and it all comes back to this. I'm not going to give an average course a 2.5. Because average = 2.

or it did.

[timg]

Still does for the foreseeable future. I'd consider swapping "Fair" for "Below Average" and switch 2.5 to "Average" since those labels pretty much mean the same thing and it seems like it would make a few people feel better.

[DGtourist]

After almost 5000 reviews I wouldn't change something like the scale.

I have to admit those neg vote ticks me off a little. Because they all have that I gave them a 2 (which is what they all deserve) in common.

Here they are. Benedict Park Brighton CO (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2852) Mylar Park Cheyenne WY (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=2600) and Loomiler Park Longmont CO (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/course.php?id=360)

They are all 2 disc-worthy, 9 hole park courses, lacking in one way or another. Two without signs one without tee boxes or length two without obstacles. They are almost exactly like every 9 hole park course I have ever played in that they are largely unmemorable. In each case I am the one who gave it their current lowest score, mostly due to HBB offsetting what is IMO a very honest assessment based on the true scale.

[timg]

The scale is filled out now to remove any ambiguity and I will keep it as is.

2.5 is obviously still considered "Average" in a general sense just as it was before. It's just spelled out now rather than being part of a range.

If the scale was 0,1,2,3,4,5 (as it used to be) which number would you label as "Average"? If you make it 3, you have more options on the low end of the spectrum. If you make it 2, you have more options on the higher end (my preference). Then the half points were added as a way to indicate a course was "better than a 2 but not quite a 3" without having to spell it out in your review.

[DGtourist]

stupid question perhaps, but where is the scale? I've only ever seen the scale on the dropdown menu when you write the review.

[timg]

That's the only place it is on the site.

[magictenor1]

I got on to the site fairly early on and I don't remember the zero being there but maybe it was. I think of the rating as 1 to 5 ergo 3 is average. I don't understand the need for zero. Zero would be if there was no course.

[magictenor1]

Just out of curiosity,when was zero added?

[REDARMY]

on the subject of overrated courses, i've gotta throw in creve coeur park here in st. louis to that list. i think the average rating right now is 3 discs, but after playing (and reviewing) the course today, it deserves lower than 3. i think the inflated ratings are due to either lack of other-course experience from the other reviewers (not an insult), or just a misconception that anything that has to do with creve coeur (one of the richest counties in the city) is better than the rest of the city/county.

[sidewinding]

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

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.

And we would'nt have to rewexplain the evolution of the scale every few months because it would be self explanatory.

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

Having a word for every increment is not necessary and it does in fact clutter the scale. A course can be between average and good without needing a word to describe it.

What if you move the wording to the .5 increments? Noone would need to change any reviews because the 2's would still be in the grey area between bad and average and the 3's would be in the grey area between good and average. There's not really words that can describe worst than terrible or better than excellent so all the current reviews would still be valid and the people who think average should be in the middle (like Olorin) would be happy.

0.0 -
0.5 - Terrible
1.0 -
1.5 - Bad
2.0 -
2.5 - Average
3.0 -
3.5 - Good
4.0 -
4.5 - Excellent
5.0 -

[timg]

I think adding labels only to the half points looks confusing. People like to have a defined beginning and end which is kind of ambiguous in that scale.

[ERicJ]

Ok, I've added words to each step of the scale. Hopefully the controversy will now end :p
Thanks. I think it looks good. Now everyone who can read knows what scale they should use when they write their reviews.

[ERicJ]

Please, please change the label for Average to 2.5.
[...]
I'm loathe to take a position opposed to ERicJ, but I suppose that I will anyway. ;) (Let the spreadsheet barrages begin!)
I'm not vehement opposed to a change of 2.5 becoming average. Several valid points have been made about the casual users' assumption of what average might be. Side-windey-guy has also rightly pointed out that if this is to change, better to do it now than later.

If Tim did decide to change the scale I'd need to go back and update many/most of my reviews, because I start my thought process at "what is average?" and go up or down from there. It would suck.

