How To Review Private Courses

[Surge5]

What changes to your reviewing style do you make when reviewing private (think built in a backyard) courses? Especially when you know the owner and the amount of work they put into it.

 

[aclay]

It can be difficult when you know the designer and even more difficult when he/she is a friend. That being said, we should be striving to write an honest review, and those things should not be a factor. These lines from a course review (public, not private) I did a few years ago pretty much sums up my approach.

"A LOT of hard work has been put in to clear brush, etc. I understand that this work is done by volunteers, so kudos to them. However, that doesn't eliminate the concerns. When I order a meal in a restaurant, my rating/satisfaction is based on the quality of the food and is not influenced by any struggles or limitations in the kitchen, etc. Why something is a "con" doesn't make it not a con. The course rating should be based on what is, and is not, there. The reasons should not affect the rating."

 

[ru4por]

Nevermind.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Aclay hit the nail on the head.

One thing that may be more acceptable at "home" private courses might be poor signage, difficult navigation.

If you're playing Stoney Hill, then you're either:
a) with one of the Sauls brothers
b) someone who has permission to play, and probs knows their way around.

I'm not gonna fault them for not putting up signage, or unintuitive navigation.

However, I consider commercial enterprises (e.g. like Maple Hill, Blue Ribbon Pines, Smugglers Notch, Sabattus), the same as a public course. Visiting players are expected to find their own way through the course. They should be held to the same standard as any publicly accessible park course, and accordingly dinged for lack of signage/difficult nav.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Especially when you know the owner and the amount of work they put into it.

Do courses built in public parks also not require hundreds of volunteer hours to get in the ground followed by dozens/hundreds more hours each year for regular maintenance? I know plenty of course designers who would like to have a word with you about your comment.

Also, the quality of a 'private' course can range from Harmon Hills/Stoney Hill level to that of a couple cheap, portable baskets in someone's backyard. Not all courses, public or private, are the same.

My two cents is that courses should be rated based upon how good they are. That's the objective part of reviewing. The subjective part comes into play in how you interpret what makes a good course and how much weight you want to put into each component. I've been reviewing on this site for 14 years and I've yet to see a compelling arguing against rating courses based on their quality vs other courses. In theory, a course you rate 4.0 should be better than every course you have rated 3.5 or lower; a 3.0 better than all 2.5s or lower, etc. Say you think your friend's course is really a 2.0, but you want to give it a bump to a 3 or 4, that's your prerogative. I'd lean towards rating a course a 2.0 if it's a 2.0 quality course.

 

[Surge5]

However, I consider commercial enterprises (e.g. like Maple Hill, Blue Ribbon Pines, Smugglers Notch, Sabattus), the same as a public course.

Agreed. There's definitely a difference in "come play in the backyard" and "come spend your money to play our course on privately owned land." I'm referring to the former and your thoughts are helpful.

 

[nothinbuttree]

If the owner is great, offers nice perks etc, put those in PROS. If there are course play issues you don't like, put those in CONS. This way, someone can decide for themselves if the good outweighs the bad... for them.

Remember reviews are not absolute, they are relative to the reader. Most here love tight wooded fairways. Me-not so much in general, so a 4.5 to others may only be a 3 to me.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

If the owner is great, offers nice perks etc, put those in PROS. If there are course play issues you don't like, put those in CONS. This way, someone can decide for themselves if the good outweighs the bad... for them.

Remember reviews are not absolute, they are relative to the reader. Most here love tight wooded fairways. Me-not so much in general, so a 4.5 to others may only be a 3 to me.

Agreed, but this should be the case for all reviews. It's not specific to reviews for "backyard courses" OP is referring to.

But maybe I opine too much.

 

[dndelli]

It can be difficult when you know the designer and even more difficult when he/she is a friend. That being said, we should be striving to write an honest review, and those things should not be a factor. These lines from a course review (public, not private) I did a few years ago pretty much sums up my approach.

"A LOT of hard work has been put in to clear brush, etc. I understand that this work is done by volunteers, so kudos to them. However, that doesn't eliminate the concerns. When I order a meal in a restaurant, my rating/satisfaction is based on the quality of the food and is not influenced by any struggles or limitations in the kitchen, etc. Why something is a "con" doesn't make it not a con. The course rating should be based on what is, and is not, there. The reasons should not affect the rating."

Do courses built in public parks also not require hundreds of volunteer hours to get in the ground followed by dozens/hundreds more hours each year for regular maintenance? I know plenty of course designers who would like to have a word with you about your comment.

Also, the quality of a 'private' course can range from Harmon Hills/Stoney Hill level to that of a couple cheap, portable baskets in someone's backyard. Not all courses, public or private, are the same.

