#271  
Old 07-04-2017, 11:27 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.6
Courses Played: 322
Posts: 4,359
Niced 1,113 Times in 577 Posts
Default

It seems to me that hole lengths are the best indicator of whether a course is appropriate for a particular player's skill level. It doesn't take long at all for players to figure out how far they can throw, or how long the holes are that they like.

I don't know that anything we could come up with would be better.
Sponsored Links

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 07-04-2017, 01:51 PM
scarpfish's Avatar
scarpfish scarpfish is offline
Resident Grouch
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brownbackistan
Years Playing: 15.5
Courses Played: 350
Posts: 8,013
Niced 420 Times in 164 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyleoross View Post
So, I haven't read through this entire thread, but the use of elitist is... elitist. Saying that someone is a snob, or elitist because they're an expert in something is paving the highway to hell. It's stupid beyond belief.
You're getting elitist and elite mixed up. Elitist does not necessarily equate to expert. Someone who ploclaims they or their ideas are better because they aggrandize themselves or their ideas is much different that someone who demonstrates through practice or peer review that they are the best at something.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 07-05-2017, 03:28 AM
New013's Avatar
New013 New013 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
Years Playing: 8.4
Courses Played: 169
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 7,153
Niced 162 Times in 81 Posts
Send a message via AIM to New013
Default

I'm also against the level option. On top of the multiple layouts courses can have and varying pin positions a single layout can have holes of varying difficulty.

On top of that you're asking mostly Am players to make that distinction.

On top of that you're asking people to agree on one standard and even if you wrote it out in bold people will still go with however they feel.

If you look at the hole lengths/par and read the reviews, you should easily have an idea of difficulty without throwing in more sub classifications.

Breaking everything down like some of you want to actually ends up informing people less because it further complicates the process and gives people more ideas they have to understand to not only read the reviews but write them.

IMO the site should be aiming to embrace the opinion of people who are new to the sport and the site; and adding more and more classifications to know before you review will hinder that.

Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 07-05-2017, 10:43 AM
_MTL_ _MTL_ is offline
Flippy Flopper
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Years Playing: 25.5
Courses Played: 128
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,792
Niced 620 Times in 291 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New013 View Post
I'm also against the level option. On top of the multiple layouts courses can have and varying pin positions a single layout can have holes of varying difficulty.

On top of that you're asking mostly Am players to make that distinction.
While I agree with this 100%, it's interesting to see that you among others think that all reviews should count the same.

If you are going to one hand say "am players shouldn't decide difficulty" then you shouldn't on the other hand say "all reviews should be identical."

I will add, however, that difficulty is one of most mis-understood things in disc golf. Difficulty, IMHO, is the difference between Par and SSA, not simply what course par is.

A course with a par of 54 with an SSA of 50 is way more difficult than a course with a par of 62 and SSA of 54, even though scoring on the second course will be higher.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 07-05-2017, 11:14 AM
tbird888's Avatar
tbird888 tbird888 is offline
Salient Disc Test Team
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Blue Ash, OH
Years Playing: 13.8
Courses Played: 214
Throwing Style: LHFH
Posts: 15,904
Niced 970 Times in 496 Posts
Default

When did ratings become about difficulty? If that were the case, Winton Woods should be a 1 at best. I'm admittedly a chucker at this point, and I can regularly score in the low 40s there with a putter.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 07-05-2017, 11:21 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 44.6
Courses Played: 322
Posts: 4,359
Niced 1,113 Times in 577 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _MTL_ View Post
...
A course with a par of 54 with an SSA of 50 is way more difficult than a course with a par of 62 and SSA of 54, even though scoring on the second course will be higher.
For predicting the enjoyment of a course, I don't think that's the kind of difficulty that matters. Basically, holes are less and less fun after six throws. Even if par is 7. What people want to know is whether they can finish the course in a reasonable number of throws.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 07-05-2017, 11:32 AM
_MTL_ _MTL_ is offline
Flippy Flopper
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Years Playing: 25.5
Courses Played: 128
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,792
Niced 620 Times in 291 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve West View Post
For predicting the enjoyment of a course, I don't think that's the kind of difficulty that matters. Basically, holes are less and less fun after six throws. Even if par is 7. What people want to know is whether they can finish the course in a reasonable number of throws.
Agreed.

So what does the course ratings rate?

Is based on enjoyment? Is it based on the experience the park provides? Is it challenge? Is it ease of navigation?

This is why I proposed what I did. If you asked 100 people, you would get different answers.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 07-05-2017, 11:34 AM
BogeyNoMore's Avatar
BogeyNoMore BogeyNoMore is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Walled Lake, MI
Years Playing: 14.5
Courses Played: 286
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,423
Niced 1,634 Times in 844 Posts
Default

Is it safe to say this (or any) site can't be all things to all people?

As a long time member and contributor, I'm all for improving the site, and applaud Tim for being receptive to what our suggestions. I'm a pretty detail oriented person, and while I like the idea of quantifying certain aspects of a given course in theory, being able to use it effectively in practice will be something else altogether.

Numerous times in this thread, it's been pointed out that trying to compartmentalize various course characteristics, by pretty much any grouping of people, is at it's core, HIGHLY SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION... by both the author, and the reader ...and in a number of different ways, to boot.

I genuinely see both sides of this coin, and tried to come up with a way to advance the issue without totally overhauling the way the review/rating process works. But sometimes, simple is better.

I honestly think the current system provides more meaningful information to people who use the combination of reviews, pictures, and ratings as intended than trying to slice and dice the things into some sort of rubric would. If we choose to go that route, I really think what we'll end up with is a dead frog, as Biscoe quite eloquently put it.

Niced: (2)

Last edited by BogeyNoMore; 07-05-2017 at 11:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 07-05-2017, 12:17 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 23.5
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,269
Niced 2,089 Times in 994 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by _MTL_ View Post
Agreed.

So what does the course ratings rate?

Is based on enjoyment? Is it based on the experience the park provides? Is it challenge? Is it ease of navigation?

This is why I proposed what I did. If you asked 100 people, you would get different answers.
All of the above, and more, in proportion to how much the reviewers value those aspects. With the expectation that users will value them in roughly the same proportions.

So if 10% of people think navigation is highly important, the ratings will be nudged 10% in that direction. It's an average of what people think is a good course.
Reply With Quote
 

  #280  
Old 07-05-2017, 02:03 PM
Olorin's Avatar
Olorin Olorin is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Fleetwood, NC
Years Playing: 39.6
Courses Played: 400
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,126
Niced 108 Times in 64 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noill Golf View Post
What does everyone think about a level designation for a course? Like a red level course or a gold level course. Should that be written in a review or checked off in a review or just listed on the course page..?
Fantastic idea, in theory, if you could find people qualified to do it accurately.

That quote about those not knowing history... that also applies to DGCR... There is the Course Levels thread from 2007.
And a "Does what the course is designed for..." thread. Start here and here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by New013 View Post
I'm also against the level option...
BUT on a practical level New013 makes a compelling argument that I also agree with. The average DGCR reviewer just doesn't have enough experience to make this designation accurately.

Biscoe also makes cogent points about why this is impractical in the real world of DGCR.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Players that have maintained a 1000+ rating since the rating system started 1998 chris deitzel General Disc Golf Chat 22 03-30-2017 07:34 AM
can someone please explain their rating system? ThomasOrion Discs 1 12-25-2014 03:10 PM
Rating system broken? thePiRaTE Discs 96 10-19-2013 03:49 PM
My new rating system... Mando General Disc Golf Chat 35 05-27-2011 11:13 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.