What I am vehemently opposed to is people blatantly disregarding the scale as documented. E.g. treating 2.5 as "Average", or using a 1-to-5 lopsided topheavy scale. When you're working within the confines of DGCR you should conform to the standards that it sets. If a British citizen arrives in the U.S. and tries to spend their pounds sterling how far do they get? Not very far until they convert to good ol' U.S. $.

ERic

[ERicJ]

The best thing would be to just remove the labels entirely and avoid the drama. They were just meant to act as guides to help the scoring process.:eek: Gawd no! Rating inflation is bad enough as it is.

[ERicJ]

Please don't change the word Average. Also, the labels only help to avoid confusion, not to increase it. From reading these threads it seems that most people DO want to know the standard for average. I think it's the starting point, and most people want an objective standard to go from. Then the next question is how much above or below that is it?

Also, I'm glad you have a 0 for the really abysmal courses that should be avoided or need a major overhaul.
Ummm... yeah. I coulda read that before posting earlier. That's exactly what I do. :)

[Olorin]

What I am vehemently opposed to is people blatantly disregarding the scale as documented. E.g. treating 2.5 as "Average"

But Tim has said several times that 2.5 is also in the Average range, in spite of what the labels say.

[timg]

But Tim has said several times that 2.5 is also in the Average range, in spite of what the labels say.
Last I checked, the word "Average" was next to 2.5. It was just preceded by another word. So the labels are correct.

[Olorin]

stupid question perhaps, but where is the scale? I've only ever seen the scale on the dropdown menu when you write the review.

It's also in the Course Directory (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/browse.php) where you filter by Rating. Course Directory/ Browse Courses/ Rating.

[Olorin]

1) 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.

2) Last I checked, the word "Average" was next to 2.5. It was just preceded by another word. So the labels are correct.

[Background ambience: a regularly spaced whipping sound onto unresponsive flesh.]

I'm an engineer who failed English, and I'm somewhat obtuse. I assume that quote 1) is now obsolete, or better said, it's been clarified, so that 2.5 is no longer in the Average range.

[ERicJ]

What I am vehemently opposed to is people blatantly disregarding the scale as documented. E.g. treating 2.5 as "Average"...But Tim has said several times that 2.5 is also in the Average range, in spite of what the labels say.Last I checked, the word "Average" was next to 2.5. It was just preceded by another word. So the labels are correct.
As far as I recall, Tim has always stated that 2.5 is "above average", i.e. "better than average".

If I asked Olorin for a list of the courses he considers "average" he'd give me all his 2.5's. Ask me and I'll give you all my 2's. The ratings are unnecessarily skewed. It just frustrates me that even now with a clearly defined scale, especially on what an average rating is, people still chose to pick their own values. But considering there's probably at least a half point margin of error with what people consider an average course, I'm about ready to give up tilting at this windmill.

Heck, all those people that only play Flip City should be giving it a 2 rating. If they don't know anything else, then to them that has to be an average course. ;)

ERic

[Olorin]

What I am vehemently opposed to is people blatantly disregarding the scale as documented. E.g. treating 2.5 as "Average"... When you're working within the confines of DGCR you should conform to the standards that it sets.

I'll now try to cease from my rebellion. I've now moved to Stepford, so I'll conform to 2.0 = Average. Oops... there's a bell ringing... gotta go...

[timg]

1)
I'm an engineer who failed English, and I'm somewhat obtuse. I assume that quote 1) is now obsolete, or better said, it's been clarified, so that 2.5 is no longer in the Average range.


I would argue that "Above Average" is still in the "average range". It's not quite good but it's a little better than Average. Hence the half point to indicate that.

[ERicJ]

I'm an engineer who failed English...Ahhh... engineers and message boards: a dangerous combination. Guilty myself. ;)

[Olorin]

I'm an engineer who failed English.

Clarification: I only studied Engineering in college, but I've never worked as an engineer. (Actually, I probably took more English classes than any other engineering student at my school.)

[sidewinding]

I would argue that "Above Average" is still in the "average range". It's not quite good but it's a little better than Average. Hence the half point to indicate that.

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?

[Greg Layton]

Tim: why don't you create a 2.25 on the scale and label it "THIS IS FREAKING AVERAGE"? Then you can ban everyone from the message board until they go into their reviews and change at least 15% of their course rankings to 2.25. I think this would please everybody. And if it didn't, at least you wouldn't have to hear about it anymore until everyone went in and re-rated their reviews.

