TimG can you just erase worthless reviews?

[thrembo]

The highest rated course right now sits at 4.93. It's unlikely that a perfect 5 will ever be achieved (with the minimum requirements to be on the top 25 courses list).

 

[wellsbranch250]

I hear ya aclay, there's no crime in having high standards for a 5. Off the top of my head there are at least a couple diamond level reviewers that have never given a 5. Reposado and Swatso. Gold level wolfhaley also has 200 plus reviews without 5.

I personally thought i'd never rate a 5.0 for the longest time and then Rollin Ridge smacked me in the face. It has cons for sure, but they are almost all catch 22. For example, Con, you can lose plastic in the pond or marsh. But on the flipside, i would have con'd the course for not having water had it not been there. Nothing to me provides more exhilaration than throwing a loved disc over the abyss.

food for thought
timg, site creator, has listed 350 played courses. He's done 59 reviews and given out two 5.0s. Idelwild and Brakewell Steel.
https://www.dgcoursereview.com/profile.php?id=1

 

[aclay]

Thanks for the feedback, Wellsbranch250. In your scenario with Rollin Ridge, you might think the pond/marsh is a pro, and I might think it a con. We can have different opinions on the same fact. That's why we need plenty of honest reviews. However, if I can easily see both sides on something like that, I tend to list it in Other Thoughts, not a Pro and not a Con.

 

[aclay]

I hate to post back-to-back, but I came across a situation I'd like to raise to get some input. In keeping with multiple suggestions that we help reviewers with feedback via helpful/not helpful votes, I have tried several times per day recently to go to the home page and read at least one new review and give that feedback. I came across five reviews of the same course written on the same day. All of the reviews are really short (none longer than 6 sentences with very little detail), and the combined voting as of this writing is 3 helpful, 69 not helpful. Only one of the reviewers has written more than one review, and that reviewer has written TWO. The course has detailed (helpful) reviews, but they are buried under this avalanche of not helpful reviews. In a way, we would be helping/encouraging laziness by making sure the helpful reviews are the most accessible, but if the purpose of the reviews (and the site) is to be helpful, should we consider some sort of change? I am hesitant to suggest removing reviews, so I don't have the answer. What do others think?

 

[DavidSauls]

You can sort reviews of a course by "most helpful", if that's what you're talking about.

The default is "most recent", which would still be my preference. The rare case you cite, notwithstanding.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

I hate to post back-to-back, but I came across a situation I'd like to raise to get some input. In keeping with multiple suggestions that we help reviewers with feedback via helpful/not helpful votes, I have tried several times per day recently to go to the home page and read at least one new review and give that feedback. I came across five reviews of the same course written on the same day. All of the reviews are really short (none longer than 6 sentences with very little detail), and the combined voting as of this writing is 3 helpful, 69 not helpful. Only one of the reviewers has written more than one review, and that reviewer has written TWO. The course has detailed (helpful) reviews, but they are buried under this avalanche of not helpful reviews. In a way, we would be helping/encouraging laziness by making sure the helpful reviews are the most accessible, but if the purpose of the reviews (and the site) is to be helpful, should we consider some sort of change? I am hesitant to suggest removing reviews, so I don't have the answer. What do others think?

If you don't like the system, don't be on this site. Make your own website and rules for who can review a course and what rating they can give.

For sake of transparency, I messaged Tim to check the validity of the 5 Bailey reviews, mainly whether they're from 5 different people. If he deems them legit, they're staying.

 

[aclay]

If you don't like the system, don't be on this site. Make your own website and rules for who can review a course and what rating they can give.

For sake of transparency, I messaged Tim to check the validity of the 5 Bailey reviews, mainly whether they're from 5 different people. If he deems them legit, they're staying.

I LOVE this site, so I obviously did not communicate well. I never intended to suggest removing the reviews. I was looking for ideas to help make a good site even better. There are a lot of smart people here with a wealth of experience. I appreciate them being willing to share that knowledge.

 

[wellsbranch250]

I read all of those reviews aclay. The only thing that was helpful is that I now know Baileys has concrete tees.

I have used the "sort by most helpful" by clicking the dropdown. However, when I use that feature I often get reviews from 2010 that are outdated to the current configuration. I could make an argument that only trusted reviews should appear first, but that would be unfair for newer reviewer trying to legitimately be helpful and to contribute to the site.

Along with others, I have suggested to compose some sort of alternate critics score ranking per course where only those have achieved TR status comprise of that alternate review score. Anyone who wants to contribute to this score can, they just have to put up a good 20 to 30 solid consistent reviews. I am constantly reading and thumbing newer reviews who make a solid effort to contribute to the site. It's been interesting watching newer reviewers like blake833, armiller, wericsson, jjtwinnova and you of course aclay (among others) develop a solid and serious review portfolio.

