I think reviews on this site do drop-off after a course has been reviewed a number of times. A number of my reviews are on older courses that haven't been reviewed in years, even if they are fairly popular and oft-reviewed on Udisc. Could be indicative of a few things. Lower popularity of this site, an "older" more established crowd here attractive less newcomers and new writers. Or perhaps the perception that everything that has been said about a course has already been outed by the time the 40th review is up.
As evidence, I will put up
Anson B Nixon Park, where less than 15% of the reviews (7 out of 47) are from the last 5 years (2017 or newer). Add only one more if updates are considered.
This is rather problematic on all review sites as far as I can tell. Would you trust a 10 year old review, good or bad, on a restaurant likely has anything to do with the establishment your going to today? Chefs leave (or change), owners too, waitresses and waiters long gone, food supply differs, etcetera. While admittedly not as drastic with courses, I've seen enough changes in old homer courses in just my six years not to trust a 15 year old review. Even if they completely stagnate, that in itself can greatly change a course (usually for the worse) just with sheer plant growth.
So why count fifteen year old reviews towards the final rating just as much as a fresh review or update? I put Anson up as an example, because I consider that a course is really unfairly hammered by a distant past that should be rather irrelevant now. Ratings would need to become a bit more dynamic to reflect the here and now.
What we see in the reviewing world are two basic models. DGCR is much like Yelp. Past its heyday and not seen by the great masses but you can generally trust the reviewers to have thought out their position even if you don't agree with their ratings. You can gauge their experience by past reviews and number and location of courses written about. It's a much more thoughtful and accurate site, in general. Then you have Udisc, which is akin to Google Reviews. Both are the Oprah Winfrey of the reviewing world where you get a '5'! And you get a '5'! And you get a '5'! And you get a '5'!!! Et cetera ad nauseum.
A dead mall near me with only 5 ****ty storefronts out of 72 closed ones still gets a steady stream of 5s on Google reviews as if it were Mall of America in its absolute prime by nostalgists and other gold starrers who feel no obligation to actually inform others other than to wax poetic on what used to be. Udisc has much the same problem with homer bias and the masses who'd rate a multiple bees' hives as a 5 star course as long as it was in their neighborhood. Udisc, and maybe DGCR, would do well to also final review score based on player experience which could be quantified by number of courses played, score cards created, and so on.
But DGCR can't stand still and sit on its laurels if it wants to stay relevant. Being an old internet person (early 90s onward) I have seen many iterations of hobby-oriented communities, such as sites/forums/groups/mailinglists/BBS/etc, stagnate once a new phase of internet superceded the old spot and hollowed it out over time. DGCR obviously missed the smartphone app phase that popularized Udisc. I know there is an app, but it was obviously never a priority. I work with Udisc and they've improved by leaps and bounds over the years taking suggestions. I think Udisc will obviously continue to improve. They can easily start weighing reviews, like I suggested earlier, and institute a voting system as well.
I know I initially started using Udisc to get driving directions. It was super easy. And then I started using the maps to get starting points, cause some courses' starting points were cryptic. Now it's for scorecards. It can easily fix everything else.
If DGCR wants to go the quality route, it can also improve. For instance, it could institute quick reviews and ratings that are seperate from review ratings, since it will undoubtedly introduce much of the same 5 star bump Udisc has. Still, it should increase lurker engagement and I think subcategories of different aspects of courses can be optionally rated. Stuff like terrain, execution, maintenance, fun factor, and so on.
I also believe drone overviews will become a
bigger thing in the DG world in the years to come. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video must be a million. It's a video that convinced me not to go to courses like Perkasie rather than reviews (not because it wasn't a good course, just that with my arm, it would be like tossing bowling bowls at a basketball hoop). I opted for Jordan Creek instead, that wouldn't give me that problem. And in the meantime, I try to search drone or course overview videos out for a course I want to visit.
