I love this site; and believe it was way past due. But, there have been people who loved to travel and play disc for 20+ years now. A small group has been at it for nearly 30 years. Do you not think we kept notes on these courses as we played them? Dave has stated that he did just this, over the years. I didn't keep the kind of short novel novels that many reviewers write today; I doubt if Dave did either. But, we did want to make note for both ourselves and others, who felt about playing and traveling as we did. My system; (and Dave's probably) varied a little from the 1-5 system DGCR uses. At the same time; it was probably very similar. I would give courses very good, good, average, bad, and for the very rare course, very, very, good. VG=3.5 to 4 in DGCR terms, good = 3, etc. Anything with a very good was definitely a "return to" destination. 3's, or "good" courses were a probable return, etc. I would also often make brief notes about tees and baskets and obvious care, or lack there of, from the local clubs. So, I (we) were taking notes years ago, for our own reviewing purposes. They were not as detailed as they are kept today, that is often true. However, I can tell you that from a rating standpoint, the numbers/ratings have remained largely the same. The main difference being, that a 5,500 foot course was fairly long, years ago, while now you get to 6 or even 7,000 feet for the "very good" courses.
With all that said, I personally, rarely review a course unless I've recently played it. The biggest reasons for this being, that to get positive review opinions requires a certain minutiae of detail these days. And, upgrades are needed on courses that used to be very good, to maintain that status, with the newer standards for quality courses. For many of the courses that were top notch, you could tell they were going to remain that way because of the obvious love of the local club. This is partially why; if you were paying attention, you could tell years ago which courses were going to remain top of the line, and, which seemed destined for disrepair.
I am not a top fan of Dave's style, and I'm glad he has been adding more and more little comments about the courses he reviews. I can say, that while we sometimes differ a little on our assessments, the general number he gives a course is a very well rounded and solid representation of the course in question.