puck'n'disc5
Par Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2012
- Messages
- 237
I think anyone who wants to write a review about a course on this site should have to go through an extensive interview process with none other than the Valkyrie Kid.
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
BS review of Black Falls DGCR
- Thread starter Johnny Betts
- Start date
- Status
I think that we should all cherish and value the opinion of others on a review site. Sure, sometime, there will be a bad apple in the mix. But given time and other reviews, everything will straighten up.
My lowly opinion on that matter is that making a big fuss about ONE bad review is doing far more damage to Black fall than the poor review itself, sadly. Being from Quebec, Black fall is on my radar, and there are far more than one bad review to read. Let the chaff separate itself from the grain. Let it go.
Cheers
My lowly opinion on that matter is that making a big fuss about ONE bad review is doing far more damage to Black fall than the poor review itself, sadly. Being from Quebec, Black fall is on my radar, and there are far more than one bad review to read. Let the chaff separate itself from the grain. Let it go.
Cheers
Maybe, but Vkid seems like a laid back kind of dude. Maybe someone more grouchy, like scarpfish would work better.
Johnny Betts
Par Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 158
The problem with the review and the reviewer is that it makes no sense to a sane person. He changed the course conditions to bad when in fact they were the best they have ever been. Nothing in his review makes any sense whatsoever. Ask any of the touring pro's or Ams who played the course that week. I can see maybe 3 rating for someone with no clue but 1.5 is just crazy. Look at some of the other courses he rated and played around the same time.
Johnny Betts
Par Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 158
V kid played every course in Vermont except Black Falls LoL! I think I gave him **** about it at some point.
So, 1 person didn't like the course? That means 27 of 28 have given it 4.0 stars or higher. That's a 96.4% success rate. Think you're doing okay there, my friend.
Look at some of the petty negative reviews people leave on Google or Yelp. Pick a high-quality restaurant in any city, and someone will inevitably be giving it a 1-star review because 'it's too expensive' or the 'wait was too long' or 'there's a dress code.' Just like your guy was out of his league trying to play your course, so are the cheapskates/rednecks who are used to low quality, chain restaurants.
Look at some of the petty negative reviews people leave on Google or Yelp. Pick a high-quality restaurant in any city, and someone will inevitably be giving it a 1-star review because 'it's too expensive' or the 'wait was too long' or 'there's a dress code.' Just like your guy was out of his league trying to play your course, so are the cheapskates/rednecks who are used to low quality, chain restaurants.
Johnny Betts
Par Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 158
Yes I'm doing just fine and I don't really give two ****s weather he liked or did not like the course. The ability for someone to spread false information is what bothers me.
It's the internet. Some people are morons with access to keyboards. You can't let them get the better of you.
Johnny Betts
Par Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 158
I won't. Just irritating as hell.
Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor. It bothers the good Lord too. I would just be livid... sounds like you have the right to vent.
Great discussion there David. Thank you for the multitude of great points you posed in your reply.
I see that my thoughts Indeed were either already in place or not as great of an ideas I thought.
My apologies for coming off as a stiff.
[/B]QUOTE=DavidSauls;3227461]Sorry to offend you; it was not my intent. I was just being lazy.
Veterans of these message boards have seen dozens and dozens of proposals for a "better" way for this site to work, usually imposing someone else's standards on the reviewers. I'm convinced that we're better off using a consensus; allowing reviewers considerable freedom, and letting it average out. Mostly, outlier reviews have a negligible effect on the overall rating though, as I said in an earlier posts, on lightly-reviewed courses like the OP's---or mine---they have a little more impact. Really out-of-line reviews are sometimes deleted by Tim, the site owner. But any suggestion that ratings and reviews must be done a certain way, tend to only weight the reviews towards the author's opinion instead of a general consensus.
Not that it can't be improved. Indeed, the designer's response (or whatever it's called, I'm being lazy again here) is a fairly new feature, and a nice change. It doesn't impose restrictions on the reviewer, but allows the course owner or designer to address issues raised by him. In fact, the very review the OP was ranting about was one he'd posted a very effective and appropriate response to.
So of your suggestions, #1 already exists, more or less; #2 is what I was answering in my flippant way, but have done so here in more detail.
#3 is just problematic, as sidewinder22 described well. It's not a bad idea; sometimes I'm curious about it as I read a review. Some reviewers describe their skill level in their review; some show their rating in their profile. But many are casual and don't have one. And I'm among those who doesn't keep score when I'm visiting a course, and my scores are all over the place on courses I play often. Not sure what I'd put down. It might be of interest when someone describes a course as very tough or easy or long or short; not so much on beautiful or well-maintained (or not). Moreover, anything that makes reviewing courses more difficult, might reduce the number of reviews, which is not in our interest.
