Yep. I may list pros & cons that aren't significant enough to affect my rating, but pass them along to be informative to those to whom they might matter more.
Movement in top 10
- Thread starter Mando
- Start date
Yep. I may list pros & cons that aren't significant enough to affect my rating, but pass them along to be informative to those to whom they might matter more.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 132
Because the location isn't part of the course. It may be worth mentioning in Other Thoughts, but it isn't a con.
Seems fair to be put in either a Con or Other Thoughts. There are plenty of times that a location effects the playability of a course. Located in an flood plain? That's a negative. Located on private property? Could be a positive (if you know the owner and thus can play with no crowds) or a negative (if you are part of the crowd that isn't able to play there) or simply an Other Thought. Located next to a busy interstate? Could be a positive (easy access for a quick lunch break round) or a negative (too noisy). Point is, the REVIEW is the part that matters much more than the rating. If I am traveling to an area where I don't know the courses, sure the rating gives me a general idea of likeability. But it really doesn't tell me why people like it or dislike it, and whether those factors are things I care about too.
Review >>> Rating.
They 'tend' to be less crowded too. Hate to consider a packed course as a con...but I can't help but appreciate empty courses...
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,515
As the reviewer, me listing middle of no where as a con probably deserves some context.
This course to me is a destination course. It's not a place that you play casually after work; you make special plans (as I did) to get there. So saying that, ease of getting there, having places to stay near there, etc is important. It wasn't easy to get there - in fact a road leaving the park has a sign that basically says "don't go down this road if the creek is high" as you literally drive over and through part of the creek later down the road. Also, I was traveling between PDGA majors, so I didn't need to stay there. But it would have been a challenge and a drive to find something.
Honestly, I almost gave the course a 4 because of the location concern and the overuse of island designs, but I bumped it back up to 4.5 because the amenities were so far above and beyond anything I've ever seen, I was able to overlook it.
I'm not a "nothing is a 5" guy but I've never given a perfect score. Had the course had better par 3s, I would have given my first 5.
This course to me is a destination course. It's not a place that you play casually after work; you make special plans (as I did) to get there. So saying that, ease of getting there, having places to stay near there, etc is important. It wasn't easy to get there - in fact a road leaving the park has a sign that basically says "don't go down this road if the creek is high" as you literally drive over and through part of the creek later down the road. Also, I was traveling between PDGA majors, so I didn't need to stay there. But it would have been a challenge and a drive to find something.
Honestly, I almost gave the course a 4 because of the location concern and the overuse of island designs, but I bumped it back up to 4.5 because the amenities were so far above and beyond anything I've ever seen, I was able to overlook it.
I'm not a "nothing is a 5" guy but I've never given a perfect score. Had the course had better par 3s, I would have given my first 5.
Last edited:
So, the harshest critic to date is 'only' giving it a 4.5? I think that's evidence of its quality.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 16,384
Pretty much agree with this.
Plus, courses that are distant from other courses are particularly convenient to many folks "underserved DG communities."
And to what MTL said about a destination courses... Those are the biggest draws for many a road trip. By definition, they "are" the destination, and hence not out of the way.
A course's location speaks for itself. Pull it up on Google maps, and given your priorities on that particular trip, figure out if it does (or doesn't) fit into your plans.
But I don't see a course being in BFE as a negative, in and of itself.
Agreed. I actually included "isolated setting" as a pro in my review of the course.
It's quite possible that some people prefer a course far from the beaten path
No highway or city noise. Just DG
No highway or city noise. Just DG
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
There's a term I haven't heard in many a year, lol.:clap::hfive:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 866
WOW! _MTL_s first review in nearly 5 years and just second in almost 9 years, and it generates over a page of discussion!!
That's the way to keep this site going!!
:clap:
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,515
WOW! _MTL_s first review in nearly 5 years and just second in almost 9 years, and it generates over a page of discussion!!
That's the way to keep this site going!!
Thanks to everyone here on this thread for reminding me why I rarely review courses
opcorn:
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 2,465
never gunna get the diamond w/that attitudeThanks to everyone here on this thread for reminding me why I rarely review courses
at least you had the balls to do so, unlike mrbro855, who just posted their review on the wall so it didn't deter the perfect rating. :thmbdown:
Last edited:
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,515
This recent discussion has once again reminded me of the huge flaw in the ratings system on this site - the inability to review different elements of the course and then letting the user determine what is important to them. For example, me calling the course in the middle of no where a con has clearly rubbed a few people the wrong way as they either see it to be a non-issue or a perk. That's irrelevant - the point is it mattered to me.
