#11  
Old 05-21-2018, 08:56 AM
wellsbranch250's Avatar
wellsbranch250 wellsbranch250 is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Huntsville Alabama
Years Playing: 5.7
Courses Played: 407
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 456
Niced 744 Times in 272 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Putt View Post

I guess it comes down to how much of a problem we think the drive by 5's and vendetta 1's are, and does the fix for that do more harm than good. Which is at least worth discussing.

I kinda lean toward the idea that it probably wouldn't make that much difference but I've been wrong before. Maybe we could get some specific courses like Black Falls that has a 1.5 review that would be rated at a .2 and see what it does to those courses ratings. Black Falls has two drive by 5's and two drive by 4.5's along with that possible mistaken identity 1.5, so it may come out in the wash.

The Woodshed obviously was mentioned as a course to look at. I'm sure people will chime in with other courses where there is a weird dud review and we could get some idea of how much of an impact it will have for those courses. That might help us get an idea of if this will even help address what we perceive as a problem.
there are some differences, 3 different top 10s and 4 different top 25s. I'm not suggesting replace the current number for the average, but rather presenting a different list. from looking at the data i now now which courses had vendetta hit impact (maple Hill) and which one have a lot of drive by 5s (vision quest, phantom, smugglers)

I also ran the weighed number on the woodshed and black falls, but they are probably both outside the top 40. I ran scores for 44 courses
of the 44 i ran, 4.43 blackfalls was 40th and 4.30 woodshed was 44th.




Quote:
Originally Posted by heelboycraig View Post
Cue the piano. A tradition unlike any other...the annual drivel over giving more importance to TR's ratings. If any other TRs think his voice is more important than others on the site, well, that's why Tim created the ignore button.
I'm just compiling statistics to see what the data says. I have not made an the argument that TRs ratings are worth more, but rather attempting to see what that type of evaluation looks like. If you look at the top of graphic for the orange list, its a separate list from the main list. Some people may be interested in what the veteran reviewer thinks. It would be kind of like critics choice for movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
Interesting, thanks for compiling it. A skeptic's question:

(1) Does it really make enough difference to be worth the effort? (Other than to the private courses that get a boost, of course).

(2) Does it have unintended consequences, changing the way people review courses to get more thumbs, or diminishing the desire of new members to review courses? (I doubt it)

(3) Does it open the door to a debate that, though weighting may be good, different values for the weights would be even better? (It would certainly open up the debate that some other factors, like weighting by age of review, should be done).
1. that's for the programmer to decide. I have no idea what it would take to write this formula

2. I though about that. I think so. I think it has the potential to encourage people to write more reviews and be stick to the forum rules.

3. I also pondered that, using timing the reviews out as a method. This is similar to the pga tour were a golfer win 2 years ago isnt worth as much as yesterdays win in his world ranking. ill see reviews about a course in 2009, complaining about natural tees and no signage and giving it a 1. but now the same layout in 2018 has all these items and is getting 4s. I like to see the history of a course and that shouldn't be erased, but perhaps there could be a way to preserve the writing but eliminate the now unjustified rating.


Quote:
Originally Posted by biscoe View Post
Nor does doing a bunch of reviews make one a great reviewer.
very much agreed. on your other point, the formula can be compiled any way. this was just one scenario
Sponsored Links

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-21-2018, 09:08 AM
Steve West Steve West is offline
Par Delusionary
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Years Playing: 45.4
Courses Played: 364
Posts: 4,959
Niced 1,674 Times in 822 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wellsbranch250 View Post
...i set the the tyler start east overlay to 0% fill....
If I had a nickel for every time I've done that...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-21-2018, 09:36 AM
scarpfish's Avatar
scarpfish scarpfish is offline
Resident Grouch
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brownbackistan
Years Playing: 16.3
Courses Played: 360
Posts: 8,145
Niced 727 Times in 254 Posts
Default

The problem with this is the same problem with the TR system in general. The fact that it is geographically discriminatory, particularly at the bronze level. People who live in urban areas or review top ten courses can get thumbs and to TR status much faster than those who do not.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-21-2018, 09:42 AM
blake833 blake833 is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Covington, LA
Years Playing: 9.5
Courses Played: 115
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 184
Niced 291 Times in 89 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wellsbranch250 View Post
3.[....] ill see reviews about a course in 2009, complaining about natural tees and no signage and giving it a 1. but now the same layout in 2018 has all these items and is getting 4s. I like to see the history of a course and that shouldn't be erased, but perhaps there could be a way to preserve the writing but eliminate the now unjustified rating.
What if reviewers got a notification on reviews that turned 2 or 3 years old to update them?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-21-2018, 09:48 AM
timg's Avatar
timg timg is offline
*Administrator*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Cortland, NY
Years Playing: 17.4
Courses Played: 257
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,922
Niced 880 Times in 286 Posts
Default

I've never seen that graphic before... I usually look at the threads in the suggestions area so if it was in this forum the first time around, it's probably why I missed it.