Although there are a few great one and done reviews, most are unhelpful and disingenuous to the character of this site. If I want horrible homer bias review rankings, I can just go to udisc and be mislead to play a 4.8 rated course that's flat, treeless and 9 holes that the local league has voted as 5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,.

 

[Jukeshoe]

I think the current setup is fine as is.

Timg has always done a really good job removing the egregiously bad reviews that shouldn't have been posted.

The filters help sift through reviews. Sorting by TR Reviews and looking at the corresponding score distribution graph seems to largely do what you're suggesting with the "alternate critics score," wellsbranch250. It might not break it down into a hard and fast separate number rating, but you can get the idea at a quick glance.

*(Caveat, I haven't looked at the way reviews are sortable/rated in a while, so maybe things have changed??)

 

[timg]

If you don't like the system, don't be on this site. Make your own website and rules for who can review a course and what rating they can give.

For sake of transparency, I messaged Tim to check the validity of the 5 Bailey reviews, mainly whether they're from 5 different people. If he deems them legit, they're staying.

They're all legit, just not very good reviews. All the accounts registered at different times in the past few years, different IPs, etc. If it isn't legit, this plan was a long time in the making

 

[Jukeshoe]

IT'S A DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY!!

 

[wellsbranch250]

I think its still the same.... although I haven't even been on the site two years yet. (2 year join date is tomorrow for me)

I am always doing what you suggested, clicking sort by TR when targeting courses. Its personally the most helpful thing to me when I target courses. lots a great reviews to browse through and more accurate in my opinion. I do wish I could easily sort courses by average TR score. It wouldn't change the site all other than being another helpful feature.

I think the current setup is fine as is.

Timg has always done a really good job removing the egregiously bad reviews that shouldn't have been posted.

The filters help sift through reviews. Sorting by TR Reviews and looking at the corresponding score distribution graph seems to largely do what you're suggesting with the "alternate critics score," wellsbranch250. It might not break it down into a hard and fast separate number rating, but you can get the idea at a quick glance.

*(Caveat, I haven't looked at the way reviews are sortable/rated in a while, so maybe things have changed??)

 

[Jukeshoe]

I gotcha now. You'd like to sort courses (and not just reviews) by average TR score. I misunderstood.

That said, I guess I find the non-TR reviews (even the ones that are only a couple of sentences) useful, too.

It's almost as easy to get a good feel for a course from a chucker's perspective as it is from a DG aesthete's.

The nice thing about DGCR is that it counts everyone's opinion equally, so there isn't a premium on the reviews of some super select group of DG nerds or TR reviewers cult or some such thing.

 

[aclay]

They're all legit, just not very good reviews. All the accounts registered at different times in the past few years, different IPs, etc. If it isn't legit, this plan was a long time in the making

Tim:

Thanks, not just for this one thing but for ALL of your hard work. I can't imagine the time it takes, and I don't think we thank you enough. I know I don't. I hate to add to someone else's work when I am unwilling/unable to help. This is a terrific site. Anything I suggest comes from a place of trying to help and make it even better.

 

[swhite]

I would like to be able to delete some of my worthless posts that are littered throughout these forums.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

If it isn't legit, this plan was a long time in the making

They're trying to throw you off the scent by having one of the reviews only be a 4.5 rating. It would have been too suspicious if they were all 5-star reviews.

 

[ohtobediscing]

I would like to be able to delete some of my worthless posts that are littered throughout these forums.

Really!? 393 handjobs doesn't sound worthless to me.

 

[swhite]

Really!? 393 handjobs doesn't sound worthless to me.

People are too kind, or tolerant of my bad jokes.

 

[dreadlock86]

there are so many ways the perfect 5 is subjective. some people think tees must be concrete, some don't value amenities at all. some want water carries and others don't. does a course need alternate pin locations? do three sets a tees really make a course better? pay to play or not? should a course cater to locals or first time visitors?

is a course perfect in an absolute sense or does context matter? i've seen courses where i can't imagine a better course on that land but the land is not that great to begin with. should a perfect course be easily accessible? should i dock a course if it's in the middle of nowhere and has no local accommodations?

i think one way to get closer to a more definitive answer would be to distinguish between the course itself and the experience of playing a course. the former should be about nothing but golf and the latter includes everything else.

 

[scarpfish]

This is from the guidelines on this site: Remember, a "5" is considered the ultimate. There is absolutely nothing that could be done to improve the course. It is perfect in every possible way.

Given that directive, a course should (must?) be perfect to earn a 5. That seems pretty straightforward. I have always tried to follow that. Am I the only one?

That guideline should be scratched, because there is no course that exists or could ever exist that couldn't be improved upon. Every course has a few oopsies. Whether one elects to dock for them comes down to the reviewer.