Just my two cents.

[Olorin]

I would argue that "Above Average" is still in the "average range".

Tim,

Statements like this can be misconstrued and they keep this debate alive.

[sidewinding]

It's like saying the bath water is too hot and just right but the thermometer says it's cold.

[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]

:rolleyes: 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 BestFair 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]

:rolleyes: 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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average%5B2%5D)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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/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]

:rolleyes: 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 BestFair 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 :p

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

[Olorin]

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 :p

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 - ****ty
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 (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/../course.php?id=1523) and Clinton Park (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/../course.php?id=1129)) 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

[sidewinding]

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.

We are dealing with two different definitions for average. The first definition is the center of a zero to five scale. The second definition is how you would actually rate something on that scale.

Let me give an example. If we looked at the average speed for all drivers on the interstate on a scale from 0-70mph would most drivers be driving at 35mph with a nice bell curve out from there?. No >50% would be driving faster than 35mph.

Let me give another example. If I asked you to rate the beauty of all the women you know on a scale of 1-10 would most of them be 5's with a nice bell curve out from their. No > 50% would be above 5 because most women are prettier than a 5.

Let me give another example. If we weighed all members of DGCR on a scale of 0 to 300 pounds would most of them be 150 pounds with a nice bell curve out from there. No > 50% would be >150 pounds. There would be a few at or above 300 but none at 0 pounds.

[ERicJ]

All your examples are using a numerical, linear scale. DGCR ratings were not implemented that way.

As Tim has said: the scale was originally like this:

Poor
Average
Good
Excellent
Best of the best

If you take away the numbers and use Tim's definition of Average, i.e. common... most courses will be "Average". His scale provides more room at the top to differentiate the really good courses. And I liked it that way.

However, you need some metric of averaging the ratings so numbers get used. Once that happens people have this desire to want to put the average in the middle of the range.

[timg]

Unless "Average" wasn't called "Average" of course :)

[JR Stengele]

I think we need to move on...anyone else feel the same way? I think it is difficult to make it perfect but what Timg is saying makes the most sense, and since he made the site lets follow his lead. I feel like this question is like asking what came first...the chicken or the egg. Eventually it doesn't matter, we are just happy to have it. Maybe I am wrong and I think there are a lot of valid points but I think we need to just stick with what it is. = ) By the way it was the egg. = )

[garublador]

We are dealing with two different definitions for average. The first definition is the center of a zero to five scale. The second definition is how you would actually rate something on that scale.

Let me give an example. If we looked at the average speed for all drivers on the interstate on a scale from 0-70mph would most drivers be driving at 35mph with a nice bell curve out from there?. No >50% would be driving faster than 35mph.Yeah, but the average wouldn't be 35mph, either. I'll be there's still a bell curve, too.

Let me give another example. If I asked you to rate the beauty of all the women you know on a scale of 1-10 would most of them be 5's with a nice bell curve out from their. No > 50% would be above 5 because most women are prettier than a 5.Yeah, but the average isnt' 5, either. I'll be there's still a bell curve (so to speak), too.

Let me give another example. If we weighed all members of DGCR on a scale of 0 to 300 pounds would most of them be 150 pounds with a nice bell curve out from there. No > 50% would be >150 pounds. There would be a few at or above 300 but none at 0 pounds.Yeah, but the average wouldn't be 150lbs, either. I'll bet there's still a bell curve, too.

Generally when you talk about average in statistics you are talking about the mean, not the median. Analysis based on the median isn't nearly as useful as analysis based on the mean in situations like this.

Yes, if you take the mean of the possible scores you'll get 2.5. However, if you take the actual ratings of all the courses out there I'm guessing you won't get exactly 2.5 unless you purposly skew the results that way. That would mean that even if every course in existance were what most of us could call a 5 now that the wost of them would be a 0 and the very best would be a 5. Half of them would fall between 0.63 and 4.4. The question is do we want it to be that way or would we rather they all be called 5's?