I think it's interesting although timing out reviews wouldn't really work unless I had a mechanism that said "x course was improved on this date". Some courses just stay the same so those old reviews are still pretty valid.


The idea of reducing weight for people that have less than 5 reviews seems the like the best balance of avoiding homers / vendetta reviews. Increasing the weights of TR reviews I feel could be gamed to some extent. And someone that's bronze maybe just lives in an area where there aren't many courses so they don't have an opportunity to write more reviews. I don't think they should be penalized for where they live or their lack of ability/desire to travel.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-21-2018, 09:49 AM
timg's Avatar
timg timg is offline
*Administrator*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Cortland, NY
Years Playing: 17.4
Courses Played: 257
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,922
Niced 880 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarpfish View Post
The problem with this is the same problem with the TR system in general. The fact that it is geographically discriminatory, particularly at the bronze level. People who live in urban areas or review top ten courses can get thumbs and to TR status much faster than those who do not.
That can be difficult if you played some courses while you were in say, California and you live in NY.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-21-2018, 09:56 AM
wellsbranch250's Avatar
wellsbranch250 wellsbranch250 is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Huntsville Alabama
Years Playing: 5.7
Courses Played: 407
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 456
Niced 744 Times in 272 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timg View Post
I've never seen that graphic before... I usually look at the threads in the suggestions area so if it was in this forum the first time around, it's probably why I missed it.


I think it's interesting although timing out reviews wouldn't really work unless I had a mechanism that said "x course was improved on this date". Some courses just stay the same so those old reviews are still pretty valid.


The idea of reducing weight for people that have less than 5 reviews seems the like the best balance of avoiding homers / vendetta reviews. Increasing the weights of TR reviews I feel could be gamed to some extent. And someone that's bronze maybe just lives in an area where there aren't many courses so they don't have an opportunity to write more reviews. I don't think they should be penalized for where they live or their lack of ability/desire to travel.
You didn't miss anything timg, I photoshopped it yesterday afternoon. I can adjust the formula any way desired, This was just one method. Do you have a suggested formula you'd like to see?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-21-2018, 10:18 AM
timg's Avatar
timg timg is offline
*Administrator*
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Cortland, NY
Years Playing: 17.4
Courses Played: 257
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,922
Niced 880 Times in 286 Posts
Default

Oh, I meant the added categories, New Courses, Outside the US. As far as formula, you could try it with just the < 5 review crowd losing some weight and seeing if it makes any significant difference.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-21-2018, 11:18 AM
BrotherDave's Avatar
BrotherDave BrotherDave is offline
Verified Jurkface
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Macedonian Troll Farm
Years Playing: 12.2
Courses Played: 166
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 15,056
Niced 2,229 Times in 1,044 Posts
Default

I'd try weighing all the TRs more or less the same. Once you get to Bronze you're pretty well vetted as a decent reviewer. If Paul McBeth can't get to bronze TR than he doesn't deserve to be called McBeast.

Weighing the <5 reviews people is probably going to make the most impact (though I'd keep the actual number a secret so drive bys don't just hammer out x number of crappy reviews to qualify).
Reply With Quote
 

  #20  
Old 05-21-2018, 11:40 AM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 24.8
Courses Played: 135
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 9,124
Niced 2,284 Times in 867 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wellsbranch250 View Post
I also ran the weighed number on the woodshed and black falls, but they are probably both outside the top 40. I ran scores for 44 courses
of the 44 i ran, 4.43 blackfalls was 40th and 4.30 woodshed was 44th.
I wasn't so much concerned where on the list they fall but what it does to the rating. I think the assumption was that if you minimize that one weird review of Black Falls it would bump up the rating, but in this case where you minimize both the weird review and the drive by reviews it actually drops the rating from 4.53 to 4.43. The Woodshed has a nominal bump from 4.28 to 4.30. I don't think that is the kind of change a lot of people were expecting.
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 06:58 PM.


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