#61  
Old 09-03-2019, 08:34 PM
Ptronius Ptronius is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 9
Niced 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BogeyNoMore View Post
If I correctly understand your proposal, does that mean someone like myself, with 300 course under my belt, or my course bagging buddy with 700+ courses would have to perform a few hundred "A vs. B" head to head every single new course we choose to play???

If so, you're sorely mistaken if you think that's gonna happen.
yeah, no, I don't think that's going to happen. There might be ways around that. The rating tool could just pick some number of random ones to A/B. Or it could use your initial answers to hone in on the vicinity of the ranking quickly and thus be able to skip most of the comparisons.

I'll repeat that this is just an idea I thought might be fun to kick around, not something I seriously think might get adopted by this site.


....anytime soon

ETA: and certainly not a replacement for written reviews.
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)

Last edited by Ptronius; 09-03-2019 at 08:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-03-2019, 10:41 PM
armiller's Avatar
armiller armiller is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: West Virginia
Years Playing: 4.5
Courses Played: 183
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,138
Niced 669 Times in 444 Posts
Default

The way I see it, rating a course already gives some sort of comparison between all courses I've played. I think this holds for any reviewer who has reviewed more than a handful of courses. It would be redundant for me to say "I prefer course A over course B" when I've already rated one 4.0 and one 3.5.

Nevertheless, rating and ranking courses in that way simply doesn't cut it. Courses are so different, especially when comparing across different regions, that I still value the review more highly than the number in every case. When getting to a new region, I've often found a trusted reviewer that I find I can --- pardon the obvious word play -- trust. In Florida, it was reposado. The rating numbers actually meant very little. What mattered was gathering significant information from a trustworthy source who had played all the courses in the region in addition to many more nationwide.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:24 AM
Countchunkula's Avatar
Countchunkula Countchunkula is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago Burbs
Years Playing: 13.3
Courses Played: 168
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,282
Niced 160 Times in 96 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ptronius View Post
How about a separate ranking system that was based on "which course would you rather play?" It's been a looong time since I took a statistics class so IDRC what this system is called but I *think* it's a thing. Every time you go to rate a new course, it would go down the list of courses you've played and one by one you choose whether you like that one or the new one more. Everyone's comparisons get aggregated, then the # of discs can be assigned by the resulting rankings. The one that ends up at the top of the list is 5 discs the one at the bottom is zero.

Because reviewers regions overlap every course would (hopefully eventually) be compared to every course by some degrees of separation and regional flattening would hopefully be compensated for.

You could have written reviews not be a requirement to contribute to the rankings, which could be a negative but might encourage a lot more people (like me) to contribute to them and reduce outliers caused by low numbers of rankings.

For someone to give an crazy high ranking to their local baskets-in-an-open-field course they would have to pretty brazenly say they prefer it to some other high ranked course. IOW it takes outright dishonesty to throw the rankings as opposed to innocent enthusiasm for their new local course.

An extremely simplified example of how this works: 3 reviewers, 4 courses, each reviewers has played a different pair of courses
- first reviewer has played coarse A and B says they like A more than B, A is now 5 in the overall ratings and B is 0
- Second reviewer has played B and C and says they like B more than C, A is now 5, B is 2.5 and C is 0
- Third reviewer has played C and D and says they like C more than D, A is now 5, B is 3.33, C is 1.66, and D is 0


You would get weird things at first when there are missing connections but I would think that would go away pretty quickly as connections are made. One hitch I can see is when a new reviewer reviews a new course. Then you can have a "floater". Say they have only played C and E and they prefer E. All you know is that E is better than C but you don't know where it goes in comparison to A and B until you get some connecting comparisons.

The bolded is basically what I do to determine numerical score for each course rating. I sort my reviewed courses by rating, and scroll down the list, trying to decide which "tier" best fits the newly played course. Tiers generally correspond to the ratings options presented on this site, although there are a few tiers that get combined into a single rating (for example, I have two distinct tiers lumped into the 4 disc bucket).