In other words, should we rate the courses based on how good other coures are or based on how good the course is on its own? Do we want to force it to a bell curve where the mean is 2.5 or do we want to set up what each value represents and see what the mean comes out to? I honestly don't know, but putting the word "average" in there will make some people do the former and some people do the latter which will make the results less useful.

An example of what might happen if we force the average to be 2.5 would be if all of a sudden DG got super popular and a ton of really, really good courses got made. That would actually force the ratings of many 4's and 5's to be lowered to fit the curve. Would we rather see that happen or would we rather just see the actual average get higher? If you were doing a presentation to sell the idea of disc golf to a friend, which scale would you rather use, the one where 2.5 is the average or the one where the average was raised because of all the great courses being installed?

Not necessarily. The word "Average" has a semantic range with several meanings.But it's still very ambiguous, especally when you're talking about gathering data on a site like this, which is my point. Do you really want ambiguous terms used when people come up with their ratings? That will skew some, but not all ratings based on how people interpret that one word.

Well my intention was for it to mean "b: not out of the ordinary" Then label 2.5 as "ordinary." ;) Personally I think "decent" is a better term to use because it has less of a statistical implication, but it's not my site.

[ERicJ]

:rolleyes: 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 BestFair 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.
Tim, if you want to change the precident to move the "Average" value to the middle of the range I'm okay with that. It's probably what more users than not are expecting.

In my mind Fair is obviously less than Average. If this scale goes into effect I'll be re-rating courses to bump up 2.0's to 2.5's and adjust others accordingly.

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

Please do not drop "Average". Like Olorin, I think "Average" sets a baseline for reviewers' frame of reference. Otherwise most of the other terms are pretty subjective. A new reviewer could possibly view "Good" to be their "Average" value.

I don't think this topic will ever completely die, but if you remove "Average" we'll see threads like "What should the average course be rated?".



The word "Average" has a semantic range with several meanings.

The MW dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/average%5B2%5D)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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common) <the average person>

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

Well my intention was for it to mean "b: not out of the ordinary"
That too is how I've interpreted "average", i.e. most courses are like this. In pure statistical terms I treat this as the Mode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_%28statistics%29).

[DGtourist]

I just wanted to say,

that I don't care, but keep uniform.

I want to never speak of this again.
&
Whomever neg voted my 2 disc rated courses is a jerk. (I know it could be anybody, but trust my ratings on these ones if you are traveling)
-Love JD

[timg]

Argh.. why is it so difficult to please everyone? :D

[garublador]

I don't think this topic will ever completely die, but if you remove "Average" we'll see threads like "What should the average course be rated?".IMO, you'll get better data if you set it up so you get questions like that. The answer would be, "You can't possibly know unless you've played a significant number of courses." My guess is the only people qualified to really say what the "average" course is like won't be the one asking the question.

Here's something to think about if you're for putting "average" in as one of the rating descriptions. How do you readjust all the ratings if the quality of the average course changes? If new courses that are installed improve over time, who's going to go back and change the ratings of all the courses that have already been rated to reflect the new average? In other words, if courses improve over time, what's "average" now, a 2.5, wouldn't be "average" anymore and might only be a 2.0 after the standards have been raised.

If you let the average move over time, you don't have to worry about that.

Although it might be advantageous to know just how incorrectly people are scoring courses. If your average isn't 2.5 you know that your data is bad. ;)

[timg]

Ok, I just changed the scale (again..). I'm not sure if it's the right decision but hopefully it will put an end to the subject. Here it is:


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

You probably don't have to re-adjust scores but if you do, I apologize.

[garublador]

Argh.. why is it so difficult to please everyone? :DI don't care how it's done, but I'd like to think I can help improve the process by pointing out the implications of using statsitcal terms when you aren't intending the statistical definition to be used. I can tell you right now that unless you want my ratings to fit so that it's a bell curve about whatever value is described as "average," using that word will cause me to enter bad data. If that's what you want then that's OK. If it's not then you'll have the people who understand statistics the best giving the worst data. I just want to make sure you're getting the data you want.

FWIW, I think the descriptions are more useful than the actual ratings. I'm more likely to choose what course I go to based on the pros and cons people give than what they rate the course.

