Course Ratings - smaller increments at the top?

[davetherocketguy]

I know this sounds real weird but I look forward reviewing terrible courses in sort of a sadomasochistic way I guess. I feel like it sort of gives me a reference as to where the bottom is - or could be. I haven't seen what I truly believe to be a 0.0 course but I've come close. While it's nice to try to only play 3+ rated courses it gets a little boring on the review side. The conflict I have is my DG time is a bit limited so to spend time on what I know is a garbage course when I could be playing something nice down the road is tough to do but on the other hand my goal is to be helpful so ya gotta play the bad as well as the good to fulfill that objective.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I think we should have .1 increments, especially since the ratings go to x.xx precision.

Also, if you're not doing reviews/ratings the courses below 2.5, you're doing the site a disservice. Review them all.

What if I make a conscious effort to avoid crappy courses? That's my M.O. for road trips.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's really hard to do the <2 courses if your standard is that you should play a course more than once before you review it.

On the bright side, you're doing a service, particularly since those courses tend to have fewer reviews. Not much new you can say about Flip City, but there's lots to talk about on a bad course.

 

[davetherocketguy]

What if I make a conscious effort to avoid crappy courses? That's my M.O. for road trips.

I see nothing wrong with this at all. If I have been blessed with some vacation time to wander DG courses you better believe I ain't hitting anything below a 3.0 rating. So yeah, I'll do the same thing.

It's really hard to do the <2 courses if your standard is that you should play a course more than once before you review it.

On the bright side, you're doing a service, particularly since those courses tend to have fewer reviews. Not much new you can say about Flip City, but there's lots to talk about on a bad course.

Hmmm...I don't know why anyone would have that standard. If a course is garbage it doesn't take 2 rounds to figure it out. "Oh look, the #15 basket is still missing just like it was an hour ago when I played this hell hole the first time. Oh and no concrete tee pads have shown up either..." Now if you're trying to differentiate the minutia of a course between a 3.5 and 4.0 rating - that I get.

 

[DavidSauls]

It's not my standard---sometimes after one play I'm pretty sure of a course, sometimes I think I should give it another shot before I write about it. It's not so much the rating (if I don't like a course, I know pretty quickly), as remembering enough of it to know what I want to say.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

It's not so much the rating (if I don't like a course, I know pretty quickly), as remembering enough of it to know what I want to say.

Yeah.. it's a Grand Master's thing. :\

 

[Mr. Butlertron]

What if I make a conscious effort to avoid crappy courses? That's my M.O. for road trips.

Then you're not the course bagger you claim to be. Everyone knows you must first slay a few dragons before you get to a princess

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Then you're not the course bagger you claim to be. Everyone knows you must first slay a few dragons before you get to a princess

1) I've slayed a few dragons in my time.
2) Surely you must be thinking of someone else. I've always claimed to be a Cherry Picker, rather than a Course Bagger:

Two somewhat contradictory thoughts came to my mind:

1) While there are 11 different possible ratings (0 to 5 in increments of 0.5 = 11), that doesn't mean 1/11th of anyone's ratings should necessarily be a 5 (or any other rating for that matter). I'm of the opinion that less than 1 in 11 courses truly merits a rating of 5.

2) I can only speak for myself (but I suspect it's true for others as well): with all the courses available to play out there, I'm certainly not selecting courses at random. I actively seek destinations that offer a wealth of highly rated courses (e.g. Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Ludington, Wisconsin, Cincinatti...). This is bound to skew both my average rating, as well the number of courses I rate as 5. After all, when I take a roadie, I'm specifically trying to play the best courses. I'm not going out of my way to play a 2.5, a 3.0, and a 3.5, but I'll sure as hell consider making a trip to play a couple of 4.x's and a 5.0. Hence, I'll end up rating more courses as 4.0's, 4.5's, and yes, even 5.0's... I'm cherry picking... I admit it!

Sure I'll read the reviews before heading out, but quite often, ratings are what gets me to read a review in the first place.

. When I go on the road, I definitely "cherry pick." Given that I make a conscious choice to play the best in an area, chances are they're pretty challenging, and take some time to play (or at least to appreciate) so I'm not really able (or willing) to rush through them. Factor in drive time to/from and possibly between... I think four's about my practical limit given my self-imposed constraints.

