#241  
Old 07-01-2017, 08:52 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 28.6
Courses Played: 654
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 11,031
Niced 341 Times in 200 Posts
Default

All good points. I still would suggest DGCR not create that category should Tim ever be inclined to develop a more detailed review system.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 07-01-2017, 09:07 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 28.6
Courses Played: 654
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 11,031
Niced 341 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
I'd think the professional course designers would favor published safety ratings---even opinions from the peanut gallery---as a demonstration of the value of their services.
Absolutely not. There are currently no official course standards which means there is no reference for certifying designers. We try to make sure no designer indicates they are certified but simply more experienced, using their design resume to help establish their credentials.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 07-01-2017, 09:33 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 22.3
Courses Played: 124
Posts: 12,811
Niced 539 Times in 315 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
Absolutely not. There are currently no official course standards which means there is no reference for certifying designers. We try to make sure no designer indicates they are certified but simply more experienced, using their design resume to help establish their credentials.
But it's often brought as a selling point up when discussing reasons a parks department should hire an experienced designer, rather than let some local disc golfer do it. A valid point, to my mind.

I don't see much difference between people like us saying something is dangerous, and assigning a number to it.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 07-01-2017, 10:04 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 28.6
Courses Played: 654
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 11,031
Niced 341 Times in 200 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
But it's often brought as a selling point up when discussing reasons a parks department should hire an experienced designer, rather than let some local disc golfer do it. A valid point, to my mind.

I don't see much difference between people like us saying something is dangerous, and assigning a number to it.
I hope DGCD members avoid using this argument because there are no measurable standards and it also exposes them in the event something does happen. It's a selling point more likely made by administrators, clubs and local players involved with a new course but perhaps not directly promoted by the wiser designers. Some of use the words "avoiding interference" as an umbrella term when discussing this aspect of design.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 07-01-2017, 10:12 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 22.3
Courses Played: 124
Posts: 12,811
Niced 539 Times in 315 Posts
Default

Then this would be a win-win. We can talk about safety, or the lack thereof, and you guys can keep quiet and avoid any implication that you're certifying the design or sport as "safe".
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 07-03-2017, 12:49 PM
Noill Golf's Avatar
Noill Golf Noill Golf is offline
*Administrator*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Years Playing: 8.2
Courses Played: 131
Posts: 4,243
Niced 205 Times in 119 Posts
Default

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..?

Tim and I are talking about it like ski trail designations... like double diamond or blue square... you know the trail difficulty before you even get to it... it's marked on the trail map and posted at the beginning of the trail... trail? jeez, it's been so long since I've been on the slopes.

Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 07-03-2017, 01:05 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 22.3
Courses Played: 124
Posts: 12,811
Niced 539 Times in 315 Posts
Default

I have a hard time deciding what skill level a course is designed for---other than at the fringes, a gold course or an elementary school course. I have a particularly hard time with courses that seem to mix some pretty easy holes with some very tough ones (I'm not saying that's a good idea, but they exist).

Then you get to courses with multiple tees, suitable for different skill levels, so they'd be multi-colored.

I like the idea in theory, and if someone more competent and consistent than me would do it for all of the courses, it would be terrific. Especially if you could filter courses by skill level. But as much dispute over ratings and reviews as we see, I'm not sure if we wouldn't just make a mess of it if we did it collectively.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 07-03-2017, 01:23 PM
zjones9's Avatar
zjones9 zjones9 is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Zebulon, NC
Years Playing: 7.6
Courses Played: 69
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 150
Niced 11 Times in 8 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..?

Tim and I are talking about it like ski trail designations... like double diamond or blue square... you know the trail difficulty before you even get to it... it's marked on the trail map and posted at the beginning of the trail... trail? jeez, it's been so long since I've been on the slopes.
From a user's perspective, I would love to see something like this implemented and listed on the course page. Not sure how it would be implemented for all of the courses, but I think this would be great.

Being able to sort courses by level designation would be huge... A lot of users have shared that ratings tend to reflect fun factor and enjoyment (which I totally get and understand). But this leads to a really fun pitch and putt type course getting rated the same as a gold-level championship caliber course. When trying to distinguish between these two courses, the ratings don't mean anything because you are comparing apples to oranges.

I do think that David brings up a good point that there are several courses that it might not be easy to assign a single level designation to. But if there is a good way to implement this, I'm all for it.

And for those that don't like it, they can just ignore it
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 07-03-2017, 01:27 PM
BogeyNoMore's Avatar
BogeyNoMore BogeyNoMore is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Walled Lake, MI
Years Playing: 13.4
Courses Played: 242
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 8,304
Niced 450 Times in 281 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..?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
I like the idea in theory, and if someone more competent and consistent than me would do it for all of the courses, it would be terrific. Especially if you could filter courses by skill level. But as much dispute over ratings and reviews as we see, I'm not sure if we wouldn't just make a mess of it if we did it collectively.
I've noticed notapro actually states his take on a course's skill level in the title of his reviews: Beginner; Intermediate; Expert

I agree with Dave in that I like the idea in theory, but the question I have is how to handle courses that genuinely accommodate multiple skill levels via distinct layouts?

I'll cite Burchfield Devil's Den as a prime example: I genuinely think its various layouts accommodate pretty much all (but the very lowest) of the "PDGA's color coded skill levels:"

I truly think each of it's four designed layouts appropriately challenges each of the following skill levels:
Short Tees to Short Pins: = red / beginner
Long Tee to Short Pins = white / intermediate
Short Tee to Long Pins = blue / advanced
Long Tee to Long Pins = gold / pro
...even said as much in my review.

Knob Hill is another course that does a wonderful job of accommodating a variety of skill levels.

If DGCR adds some sort "skill level indicator," I think it should:
1) Be consistent with the PDGA's color code scheme.
2) Allow for multiple colors to allow courses that successfully use multiple tee and/or pin placements to change the difficulty.

Niced: (1)

Last edited by BogeyNoMore; 07-03-2017 at 01:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
 

  #250  
Old 07-03-2017, 01:28 PM
Noill Golf's Avatar
Noill Golf Noill Golf is offline
*Administrator*
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Years Playing: 8.2
Courses Played: 131
Posts: 4,243
Niced 205 Times in 119 Posts
Default

One thing I do know is that a large group gets to an answer better than even a single expert can... in many cases anyway and this is backed up by studies.

So, if we left it up to the reviewer to select a skill level and then take the selection with most answers, we'd likely have an accurate answer.

Whatever this comes to, if we do it, it needs to be easy for the members to utilize and for DGCR to maintain.

Niced: (2)
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.