[timg]

FWIW, I think the descriptions are more useful than the actual ratings. I'm more likely to choose what course I go to based on the pros and cons people give than what they rate the course.

That's the way most of us feel. The number is just a quick barometer for the most part.

[JR Stengele]

Even though you didn't have this scale to begin with, I have always seen it this way. I think that it has and continues to make sense. Thanks timg for your time and endless help to our questions.

[garublador]

2.5 - Decent/Average
3.0 - Good

So the average course isn't good? :)

Now I'm just giving you a hard time.

All the stuff I said only applies if you want to do statistical analysis on this at any time. I'd hate for you to go back and wish it was done differently.

[timg]

Eh, can't please everyone? :D I probably would have removed the "Average" label but some like it, some don't so I thought this was an ok compromise. I doubt I'll ever do any statistical analysis on the data so that concern isn't really part of the equation.

[ERicJ]

Flashbacks of Clinton and what is the meaning of "is"...

Here's something to think about if you're for putting "average" in as one of the rating descriptions. How do you readjust all the ratings if the quality of the average course changes? If new courses that are installed improve over time, who's going to go back and change the ratings of all the courses that have already been rated to reflect the new average? In other words, if courses improve over time, what's "average" now, a 2.5, wouldn't be "average" anymore and might only be a 2.0 after the standards have been raised.

If you let the average move over time, you don't have to worry about that.
This is possibly the best argument against using "Average" that I've read. At least it is the most optomistic for the sport.

But you still have an aspect of that problem that exists today and pertains to individual courses. I played WillCo (http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=927&page=1&mode=rev#1256) back in January and rated it based on the conditions at the time. I've heard that since then concrete tee pads have been installed. That could up my rating as the mud-factor was one of the detractors at the time I played. So even if the general trend of course quality doesn't improve you can still have isolated cases where a course has improved and older ratings are now out of whack.


Although it might be advantageous to know just how incorrectly people are scoring courses. If your average isn't 2.5 you know that your data is bad. ;)
Yeah, I got a dollar that says this site has some serious rating inflation.


I don't care how it's done, but I'd like to think I can help improve the process by pointing out the implications of using statsitcal terms when you aren't intending the statistical definition to be used. I can tell you right now that unless you want my ratings to fit so that it's a bell curve about whatever value is described as "average," using that word will cause me to enter bad data. If that's what you want then that's OK. If it's not then you'll have the people who understand statistics the best giving the worst data. I just want to make sure you're getting the data you want.
I still like a term that tries to set some sort of baseline or expectation. E.g. your definition of "Good" and mine may be pretty different; say you like trees and give an overly wooded course high marks, when in reality it's not a very balanced course.

But you make good points about people who take the view that "average" means the statistical mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean) rating.

What do people think about "Typical" instead of "Average"?

It still has that meaning of a typical/common course baseline without the strict statistics of an arithmetic mean.

FWIW, I think the descriptions are more useful than the actual ratings. I'm more likely to choose what course I go to based on the pros and cons people give than what they rate the course.
That's the way most of us feel. The number is just a quick barometer for the most part.
While this site is still relatively young and most courses only have a few reviews, if any, it's not too hard to check the pros/cons in addition to the numbers. But as the site grows and courses accumulate vast quantities of reviews it will become overwhelming for someone planning a trip to easily/quickly decide which two of the ten courses at their destination they want to play by reading all the reviews. At that point the numeric barometer becomes more of a factor.

ERic

[DGtourist]

Flashbacks of Clinton and what is the meaning of "is"...


Yeah, I got a dollar that says this site has some serious rating inflation.



While this site is still relatively young and most courses only have a few reviews, if any, it's not too hard to check the pros/cons in addition to the numbers. But as the site grows and courses accumulate vast quantities of reviews it will become overwhelming for someone planning a trip to easily/quickly decide which two of the ten courses at their destination they want to play by reading all the reviews. At that point the numeric barometer becomes more of a factor.

ERic

Those first two comments made me laugh!

As far as trip planning goes, I feel like a person doing the sort of research that would take you to this site wouldn't mind reading a good handfull of those reviews.