I had to do a fairly major rating cleanup a few years back after playing Maple Hill. With a new idea of what a 5 disc course was, I had a whole new tier at the top and had to remap my existing tiers against the dgcr rating scale. The two courses that I had previously rated as 5s got bumped down to 4.5, the best of the 4.5s held their rating and the lesser 4.5s got downgraded. This continued down the list until my tiers again lined up with the dgcr rating scale. Of course, I couldn't adjust ratings for extinct courses, which leaves a few extinct courses "overrated".

Other than the major cleanup, I've gone back and adjusted ratings on a handful of courses to true up the scales on one occasion. Outside of those two instances, my tiers have remained static. Using tiers has made it fairly painless to have a regularly updated ranking of courses. I would never attempt readjustments to my rankings if I had to rank all the courses individually.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:03 AM
dreadlock86's Avatar
dreadlock86 dreadlock86 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: DFW, tx
Years Playing: 12.5
Courses Played: 327
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,875
Niced 243 Times in 124 Posts
Default

i do the same thing for courses in the 2.0-3.0 range. outside of that, it's pretty obvious to me where i'm going to rank/rate a course.

and i also have had to go back and readjust the whole scale after i got out into the rest of the country. CO and the Great Lakes changed everything. i expect it to happen again to some degree once i get to check out New England.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:24 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.3
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 15,091
Niced 3,284 Times in 1,452 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armiller View Post
The way I see it, rating a course already gives some sort of comparison between all courses I've played. I think this holds for any reviewer who has reviewed more than a handful of courses. It would be redundant for me to say "I prefer course A over course B" when I've already rated one 4.0 and one 3.5.

Nevertheless, rating and ranking courses in that way simply doesn't cut it. Courses are so different, especially when comparing across different regions, that I still value the review more highly than the number in every case. When getting to a new region, I've often found a trusted reviewer that I find I can --- pardon the obvious word play -- trust. In Florida, it was reposado. The rating numbers actually meant very little. What mattered was gathering significant information from a trustworthy source who had played all the courses in the region in addition to many more nationwide.
Meanwhile, over in the Movement in the Top 10 thread, people are getting their undies in a bunch over hundredths of a rating point.

Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:25 AM
BogeyNoMore's Avatar
BogeyNoMore BogeyNoMore is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Walled Lake, MI
Years Playing: 15.4
Courses Played: 311
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,790
Niced 2,128 Times in 1,056 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
Meanwhile, over in the Movement in the Top 10 thread, people are getting their undies in a bunch over hundredths of a rating point.
Somewhere, somebody's scheming to write a program that collects the thousandths of a rating point, from aalllll the courses on the site, and funnel them toward their favorite course.


Basically, DGCR's very own version of Office Space. And before you know it, some mehtastic course out in BFE suddenly cracks onto the Top 10.

Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:45 PM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 360
Posts: 4,931
Niced 1,644 Times in 808 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BogeyNoMore View Post
Somewhere, somebody's scheming to write a program that collects the thousandths of a rating point, from aalllll the courses on the site, and funnel them toward their favorite course.


Basically, DGCR's very own version of Office Space. And before you know it, some mehtastic course out in BFE suddenly cracks onto the Top 10.
...with a 523 disc rating.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:52 PM
Olorin's Avatar
Olorin Olorin is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Scottsville, VA
Years Playing: 40.4
Courses Played: 402
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,134
Niced 143 Times in 70 Posts
Question What is par?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscGolfCraig: Discuss what is par for your next post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ptronius View Post
I don't care about "what is par?", thank you very much.
What is par?

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:13 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.3
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 15,091
Niced 3,284 Times in 1,452 Posts
Default

Maybe somebody can come up with a formula that results in higher-par courses automatically getting higher rankings, and we can crash the whole thing.
Reply With Quote
 

  #70  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:14 PM
BogeyNoMore's Avatar
BogeyNoMore BogeyNoMore is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Walled Lake, MI
Years Playing: 15.4
Courses Played: 311
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,790
Niced 2,128 Times in 1,056 Posts
Default

*cue evil laughter*

Niced: (1)
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
need a heavy weighted z zone 176+ michaelmove The Marketplace 0 03-09-2012 12:07 AM
reviews Huff General Disc Golf Chat 22 04-27-2009 09:33 PM
Reviews Innovadude General Disc Golf Chat 12 09-09-2008 06:39 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.