Now, after slogging through all that verbiage, you might at least forgive me for being brief in my prior post.[/QUOTE]
I see that my thoughts Indeed were either already in place or not as great of an ideas I thought.
My apologies for coming off as a stiff.
[/B]QUOTE=DavidSauls;3227461]Sorry to offend you; it was not my intent. I was just being lazy.
Veterans of these message boards have seen dozens and dozens of proposals for a "better" way for this site to work, usually imposing someone else's standards on the reviewers. I'm convinced that we're better off using a consensus; allowing reviewers considerable freedom, and letting it average out. Mostly, outlier reviews have a negligible effect on the overall rating though, as I said in an earlier posts, on lightly-reviewed courses like the OP's---or mine---they have a little more impact. Really out-of-line reviews are sometimes deleted by Tim, the site owner. But any suggestion that ratings and reviews must be done a certain way, tend to only weight the reviews towards the author's opinion instead of a general consensus.
Not that it can't be improved. Indeed, the designer's response (or whatever it's called, I'm being lazy again here) is a fairly new feature, and a nice change. It doesn't impose restrictions on the reviewer, but allows the course owner or designer to address issues raised by him. In fact, the very review the OP was ranting about was one he'd posted a very effective and appropriate response to.
So of your suggestions, #1 already exists, more or less; #2 is what I was answering in my flippant way, but have done so here in more detail.
#3 is just problematic, as sidewinder22 described well. It's not a bad idea; sometimes I'm curious about it as I read a review. Some reviewers describe their skill level in their review; some show their rating in their profile. But many are casual and don't have one. And I'm among those who doesn't keep score when I'm visiting a course, and my scores are all over the place on courses I play often. Not sure what I'd put down. It might be of interest when someone describes a course as very tough or easy or long or short; not so much on beautiful or well-maintained (or not). Moreover, anything that makes reviewing courses more difficult, might reduce the number of reviews, which is not in our interest.
Now, after slogging through all that verbiage, you might at least forgive me for being brief in my prior post.[/QUOTE]
Not agreeing with you does not equate to haters.
My opinion has been that the review system is not broken. Opinions of course will wildly vary by taste, regionality, age, conditioning, preference, skill level..........
I think any attempts to control or direct the opinions of posters is just wrong. Read the reviews as a whole and use your common sense to make your own decisions. I don't like the type reviews, that the OP is upset about, but that does not make the reviewers opinion invalid.
crashzero
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2009
- Messages
- 293
I would have agreed with you until recently when this reviewer rolled through Texas and gave reviews admittedly based on the shortcomings of their game and some bad rounds. Not the kind of objectivity I was expecting from one of dgcr's most prolific reviewers.
Lazerface
Eagle Member
I like that you can filter by "trusted reviewers". That will eliminate the BS reviews for the most part. I usually start with trusted, then look at some others, especially from those who identify themselves as local as they usually have some good tips.
It would be really cool to have a "Pro Review". If the guys who run this site could get the touring pros to start reviewing courses on here and there was a special filter or button for a "pro review" that would be super cool. I realize there is no guarantee a touring pros opinion will be any more accurate or less bias than anyone else, but in my experience the right professional guy/girl who has seen a lot of top level courses could give some great perspective. They also tend to judge from a a "competitive" perspective meaning they may be more likely to recognize failed attempts at risk/reward, poke and hopes, tweeners, etc. Again, no guarantee, but if you got the right folks I think it would be a cool feature. I guess they tend to play courses that are already well established as bad ass but some of them certainly make stops out on tour on local tracks that don't get major events.
I know there is this patented concern about "whining pros", but I'm talking about a few trusted, non-bias (to the degree it's possible) and articulate guys. Imagine reading reviews from Koling, Sexton, Feldberg, MJ, PP, Val, Hokom, Cat. Cale and EMac come to mind as well since they both do course design. Avery has played like 1000 courses too. I think it would be sweet.
It would be really cool to have a "Pro Review". If the guys who run this site could get the touring pros to start reviewing courses on here and there was a special filter or button for a "pro review" that would be super cool. I realize there is no guarantee a touring pros opinion will be any more accurate or less bias than anyone else, but in my experience the right professional guy/girl who has seen a lot of top level courses could give some great perspective. They also tend to judge from a a "competitive" perspective meaning they may be more likely to recognize failed attempts at risk/reward, poke and hopes, tweeners, etc. Again, no guarantee, but if you got the right folks I think it would be a cool feature. I guess they tend to play courses that are already well established as bad ass but some of them certainly make stops out on tour on local tracks that don't get major events.
