Good course? Bad course? Who knows?

[DavidSauls]

Looking at the reviews and ratings of Tidal Creek @ West Ashley, I see there's absolutely no consensus. The ratings are:

0.5 (1)
1.0 (2)
2.0 (3)
3.0 (1)
3.5 (1)
4.0 (1)
4.5 (1)
5.0 (1)

Which averages a 2.5, oddly enough one of the few ratings no one gave the course.

Are there other courses with such a disparity of ratings, rather evenly spread from the very top to the very bottom?

[heelboycraig]

You can easily spot the hometown grade inflaters here. 3 of the top 4 reviews (5.0. 4.5, 3.5) are from people who've played 1,1 & 2 courses. Take away those obvious HBB ratings, you get a 1.94 rating w/ 8 reviews.

For such a short course, it's definetly a love it/hate it course. I rated it a 2 and say it's one of my favorite underrated course - **Caveat** Only when the course is dry. At its best, this is a fun, technical course with plenty of risk/reward holes. After rain, course becomes virtually unplayable.

[DavidSauls]

In fairness, the person who just rated it 5.0 lists only one course played, but says in his review that he's played many courses out west and up north. We can't be sure the others just haven't checked off their "courses played".

I haven't played it but know it's reputation, so the 5.0 rating caught my eye. All courses have locals who might inflate the rating, but this looks like an extreme case of love it / hate it.

[AdamH]

The Fun Farm in Lanesville, IN isn't as bad as the first example. It got more reviews over the last year that have brought the rating up to a 3.5 which is getting close to reflecting the quality of course it really is. Here's the breakdown:
1.5 - 1
2.0 - 1
2.5 - 2
3.0 - 2
3.5 - 3
4.0 - 7
4.5 - 3

It's a 21 hole course with two holes (13 & 14) that go down and then back up a massively, massive hill. Those holes are both very cool, difficult shots that you don't often see. But if it's rained recently, the hill can get a little muddy so the designer made it easy to skip them if necessary. It doesn't even require extra walking. But nearly all the people who rate this course poorly rip on those two holes.

[bthoma1]

Originally Posted by heelboycraig

You can easily spot the hometown grade inflaters here. 3 of the top 4 reviews (5.0. 4.5, 3.5) are from people who've played 1,1 & 2 courses. Take away those obvious HBB ratings, you get a 1.94 rating w/ 8 reviews.

For such a short course, it's definetly a love it/hate it course. I rated it a 2 and say it's one of my favorite underrated course - **Caveat** Only when the course is dry. At its best, this is a fun, technical course with plenty of risk/reward holes. After rain, course becomes virtually unplayable.

If you take the tops guys away, don't you take the bottom scores away as well?? Because those could be people who have no idea what they are talking about.

[Dave242]

That is strange to see that crazy spread. I am a big advocate of the "a picture is worth 1000 words" thing for deciding for myself how things look rather than relying on the average of a few ratings (from who knows who). And even reviews can be often leave me not having a good picture of what the course is really like.

In the case of both Tidal Creek and Fun Farm, there are lots of great and descriptive pictures, a good map (for Tidal), and hole lengths listed. In other words, DGCR users have compiled everything necessary to preview the course.

[heelboycraig]

Originally Posted by bthoma1

If you take the tops guys away, don't you take the bottom scores away as well?? Because those could be people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Good point. The lowest rating (0.5) is also from someone who's played two courses. Take away that rating and you get a 2.14 average for 7 reviews. That seems about right seeing how the most common rating is a 2.0.

[Karl]

bthoma1 said, "

If you take the tops guys away, don't you take the bottom scores away as well??

Another way - although I'm not necessarily advocating such (haven't really thought about it enough to see all aspects of it) - is to "get rid of" any reviews of reviewers who live close to the course. This would get rid of both the "Let's vote early and often and propel 'our' course to the top. Yeah us!" and the "I'll show them (they who have smote me)" i.e. a local who's been "ostracized", etc.

Karl

[heelboycraig]

Originally Posted by Karl

bthoma1 said, "

Another way - although I'm not necessarily advocating such (haven't really thought about it enough to see all aspects of it) - is to "get rid of" any reviews of reviewers who live close to the course. This would get rid of both the "Let's vote early and often and propel 'our' course to the top. Yeah us!" and the "I'll show them (they who have smote me)" i.e. a local who's been "ostracized", etc.

Karl

Most locals are objective, especially if they've played courses outside of their city. You're more referring to the drive-by reviews. Such as this one for Black Mountain, NC.

"Other Thoughts: i would only rate it a four, but i have to balance out all these lousy 1s and 2s that people left. it is definitely a much better course."

Tim has in the past proposed the idea of removing the highest and lowest review to remove those possible out-of-whack ratings.

[disc-o maniac]

most of it is a true case of one mans garbage is another mans treasure. i just dont understand how someones 0.5 is another mans 5.0 perfect course