One day I hope we can review courses on 11 features:
Design (1 being horrible, 5 being incredible)
Aesthetics (1 being ugly, 5 being stunning)
Amenities (1 being horrible, 5 being incredible)
Ease of Navigation (1 being horrible, 5 being simple)
Challenge (1 being pitch and putt 5 being good luck getting a birdie)
Layout Options (1 being one layout all the time, 5 being multiple layouts playable at any time)
Course signage (1 being non existent, 5 being signs everywhere)
Physical Challenge of course (1 being anyone can play, 5 being you better be in shape)
Equipment (1 being missing, broken, etc 5 being brand new and perfect)
Location (1 being very simple to find and near things and 5 being middle of no where)
Overall (same thing we do now)
Then as a user I could sort based on whatever I wanted and / or could sort based on what I needed. For example, if it's 2 hours from dark, ease of navigation, location and challenge are important. If I have all day, those things don't matter and I care about challenge, amenities, etc.
Yes the replies to this will undoubtedly be "read reviews, not ratings." However this assumes that everything that I want in the moment is covered AND I can easily find it.
Saying that, here's how I would have rated Eagles Crossing under what I stated above:
Design - 3.5 - very creative in some places, but as I said in the review, way overuse of island greens.
Aesthetics 4.5 - it was pretty for a few holes, and bland for some holes. Still way better than average.
Amenities 5 - can I give a 6 here?
Ease of Navigation - 4.5 - for a long course with many layouts, it was pretty easy. Still some next tee signs would be helpful.
Challenge 5 - yeah it kicked my butt,
Layout Options - 4.5 - 3 tees playable at any time, but the course didn't have multiple pins so you were only allowed 3 layouts. Would have loved some extra baskets to choose layouts.
Course signage - 3.5. Good tee signs, but no signs in fairways with distance markers.
Physical Challenge of course - 5 - took 4 of us (with a break) with carts 5.5 hours to play it.
Equipment - 4.5 - I'm not a huge fan of Titans, but they are fine. The tees were incredible.
Location - 5 - Remember, that means it's in the middle of no where.
Overall - 4.5
One day I hope we can review courses on 11 features:
Design (1 being horrible, 5 being incredible)
Aesthetics (1 being ugly, 5 being stunning)
Amenities (1 being horrible, 5 being incredible)
Ease of Navigation (1 being horrible, 5 being simple)
Challenge (1 being pitch and putt 5 being good luck getting a birdie)
Layout Options (1 being one layout all the time, 5 being multiple layouts playable at any time)
Course signage (1 being non existent, 5 being signs everywhere)
Physical Challenge of course (1 being anyone can play, 5 being you better be in shape)
Equipment (1 being missing, broken, etc 5 being brand new and perfect)
Location (1 being very simple to find and near things and 5 being middle of no where)
Overall (same thing we do now)
Then as a user I could sort based on whatever I wanted and / or could sort based on what I needed. For example, if it's 2 hours from dark, ease of navigation, location and challenge are important. If I have all day, those things don't matter and I care about challenge, amenities, etc.
Yes the replies to this will undoubtedly be "read reviews, not ratings." However this assumes that everything that I want in the moment is covered AND I can easily find it.
Saying that, here's how I would have rated Eagles Crossing under what I stated above:
Design - 3.5 - very creative in some places, but as I said in the review, way overuse of island greens.
Aesthetics 4.5 - it was pretty for a few holes, and bland for some holes. Still way better than average.
Amenities 5 - can I give a 6 here?
Ease of Navigation - 4.5 - for a long course with many layouts, it was pretty easy. Still some next tee signs would be helpful.
Challenge 5 - yeah it kicked my butt,
Layout Options - 4.5 - 3 tees playable at any time, but the course didn't have multiple pins so you were only allowed 3 layouts. Would have loved some extra baskets to choose layouts.
Course signage - 3.5. Good tee signs, but no signs in fairways with distance markers.
Physical Challenge of course - 5 - took 4 of us (with a break) with carts 5.5 hours to play it.
Equipment - 4.5 - I'm not a huge fan of Titans, but they are fine. The tees were incredible.
Location - 5 - Remember, that means it's in the middle of no where.
Overall - 4.5
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2013
- Messages
- 866
It figures wellsbranch would be the first to NICE this post. He's been writing reviews by categories forever. :thmbup: Now he just needs to start putting numbers to each category.
opcorn:
_MTL_
Flippy Flopper
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,515
The numbers would allow personal sorting. Imagine if I loved design, amenities and ease of navigation. I should be able to choose just those three and get output of which courses are rated the highest of that combination. It would be like you own personal key to finding your favorite course.
porkturtle
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2019
- Messages
- 289
Judging by what I saw at the recent Butler County Disc Golf Classic, North Boundary should be the first course listed with that search!
