A course reopens after 5yrs of resting in peace.... sounds like it should be classified as a Zombie course. I bet that has not happened many times Scarpy. Kiwanis in Tx doesn't say it was redesigned even though it has the correct year for the redesign as the yr established. I think original 9 was designed in the early 2000s.
-
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)
Resetting Reviews
- Thread starter jjtwinnova
- Start date
A course reopens after 5yrs of resting in peace.... sounds like it should be classified as a Zombie course. I bet that has not happened many times Scarpy. Kiwanis in Tx doesn't say it was redesigned even though it has the correct year for the redesign as the yr established. I think original 9 was designed in the early 2000s.
ClockRoach
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2016
- Messages
- 8
For incremental course changes, maybe there should be some more changes to the review system. Allow replies or discussions for each review, so people can point out things that are no longer accurate. Instead of wiping old ratings, they could be weighted based on age, helpfulness, or reviewer reputation.
If a course has a review that no longer applies to the much better (or worse) course it is now, it should be deleted because they are wrong.
I have a few different policies and most of them are just based on how I feel about the changes since all courses are different. If I mark a course as "redesigned" it will keep everything but hide/exclude all reviews prior to the date I put in. Once those members update their reviews, they'll show back up. So they're not wiped, just hidden. I usually do that if the page hasn't really had much activity (very few rounds, not too many reviews, etc.).
If a course has seen a major change, I normally do a new page (unless the existing page has seen almost no action). This is partly to preserve scoring stats and partly to give what is essentially a new course a fresh start. I don't really have an answer for the incremental change stuff other than newer reviews will reflect the improved conditions. The default sort is by date so people will always see the newest information first. There are also the drive-by and clock icons to help people weigh that review for themselves.
If anything, I could make something that might weigh really old reviews differently, although in some cases those could still be valid if the course hasn't changed much.
If a course has seen a major change, I normally do a new page (unless the existing page has seen almost no action). This is partly to preserve scoring stats and partly to give what is essentially a new course a fresh start. I don't really have an answer for the incremental change stuff other than newer reviews will reflect the improved conditions. The default sort is by date so people will always see the newest information first. There are also the drive-by and clock icons to help people weigh that review for themselves.
If anything, I could make something that might weigh really old reviews differently, although in some cases those could still be valid if the course hasn't changed much.
Designers can respond to reviews. I can't imagine allowing everyone to respond to reviews would be wise. Some people have strong feelings when it comes to their local courses that may or may not be so great. I can only imagine what the response to poor reviews would be.
You would have to filter who can respond in some way. Maybe it's premium members, TRs, whatever. There just needs to be some sort of barrier to it to avoid the "YOU JUST SUCK, GO HOME" type of comments that would ensue.
What I think you should do is hide reviews that no longer apply to the course to make the most accurate reviews and ratings. I have played courses that had major renovations that should have a higher rating than it does. I love what you have done with my most frequently visited website!
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,233
Absolutely.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,233
Yep...and how you feel about the course designer.
I think yes, with the caveat that old reviews should be left up in some form. If nothing else I find them interesting to read to gain insight on how a course developed.
The last course I reviewed, All Terrain Disc Golf has reviews mentioning needing to carefully study a map between each hole. When I threw it earlier this week I think there were on average 3 next tee signs between holes, I **** you not. This is in addition to tape on a rung on the basket's cage pointing you to the next tee, a paper course map, and a stationary course map at hole 1. There are also benches all over the place.
Basically the only issue that course has as it currently stands is tall grass on a few holes, most of it is walked over enough to where its fine. I didn't look at my map once my entire round, never went without a bench when I wanted one, etc.
Portage Lakes (A course I mentioned in a similar thread) is another course that comes to mind. There are reviews from when it was a rough around the edges 9 hole course with natural tees. Now its one of the best courses in the area, with dual paved tees and 18 baskets, featuring 3 par 4's and one true par 5 IIRC. There is nothing anyone could say to me to justify a score below 3.75 for P Lakes.
The last course I reviewed, All Terrain Disc Golf has reviews mentioning needing to carefully study a map between each hole. When I threw it earlier this week I think there were on average 3 next tee signs between holes, I **** you not. This is in addition to tape on a rung on the basket's cage pointing you to the next tee, a paper course map, and a stationary course map at hole 1. There are also benches all over the place.
Basically the only issue that course has as it currently stands is tall grass on a few holes, most of it is walked over enough to where its fine. I didn't look at my map once my entire round, never went without a bench when I wanted one, etc.