[sidewinding]

A historian, an engineer and a statistician are duck hunting. a duck rises from the lake. the historian fires first, and shoots 10' over the duck. then the engineer shoulders the shotgun and shoots 10' under the duck. the statistician exclaimed "got him!".

[timg]

I wouldn't mind "Typical" versus "Average". I'm open to making that change. "Decent/Typical"?

[timg]

A historian, an engineer and a statistician are duck hunting. a duck rises from the lake. the historian fires first, and shoots 10' over the duck. then the engineer shoulders the shotgun and shoots 10' under the duck. the statistician exclaimed "got him!".
Hah :D

[sidewinding]

I like decent/typical or just typical by itself. As long as average is not on 2 I'm ok with it.

[Olorin]

Did you hear about the statistician who drowned? He couldn't swim, but he didn't think he'd have any problem fording a river that averaged 5 ft deep.

[Olorin]

Ok, I just changed the scale (again..). I'm not sure if it's the right decision but hopefully it will put an end to the subject. Here it is:

0.0 - Abysmal
0.5 - Very Poor
1.0 - Poor
1.5 - Passable
2.0 - Fair
2.5 - Decent/Average
3.0 - Good
3.5 - Very Good
4.0 - Excellent
4.5 - Phenomenal
5.0 - Best of the Best
I applaud this change! (No surprises with that remark.) Well done sir! Take it from a totally unbiased source-- you made the right decision. ;)

[ERicJ]

Tim, a couple what I hope are final points.

Upon reflection "fair" may have the unintended interpretation of "balanced" or "impartial" so it may not be the best term to use.

And as for "decent", that seems a bit sub-par to me.
#include standard_olorin_par_shoutout.h

If I asked someone how the course was and they replied "It was decent"... a lot depends on the inflection, but in general I wouldn't take it to be very complimentary.

That being said how about this?

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

ERic

[peabody]

A couple of our club members came up with this rating system. At least it takes in more aspects of the whole golfing experience.:

10 catagories, all somewhat subjective, a few totally subjective, add up to a total score. I tried to add a few descriptions so it would make more sense of what we were talking about, if more explaination is needed feel free to ask.

Clark-Johnson Disc Golf Course Scale
Rate everything with a 1, .75, .50, .25, or 0

Would I play it again?
1pt – I would definitely play it again.
.75—I would try and play it again if I were in the area.
.50—I could take it or leave it.
.25—I’m only playing here again if I have to.
0—I’m not going to play here again and you can’t make me

How was the layout? Did it flow well? Marked well?
1pt—Great Job, where holes ended others started, there was a method to figuring it out.
.50—with a little work you could figure it out, there is some disruption of end/start points
0—This was chaos, no way to tell which is which.

What about the technical aspects of the course? Left Handed/Right Handed mix. Requiring above average skill to play.

Aesthetics: How picturesque was the course? Was it appealing to the eye?

Facilities: Adequate and nearby parking, bathrooms, access to water, meeting area.

Maintenance: Was the course well kept from debris, garbage, and mowed? Plus bridges, walkways, etc in good order.

General Feeling: Very subjective rating based how you felt about the course overall.

Balance: Mix of short/long holes, wooded/open holes

Amenities: How would you rate the tees, benches, and any other niceties of the course.

Elevation:
1pt. – It was perfect for me.
.75 – It was pretty good, neither too flat nor too hilly
.50 – I could tolerate it, either too flat or too hilly
.25 – Elevation was definitely an issue on this course
.0 – It was so bad it distracts from the enjoyment of playing disc golf.

[Olorin]

And as for "decent", that seems a bit sub-par to me.
#include standard_olorin_par_shoutout.h

You're too funny! That made me laugh. :D Do I talk about par too much? :rolleyes:

[timg]

Ok, how about this?

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

[DGtourist]

Ok, how about this?

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

I like it. I wonder if like someone else said, you'll have to be answering the question, "What is average?" However, taking the word average out seems like a good idea to me.

[timg]

It only took 13 pages of discussion to get to this point. Not bad :D

[Olorin]

Ok, how about this?