As I've said before, I tend to cherry pick courses when I travel. DGCR makes doing that easy. I'd never have played so many quality courses without it. No other site comes close to providing the breadth and depth of course info that DGCR does. Makes it easy and fun to track courses you've played, decide which ones you want to play and which you're likely to feel aren't worth your valuable vacation time.

Juke speaks the truth in that ther are some prolific reviewers that will play/review any and every course they can.

I, however, have posted numerous times that I cherry pick courses when I travel. I'm not wasting my vacation time playing meh courses... I don't need to drive for hours and pitch a tent to do that. As a result, my avg course rating might be higher, but there's a valid reason for it.

:|











:|

 

[Mr. Butlertron]

Ummm, i was hacked?

 

[wellsbranch250]

I Just saw this thread, A very entertaining read.

I really don't have any strong opinions on the .25 or .1 rating factor as a ratings options. Yes I would use it, if it were there. But i'm ultimately OK either way. I will add however, it would have been cool to unlock this feature at a 50 review milestone or so.

I sometimes wonder how much programming work is required to make major changes like this.

 

[DavidSauls]

I think the desire is on behalf of the reviewers, to be as honest and accurate as possible. There's a nagging feeling that our 4.0 courses aren't all equal, and we'd like to differentiate between them a little better.

But it wouldn't really help the site. Probably better for reviewers to live with the rating being a little rough, and being as accurate and honest as possible in the reviews.

 

[Stardoggy]

Personal rant/opinion:

If you can't go and play lower rated courses and have fun (in spite of them, or because of them), it kinda feels like you're doing it wrong.

Yesterday I bagged a high school course that had some of the absolute worst baskets of all time I mean, epic type stuff here. I had an absolute blast. It was hilarious and awesome all at the same time. It's all about perspective.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

To which I'd retort, "If you're spending several days + $$$ on a DG road trip, to play a bunch of courses that aren't even as good as what you can play within an hour of your house, you're doing it wrong."

The minute I discovered DGCR, I thought, "Wow, not only does they this site tell you where the courses are, it even tells you how good they are!"

I've played my share of lower rated courses (and will play even more), but I do that pretty much when it's local or I'm in an area for a while. Done a bit of it myself, and helped a few DGCR members increase their courses played list. But the way I see it, it just doesn't make sense to spend time playing a meh course if doing so means I won't have time to play a course I'll probably enjoy much more.

I'm not bagging on baggers... different strokes.

/thread derail.

 

[Aim For The Chains]

Personal rant/opinion:

If you can't go and play lower rated courses and have fun (in spite of them, or because of them), it kinda feels like you're doing it wrong.

Yesterday I bagged a high school course that had some of the absolute worst baskets of all time I mean, epic type stuff here. I had an absolute blast. It was hilarious and awesome all at the same time. It's all about perspective.

I agree. Also been very surprised by some 2-3 disc courses and let down by 4-5ers. A rating isnt really what makes playing a course good or bad.

 

[Stardoggy]

To be fair, I didn't go and drive to solely play that course....I also got 6 others on the day.

 

[armiller]

This is what I said regarding a 0.5-1.0 disc review: every course is worth playing once...if you have the time

The nice thing about the bad ones is that they usually play pretty fast. I spent ~20-30 minutes on Kiwanis park in Midwest City, OK (also some entertainingly bad baskets, Stardog) and it was basically on the way to a nicer 9-hole. Granted, I live fairly close, so I wasn't sacrificing any 3-4 disc courses that I haven't already played...

 

[knettles]

I say we get rid of the half disc increments and make it a ten disc rating system!

 

[kerplunk]

To be fair, I didn't go and drive to solely play that course....I also got 6 others on the day.

If you put three baskets in your yard within 200 miles of Stardoggy, there is a good chance he will show up to play your course.

 

[Stardoggy]

If you put three baskets in your yard within 200 miles of Stardoggy, there is a good chance he will show up to play your course.

There is a lot of truth to this...LoL.

We'll call it 100 miles, though. 200 is a lot.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

If you put three baskets in your yard within 200 miles of Stardoggy, there is a good chance he will show up to play your course.

There is a lot of truth to this...LoL.

We'll call it 100 miles, though. 200 is a lot.

* moves practice baskets from his yard into the garage... just to be safe *