Portage Lakes (A course I mentioned in a similar thread) is another course that comes to mind. There are reviews from when it was a rough around the edges 9 hole course with natural tees. Now its one of the best courses in the area, with dual paved tees and 18 baskets, featuring 3 par 4's and one true par 5 IIRC. There is nothing anyone could say to me to justify a score below 3.75 for P Lakes.
Its simple Re launch the course, contact timg and let him know why and how much it has changed, hes usually pretty chill about it.
I want to make a course milestone feature... which would be arbitrary cut offs where some event happened. An option to exclude reviews prior to that date is something I can look into as I was planning on it being more of an aesthetic / informational thing.
philgretz
Newbie
Relatively new player, here. My wife and I search out new courses whenever we will be visiting somewhere. I rely on the DGCR course catalog for this. Still, I voted no for a few reasons...
(1) I trust that most recent reviews reflect the current conditions, so I give them more credence
(2) Some older reviews give important information about climate, bugs, snakes, etc., that the recent reviewers might overlook. So, it'd be a shame to lose that information.
(3) I like knowing a bit about the evolution of a course - it lets me know in advance how active the local club(s) are in upkeep. It might help in choosing which one to visit.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. This is a terrific resource. Thanks to all of you for your discussion. You have really helped me. PG
PBokor
Eagle Member
Perhaps using a 'moving average' for the ratings would provide a more accurate reflection of current course conditions, though reviews would still be left intact as a historical reference. Just a random thought...
That would be cool. My degrees are in history and anthropology so I'm all for good record keeping. This is one of the few sites where data is being recorded and preserved about disc golf. If say some historian in 50 years wanted to write a history of a course (humor me) and the course's old reviews and history got deleted in favor of a relaunch, then that historian would have an incomplete record and might write a false narrative.
It's one thing to start it over if a course is practically completely different from the preceding one but it's cool to know about tweaks, updated equipment, expansions, etc.
Wow. I completely forgot about this thread, and creating it, but here it is.
I agree with the milestone thing, and I have thought that a choice to only include reviews written within the last two years would be a good addition. I also think adding that, with the trusted reviewer stats would be cool. I have tried to start writing more reviews over the last couple months, and also rewriting the ones for courses I don't forget, even though it is tough.
I have played courses that haven't changed in almost twenty years, to courses with new signs, pads, baskets, even holes. Having a year by year option would be extremely helpful to see which of these courses has seemed the best over the last couple years, rather than when it was first reviewed seven years ago.
I agree with the milestone thing, and I have thought that a choice to only include reviews written within the last two years would be a good addition. I also think adding that, with the trusted reviewer stats would be cool. I have tried to start writing more reviews over the last couple months, and also rewriting the ones for courses I don't forget, even though it is tough.
I have played courses that haven't changed in almost twenty years, to courses with new signs, pads, baskets, even holes. Having a year by year option would be extremely helpful to see which of these courses has seemed the best over the last couple years, rather than when it was first reviewed seven years ago.
Boy, I could wear out that feature.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 2,814
I like this notion. Like 'em or not, even your PDGA rating is based on recent rounds, and weighted for very recent rounds. Perhaps Tim could add a formula that, say, after two years, only uses the most recent 50% of the reviews, and maybe double weights Trusted reviews. Older reviews would still be visible, but maybe use the grey background that you see for RIP courses? Might not have to RIP and re-list everything, and courses would have a historical archive available for those interested, but it'd be clear where the 'counted' reviews begin.
You'd need a minimum number of reviews. Otherwise, a lot of courses would only have a handful of reviews, and with just a handful of reviews, the average can be distorted by one or two really high or really low ratings. (Stoney Hill has 29 reviews, only 1 in the past 2 years).
You could have something like "last 2 years or last 20 reviews, whichever is greater".
The problem is having a formula that works with heavily-reviewed courses, and lightly-reviewed courses, and courses with a lot of changes (sudden or gradual), and courses that never change. In short, like a lot of things on this wonderful website, dealing with the delightful diversity that is disc golf.
But as soon as you do, there'll be an argument that 2 years is the wrong period, or 20 reviews is the wrong number, and that some other formulation would give better results.
You could have something like "last 2 years or last 20 reviews, whichever is greater".
The problem is having a formula that works with heavily-reviewed courses, and lightly-reviewed courses, and courses with a lot of changes (sudden or gradual), and courses that never change. In short, like a lot of things on this wonderful website, dealing with the delightful diversity that is disc golf.
But as soon as you do, there'll be an argument that 2 years is the wrong period, or 20 reviews is the wrong number, and that some other formulation would give better results.
PBokor
Eagle Member
I did financial forecasting for Microsoft for a few years and those were very spirited discussions.
