extinct courses, redesigns, etc

[dreadlock86]

i am i the only one that is annoyed by how seemingly trigger happy people are to extinct a course and make a new page? maybe i just need to shut my mouth and quit whining but it seems like the new feature is overused.


as an example:
the beast in waco, TX

a fine course that is undergoing some changes. the front 9 is being redesigned and the back 9 is a bit unkempt (i gather, haven't been in awhile).

so now the old page is RIP and the new page has reviews for the unfinished, redesigned course trickling in:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/review...=5062&mode=rev

and they give the impression that this central texas gem is not worth playing. i question whether a new course page was necessary at all and at the least, it should have waited until the new design was finished.


after seeing a few courses i've played become RIP after redesigns that really didn't change that much, i just question the logic of this new system. am i the only one?

[NDABRUSH]

Originally Posted by dreadlock86

i am i the only one that is annoyed by how seemingly trigger happy people are to extinct a course and make a new page? maybe i just need to shut my mouth and quit whining but it seems like the new feature is overused.


as an example:
the beast in waco, TX

a fine course that is undergoing some changes. the front 9 is being redesigned and the back 9 is a bit unkempt (i gather, haven't been in awhile).

so now the old page is RIP and the new page has reviews for the unfinished, redesigned course trickling in:
http://www.dgcoursereview.com/review...=5062&mode=rev

and they give the impression that this central texas gem is not worth playing. i question whether a new course page was necessary at all and at the least, it should have waited until the new design was finished.


after seeing a few courses i've played become RIP after redesigns that really didn't change that much, i just question the logic of this new system. am i the only one?

I read the new reviews and 1 or both of them admitted that it wasn't finished and I was wondering why write a review except for warning people that being open does not mean that it is finished. If it is as solid as the old reviews indicate, then it will be ready again one day. Too many DG addicts in Texas to let it go to waste.

[NDABRUSH]

If it is a major redesign like Wills in Ga., then I understand. If 2 or 3 holes were changed, then no.

[Lewis]

Originally Posted by NDABRUSH

I read the new reviews and 1 or both of them admitted that it wasn't finished and I was wondering why write a review except for warning people that being open does not mean that it is finished.

exactly

[Three Putt]

It's the limitation of the user-based system. I've contacted Tim about RIPing a course, and he asked questions to make sure the move seemed necessary. Tim had to take me for my word that what I told him was accurate. He's not going to fly down to Texas and evaluate the course changes. So if somebody makes changing three of four holes sound like a "major redesign" when Tim asks for details, the course page will be RIP'ed.

FWIW, I have contacted Tim about RIPing a course twice. From my experience talking with him on those occasions, it's not something he takes lightly. One of the courses I contacted him about did not get the RIP.

I'll sadly have to talk to him again as unless there is a miracle, Creve Coeur park in St. Louis is going to be pulled.

[1978]

We RIP'd Bailey Road Park's 9 hole layout after I redesigned the course to 18 (now 20) holes. Kept 8 original pads but only 3 of the original tee/basket combo's.

Stumpy Creek went from 9 holes to 18, Stan &I kept 8 of the original holes and added 11 totally new holes but no RIP. It was a few years back though and I think it would have been RIP'd now.

What I don't like is when a course undergoes a complete overhaul, doubling size changing pad and basket locations, etc and you have years of reviews (9 hole course 2.5*) bringing the true rating down. Then all reviews after the change are 3-4.5's. I think it is good to RIP an overhauled course, unless the basic riginal layout stays almost the same.... for example: if you had an 18 hole course, par 54 and then added long tees and baskets and made another course overtop that is par 70 the old course shouldnt RIP.

This brings up a question. I am unsure if it is related to this thread. When is it acceptable to have 2 pages for courses on the same property. Is it use of similar fairways, pads, baskets... a different name for the layout. In Charlotte, Nevin Long and Short are clearly 1 course, however what about Hornets Nest "Web", Renny Gold, and Skillborne? The web course isnt just a long version of hornets nest, it feels like a completely different course. Should it have its own page?

[takman]

It's like the stupid new "app" that everyone has to use. It'll pass. I like the gravestone though.

[srm_520]

I have PM'd to extinct two different courses, and both times I make sure I walk the entire course, note there isn't anything left, and let Tim know all of that - but that's to get rid of a place completely. Old design to new design RIPs are a different story and I think only the people directly involved in the redesigned should PM Tim when they are ready.

Also you should always try to contact locals or a local DG group to confirm, if you want to do it right.

[scarpfish]

I've never PM'ed Timg to extinct a course, but I did PM him to bring one near me back from the dead after someone reported it extinct because he couldn't find some of the markers.


As for new or upgraded courses that are kind of in that playable but not quite complete phase (which we all know can go on for months) we also have folks who are trigger happy to submit the course, followed by other trigger happy people who then review it, and ding it because well, its not quite complete (as exemplified above), which will still reflect in the score when it is complete.

Perhaps its time to suggest new or upgraded courses get something akin to a probationary period which people can still mark it played, wishlist it, record scorebook entries, etc., but not be able to review it until it is reasonably complete, and the probationary period is lifted.

[DavidSauls]

I wouldn't mind seeing some way to tag reviews as pre-completion or pre-renovation. Some kind of marker that all reviews before a certain date are out-of-date; still available to read but the reader can take them with a grain of salt, and not to be included in ratings.

I've seen older reviews with information about navigation issues or starting holes that are no longer true. But they still have some useful information.