- Joined
- Jun 24, 2021
In reading through the reviews on courses, it often comes up that a course starts out really rough, and then over time gets fixed up and is pretty nice. But most of the reviews are from when the course was still very rough.
For example, Lenni Lenape in Lebanon PA is rated at 3.43, but most of those reviews are from years ago when the woods were a nightmare. Today, the woods are mostly cleared out, the corridors widened, the long baskets are maintained and it's a much nicer course than it was 5 years ago or even 2 years ago when I started. But all of those old reviews are still in there where people complain about the impossible rough. I wouldn't have liked it either!
Another example is Shillington Park in Shillington PA, which has no tees and basically just baskets in the woods. The reviews are, correctly, bad, but someday it might have tee pads and be sort of nice. But it'll still have low ratings.
There should be some way to weight the rating to more accurately reflect what the course is like right now.
South Hills in Lebanon PA has always been nice, is rated 4.04 and the reviews from 7-8 years ago are pretty much the same as they are now, although the course has changed some. The wooded areas are now mostly an arboreteum as opposed to corridors of trees. But the layout is still the same. Lenni is just as nice these days, but you wouldn't know it because the ratings are 0.6 apart. Then again, Lenni has a few nothing holes in a field so maybe the rating is still accurate, but you get the point.
The opposite is sometimes true too, a new course opens, it's nice, gets good ratings, but then you go 5 years later and nobody has taken care of the place. The Hershey Hotel is a good example, they didn't take care of the place at all during the pandemic, the entire course was waist high grass. It's better now but for 2 years it was unplayable.
I'm not sure there is a solution though, other than to completely take course maintenance out of the review, and rank courses solely on the intended design features. Then you can look on UDisc to get a live update on the maintenance.
For example, Lenni Lenape in Lebanon PA is rated at 3.43, but most of those reviews are from years ago when the woods were a nightmare. Today, the woods are mostly cleared out, the corridors widened, the long baskets are maintained and it's a much nicer course than it was 5 years ago or even 2 years ago when I started. But all of those old reviews are still in there where people complain about the impossible rough. I wouldn't have liked it either!
Another example is Shillington Park in Shillington PA, which has no tees and basically just baskets in the woods. The reviews are, correctly, bad, but someday it might have tee pads and be sort of nice. But it'll still have low ratings.
There should be some way to weight the rating to more accurately reflect what the course is like right now.
South Hills in Lebanon PA has always been nice, is rated 4.04 and the reviews from 7-8 years ago are pretty much the same as they are now, although the course has changed some. The wooded areas are now mostly an arboreteum as opposed to corridors of trees. But the layout is still the same. Lenni is just as nice these days, but you wouldn't know it because the ratings are 0.6 apart. Then again, Lenni has a few nothing holes in a field so maybe the rating is still accurate, but you get the point.
The opposite is sometimes true too, a new course opens, it's nice, gets good ratings, but then you go 5 years later and nobody has taken care of the place. The Hershey Hotel is a good example, they didn't take care of the place at all during the pandemic, the entire course was waist high grass. It's better now but for 2 years it was unplayable.
I'm not sure there is a solution though, other than to completely take course maintenance out of the review, and rank courses solely on the intended design features. Then you can look on UDisc to get a live update on the maintenance.