I know there is this patented concern about "whining pros", but I'm talking about a few trusted, non-bias (to the degree it's possible) and articulate guys. Imagine reading reviews from Koling, Sexton, Feldberg, MJ, PP, Val, Hokom, Cat. Cale and EMac come to mind as well since they both do course design. Avery has played like 1000 courses too. I think it would be sweet.
IMHO courses should never be rated based on how well/badly the round is going. I had one of the worst played rounds of recent memories at The Canyons and still gave it the 4.5 it deserved.
-Dave
Reviews are opinions, not fact reporting. I don't think objectivity should really come into play at all. I think the power and usefulness of reviews are their disparity and variety. Certain reviewers (my inner circle of trust), hold similar views, on what is important for me, to enjoy a course. That could certainly include similar skill level.
There are pretty good objective tools on each course page, reviews are supposed to be subjective.....again, IMO.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,233
Black Falls... falls
Getting back to the specific course, my son and I played at Black Falls in 2011 and were blown away by every aspect of the course. So much so, that we returned to our campground at Waterbury after the round and drove back the next day to play it again. Everything about the course was top-notch,but the thing that impressed me most was the owner's attention to detail and upkeep. As a result of that trip to Black Falls,I ended up re-designing my own course, which at that time was a short 18 holer,with no signs,natural teepads hanging home-made baskets and very much guide-required.
I will also add that at that time Smuggler's Notch was a low rated course that we didn't bother to stop and play (prior to it's redesign).
I can't help but think that Johnny Betts had a hand in improving Smugglers Notch, even if it was indirect in terms of raising the bar. I know that he did for Sugaree.
So, it really pains me to see that anyone would give Black Falls a 1.5, but I guess those are the times we live in. It is an artificially low rating to drive down the overall rating, clear and simple and should be removed. That is the rule. Too bad no one will enforce it.
Getting back to the specific course, my son and I played at Black Falls in 2011 and were blown away by every aspect of the course. So much so, that we returned to our campground at Waterbury after the round and drove back the next day to play it again. Everything about the course was top-notch,but the thing that impressed me most was the owner's attention to detail and upkeep. As a result of that trip to Black Falls,I ended up re-designing my own course, which at that time was a short 18 holer,with no signs,natural teepads hanging home-made baskets and very much guide-required.
I will also add that at that time Smuggler's Notch was a low rated course that we didn't bother to stop and play (prior to it's redesign).
I can't help but think that Johnny Betts had a hand in improving Smugglers Notch, even if it was indirect in terms of raising the bar. I know that he did for Sugaree.
So, it really pains me to see that anyone would give Black Falls a 1.5, but I guess those are the times we live in. It is an artificially low rating to drive down the overall rating, clear and simple and should be removed. That is the rule. Too bad no one will enforce it.
biscoe
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,233
Thanks so much for the the thread drift, I hope you are amused...Course has Mach III's- 1.5
Last edited:
The review in question was made almost a full year after the previous review, so without actually being at the course I would have to take his opinion regarding the upkeep.
Then the designer pops up and personally attacks the reviewer. This doesn't put the designer in a good light. Furthermore, the statement made about how the designer is just one guy trying to maintain the course in his free-time makes me think he realized the course is in disarray and attempted to justify it.
Also, if there truly were so many pros and others who have played recently and loved the condition of the course, where are those reviews?
Personally, the review itself was taken with a grain of salt, and I would have checked out the course to see for myself (if in the area). But the response from the designer and creation of this thread has deterred that possibility.
A review is an opinion. Everyone has one and should be allowed to express it when one is asked of them (I.e. on a review oriented site)
Then the designer pops up and personally attacks the reviewer. This doesn't put the designer in a good light. Furthermore, the statement made about how the designer is just one guy trying to maintain the course in his free-time makes me think he realized the course is in disarray and attempted to justify it.
Also, if there truly were so many pros and others who have played recently and loved the condition of the course, where are those reviews?
Personally, the review itself was taken with a grain of salt, and I would have checked out the course to see for myself (if in the area). But the response from the designer and creation of this thread has deterred that possibility.
A review is an opinion. Everyone has one and should be allowed to express it when one is asked of them (I.e. on a review oriented site)
- Status
Similar threads