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

Semantic hair splitting, but I like 2.5- Decent/Ordinary better. Typical seems more subjective than other words.

e.g.- For a Flip City homie if they think that's "typical" then no other course will ever get above a 1.0! Well, perhaps Idlewild might get a 1.5 if they were feeling exceptionally gracious and magnanimous. :)

[ERicJ]

Ok, how about this?

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

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/../images/icon_thumbsup.gif

[ERicJ]

It only took 13 pages of discussion to get to this point. Not bad :D
Head over here: http://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/profile.php?do=editoptions
and set your "Number of Posts to Show Per Page" to 40. You'll get a much more efficient 4 pages. :cool:

ERic

[Pitch]

You know when i'd heard about this course rating thing I was kinda concerned on how and WHO was rating the courses.
The ONLY way I could see fair course evaluations if if a few experienced seasoned golfers were to travel the globe and do this.(Yeah Right)
I didn't take the time to read everybodies posts but am sure this has got to be the most popular and discussed on the site.Duh?
I've seen several in my 30 plus years of golf.Played every type of T Pad,Every possible hole design.Terrain etc.
I knew that peoples opinions would be based on several things.(But obviously their course is gonna be the best LOL,Gotta get em there somehow right)
I've played courses designed by the so called best,Amatures and so on.
Here's how I evaluate a course,Ready?
Convienence from the parking lot.My favorite is the front 9 and back 9 being right there.I ALWAYS shoot for this if possible.Better be a practice basket sittin there too.
Restrooms and Pavillions are the only reason I don't give a 5 in most cases where I post a 4.I won't even post a 5 on any of my courses(Alma did just install new restrooms and has a nice Pavillion now)
Still won't get it from me because of Maintanance and it's MY course.
Shot Variations.Does it take every shot you have.Will you use every disc(Will you FINALLY have to learn how to throw a sidearm roller or nasty 360)I like courses that challenge you and make golfers out of Ams.
T Pads,Are they level,The right texture,Concrete is the best IMO and level with the ground(No step up or Drop off)
Signs,Can you find the pin,Next Tee.
Safety,Flow etc
Now i've played one that was setup by the numero uno and found several holes playing blindly over others teeing off,Walking way out of the way to maybe find the next T Box.Ridiculous lenghts(Long doesn't nessessarily mean good,Try Almas 126ft Devils Fork,That's Golf.
But since it was designed by this guy it's an automatic Home Run.Yeah right.
I just designed a course that plays 5,400 short and 8,000 long.(Arkadelphia Ar)Thing is your not walking any farther playing either layout and you can easily see or find the next T Box.
Now i've been guilty of laying out what SEEMED to be an inexperienced hole or two.(Alma)
The thing is every time i'd get where I wanted the MAYOR ate up some of my course.I was always chasing him around and fixing the course.But it's still a cool course and easy to follow.
Maybe after a few thousand evaluations and a few years of balancing out the averages we'll have a pretty fair evaluation of most courses.
Ben geren in Ft Smith is a nice flowing,Easy to follow,Read and PLAYABLE course.Concrete Pads,Alternate pin placements(Still walk the same distances A and B)Front and Back nine from the parking lot but still maybe a 4 because of Restrooms and Parking(Working on this)
Play Russellville Arkansas,My best work and favorite course.
Still a 4,No restrooms,No Alternates(Yet)
Plays every shot,Open,Wooded,5,800ft,Concrete Pads,Great Signs,Tons of natural OB,Some elevation.
I hope this site really enables people to get a real perspective on what courses are and what they can be in the future.
I like most am looking for that piece of land to leave a 5 rating on.(Could be Hot Springs if they'd just let me in there,Working on that too)
I have only rated half a dozen so far,Played many more and plan on rating a few each day.(Honestly)
Have fun folks.
Pitch.

[borndasaur]

I just started playing 6 months ago and started rating some of the local courses last month. Something that is a huge help is meeting and talking to the course designers. Impractical unless you are a local or are in a position to meet these guys. When I was getting ready to rate the Squirrel Lake course, I found out that some of the things I saw a "cons" were done to stay within wildlife habitat restrictions and these became "pros" IMO. The designer's intentions are huge contributors to final designs and should be part of course reviews whenever possible. Remember, all courses cannot be all things to all players.

