Glaring omission in the top 10

[mashnut]

For older reviews on courses that are far travel distances is a big issue for reviewers to update after improvements are made...
How can we & this site get a handle on this difference?

It's only really an issue if you're concerned about rankings. If not, it's not difficult to look through the reviews and see that newer reviews are high while older reviews are low, so it's probably a course that has improved and is now worth visiting.

 

[bholy08]

It's only really an issue if you're concerned about rankings. If not, it's not difficult to look through the reviews and see that newer reviews are high while older reviews are low, so it's probably a course that has improved and is now worth visiting.

Rankings are overrated anyway!

 

[giles]

Rankings are overrated anyway!

I think rankings are only truly useful in a localised area. If you are going to be in Dallas/Fort Worth for a week for work, you can quickly see what the "best" courses are. They don't work so well if you have the choice between traveling to Austin or Dallas.

18 TX courses are rated over 4 that have a min of 5 reviews.
3 are in Austin
5 in DFW

Most people who have played in both cities would probably send you to Austin though, if you were just going for golf. (..or any other reason but that is beside the point.)

 

[Dave242]

Rankings are overrated anyway!

I completely agree that when you start worrying about even 1/4 disc variations Rankings are way overrated.

Heck, the top 20 courses (with 20+ reviews) range from 4.52 - 4.86. That is an average of 0.017 discs separating each course. No meaning can be derived from that.....even less when you realize that it is all subjective data to begin with!

On the flip side.....I think rankings are really very good when done with the 1/2 disc granularity that DGCR uses. The data does very well at grouping courses into the good/better/best variety in visit-worthiness! This assumes several reviews/ratings per course and that individuals' preferences often vary.

 

[denny ritner]

Also, many courses are reviewed before they are even completed and they are reviewed lower than they otherwise would be.

don't plant the baskets until the course is done. see roy g.

 

[mndiscg]

don't plant the baskets until the course is done. see roy g.

I understand that prevents the problem but there are a lot of courses that didn't and their ratings are affected by it.

 

[smyith]

I think rankings are only truly useful in a localised area. If you are going to be in Dallas/Fort Worth for a week for work, you can quickly see what the "best" courses are. They don't work so well if you have the choice between traveling to Austin or Dallas.

18 TX courses are rated over 4 that have a min of 5 reviews.
3 are in Austin
5 in DFW

Most people who have played in both cities would probably send you to Austin though, if you were just going for golf. (..or any other reason but that is beside the point.)

This is why I would like to see a change in the Ratings, you could separate out the ratings for every course. Have a Local Rating (people within say 50mi of the course), International Rating (anyone outside the 50mi radius), and then the Overall. (lets not argue about distance...arbitrary at the moment)
This would be helpful for achieving a more "true" rating (personally i prefer outsider ratings) and allow those who are traveling to play, identify what the best course in the area is. A town could have 5 courses rated a 2.5 but the locals have 1 of them rated a 4.5 star course and another rated a 1 star. Being an out-of-towner you may not know which one to hit and could get stuck hitting the 1 star course.....bummer! This especially sucks when there are a lack of course pictures. I started playing long before DGCR and back then you either went by word of mouth, the cruddy description at PDGA site, forums....sigh, or just going there. I played alot of lame courses I've never been back to. Having pictures and reviews to read have definitely improved course quality.

 

[denny ritner]

I started playing long before DGCR and back then you either went by word of mouth, the cruddy description at PDGA site, forums....sigh, or just going there. I played alot of lame courses I've never been back to. Having pictures and reviews to read have definitely improved course quality.

 

[jtreadwell]

Tied for 10th now

Just wanted to point out that with the most recent 5 star review of Maple Hill, it is now TIED for 10th place!

 

[bradharris]

Just wanted to point out that with the most recent 5 star review of Maple Hill, it is now TIED for 10th place!

:hfive:

 

[Hector Chain]

And now Maple Hill is in the top 10. Unfortunately, it's due to a BS 1-star rating to Meadow Ridge.

I'm happy to see Maple Hill back in the top 10 (it's my favorite course, and the only one I've rated a 5), but that's a pretty crappy way to get there. Meadow Ridge is a very cool course.

 

[jasonc]

Meadow Ridge @ Horning's Hideout?

I didn't see any 1 disc ratings there this morning.

 

[Hector Chain]

Looks like the Horning's 1-star review got deleted. It was posted by Posey Ching, a handle I believe I've seen before.

The review had no content, it was just a bunch of random letters like "asklsdfajklasdfjkl;asdjfklsadkljsdajkdsakjl;dsjkl"

 

[giles]

:clap: Beaver Ranch is out!

 

[Menacewarf]

I weighed in and tipped the scale. It is 100% a 5 to me.

 

[prerube]

Now someone will give maple hill a 3.5 and something else a 5 just to shake up the top 10

 

[sloppydisc]

This seems strangely like manipulation of the Top for petty reasons. Oh well, I don't really care. Just find everyone's concern for subjective ratings amusing.

BTW, I did give Maple Hill a 5 a while back. I loved it, just don't care where it falls compared to other courses.

 

[Menacewarf]

How is it manipulation to rate a course?

 

[jtreadwell]

How is it manipulation to rate a course?

It isn't as long as you genuinely believe in your rating.

 

[MrHighlandPark]

Now we will need a thread for glaring omission in the top 5