[Pitch]

Very good point.

[bazkitcase5]

"all courses cannot be all things to all players"

that is the biggest key to this whole deal - a good course for pros might not be a good course for newer players, and vice versa - multiple tees help, but sometimes there are restrictions, especially on courses in public parks with restricted space, etc.

also, as has been mentioned by others before, a lot of people like mixture and balance, including myself, but if a course has half wooded holes and half open holes, then a person who only likes one type of course will be disappointed in at least half of this course - an all wooded course may not have a lot of mixture, but at least you know what your getting yourself into when you go to play a course like this and if you like wooded courses, then you will enjoy playing a course like this ahead of time (personally I try to mention what a person can expect in a course in my review, so they won't waste a trip to a course they will not like)

so that becomes the key question, how do you accurately rate a course you personally may not like, even if it is a really awesome course and many other types of players will love this particular course? I personally do not like pitch and putt courses, but if it is a good course for ams and other newer players, then I will give it the credit that it is due, because somebody will come along and this course will be perfect for them

[Pitch]

What I look for in a course is diversity.The mixture of everything(If possible)
See the way I look at them is like this(And this is just MY opinion)
I know that the majority of golfers are always gonna be rec .Not everyone that plays is going to want or be able to make it as a pro.We are outnumbered by Rec players.
But when I rate a course I am thinking of the more serious golfers.The ones who are trying to make the ranks.
Now when I keep these folks in mind I know that the choices they have when trying to make the steps up to the pros will be limited.They will play whatevers in front of them and dominate it all.
The ones who say I only like wooded courses or I only like Open courses are in for a rude awakening.(If trying to go Pro etc)
So when I rate a course I look at all the options the course has to offer pertaining to the people who are trying or are capable of becoming better golfers in the future.
When I lay one out or rate one ,I imagine the Rec and folks like Climo or Feldberg.
Like OK the rec is gonna have to hoan his or her skills to make par on the short layout(And even Rec players wanna be better)But then could someone with an arm and some skills have a time with this.
Sure people will rate them because they like THIS type of course or THAT kind of course.It's gonna happen.
And really to give one a great rating because it's one or the other isn't really fair in my opinion.
To me they rate better when they are both.And of course with all the frills that come along with them.
(T Pads,Alternates,Parking,Restrooms,Benches,Trashcan s etc etc etc.)
See that's where I was wondering how this was going to be a fair system.
For example,La Mirada Calif.
Some people think because of it's History,Location,The Weather (so on and so forth) It's an automatic highly rated course.Yes it's a historical course, But in reality it's a mess.
Lousy T Pads,Signs,And even the layout in some places could be better.I gave it a 3(I think maybe even a 2 because of the resentments,It's been let go and it p's me off)
In time,The ratings should average out.But for now I see some that are rated way too high.(Just the ones I know of mind you.)
I believe the ratings system should be based on a Pros level of playing.
Yes people need to be informed,Alot of my phone calls are from folks just passin thru.They need to be directed towards the course that they read about on here.Not something that's been blown out of proportion because some amature cans every hole and it's their personal favorite.
Pictures should be mandatory as well.This way they can see first hand the terrain.
Like I said,Just my opinion.

[bazkitcase5]

for me personally, I like to think about what this site is used for most and that is probably for players who will be traveling to a new area to play a new course for the first time

so with that idea, these people need to know what the best courses are in that area and the review should basically tell them what they can expect at each course

[borndasaur]

Reviews are opinions. There are certain criteria that are common to all courses (amenities, signage, tee pads, basket types, etc.) and these are the bases for objective comparisons. Subjective comparisons are the debatable points that people agree or disagree on(too long/short, too easy/hard, etc.) Effectively combining the two are what make reviews useful to players choosing courses to play. This is why this site works. In addition to the 0 through 5 rating, each reviewer can rate objective criteria as well as give subjective opinions and detail how they arrive at their rating. The reader then can make a personal judgement as to whether a particular review or author is helpful to them.

[bazkitcase5]

well said