My two cents is that courses should be rated based upon how good they are. That's the objective part of reviewing. The subjective part comes into play in how you interpret what makes a good course and how much weight you want to put into each component. I've been reviewing on this site for 14 years and I've yet to see a compelling arguing against rating courses based on their quality vs other courses. In theory, a course you rate 4.0 should be better than every course you have rated 3.5 or lower; a 3.0 better than all 2.5s or lower, etc. Say you think your friend's course is really a 2.0, but you want to give it a bump to a 3 or 4, that's your prerogative. I'd lean towards rating a course a 2.0 if it's a 2.0 quality course.

Both of these comments really sum up my thoughts. A style that I adapted pretty quickly once I started writing reviews, was a tendency to try to be supportive in all of the reviews I write, sometimes possibly to a fault. There are volunteers on both private and public courses that work hard to design, build, maintain, and improve their courses- so I try to tow the line of mentioning aspects of the course that I think could be improved (or don't appeal to my disc golf style) without being critical or insulting to the volunteers involved. But that doesn't mean I'll shy away from giving a course a lower score if I think it warrants it.

 

[DavidSauls]

One thing that may be more acceptable at "home" private courses might be poor signage, difficult navigation.

If you're playing Stoney Hill, then you're either:
a) with one of the Sauls brothers
b) someone who has permission to play, and probs knows their way around.

I'm not gonna fault them for not putting up signage, or unintuitive navigation.

We've upgraded that, by the way. Come back and visit sometime.

But I agree that the discgolfcraig and most others here -- the only basis for rating a course is against other courses. A private course may have some drawbacks, and some benefits that outweigh them. But, ultimately, you're rating courses and writing reviews as recommendations to other players, so keep them in mind and be honest.

The only concession I'll make to a friend with a private course, is that if my review will severely disappoint him, I might not write a review and leave that to others.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

We've upgraded that, by the way. Come back and visit sometime.

But I agree that the discgolfcraig and most others here -- the only basis for rating a course is against other courses. A private course may have some drawbacks, and some benefits that outweigh them. But, ultimately, you're rating courses and writing reviews as recommendations to other players, so keep them in mind and be honest.

The only concession I'll make to a friend with a private course, is that if my review will severely disappoint him, I might not write a review and leave that to others.

One thing I failed to mention is that there SHOULD be a level of understanding when it comes to private courses. You SHOULD know going into it that you're not going to see every feature of a typical public park courses - concrete tee pads, benches, trash cans, elite tee signs, etc. But, having a private course guide often more than makes up for missing out on some of those perks. David, Rob with Buck Forest (Columbia), Gordon with Lakeside (Fairplay, SC), and Rich with Sugaree provided memories that have lasted for years. Those are all ratings bumps to take into account when playing and reviewing.

 

[DavidSauls]

We make up for it by having baskets on exciting but dangerous terrain, which parks departments might not allow. Plus, the lifespan of a hanging basket in many parks would be about 3 weeks.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not sure private courses should be rated. They should simply be objectively described along with comments on elements that you liked. Negatives should mainly pertain to maintenance issues. No need to turn the net result of your review into a number. The title of this thread and the DGCR site uses the word "Review" not "Rate".

You don't go to a private party and rate it on Yelp or Facebook but you might post that you had a great time. If you didn't have a great time, don't you just keep your mouth shut at least publicly? If you have constructive feedback for the owner or park dept, contact them with your suggestions or concerns. No need to air them publicly.

My suggestion for DGCR would be that on our courses played page, we rank private courses we've reviewed or even just played without assigning a rating. Let's say you have 20 private courses you've ranked 1 thru 20 and you play a new one. If it's equal to or better than #12 on your list, it becomes #11 or #12. No problem having 3 or 4 courses tied for say 7th, in fact I would expect this is how lists would evolve with many ties. Players reading your review then looking at your list would get a good idea what types of courses you liked and comparable courses without needing a rating number.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

My suggestion for DGCR would be that on our courses played page, we rank private courses we've reviewed or even just played without assigning a rating. Let's say you have 20 private courses you've ranked 1 thru 20 and you play a new one. If it's equal to or better than #12 on your list, it

Respectfully disagree.

1) Although imperfect, ratings are generally good enough that people can filter by ratings for 4.0+ or 3.5+, and pretty much ensure their seeing very good or better courses. Quickly and easily allows us to create a short list to focus on when planning trios. I fail to see why private courses shouldn't be rated the same way as any other course to allow for consideration in the same manner.

2) Maybe I'm just used to the 0-5 rating paradigm, but when I play a course, I have a good feel where it falls on the 0-5 spectrum: it's a 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, etc. Much harder to decide "where this 3.5 ranks among all my other 3.5's."
... but I know it's a 3.5.

3) If you hit five or so privates on a trip, who wants to bother re-ranking those into what may already be an extensive list? That requires people to keep a spreadsheet or other tracking method.

The main reason I went from being a lurker to actually joining DGCR many years ago, was to track my courses played on DGCR and not have to keep my own list.

 

[wolfhaley]

Respectfully disagree.

1) Although imperfect, ratings are generally good enough that people can filter by ratings for 4.0+ or 3.5+, and pretty much ensure their seeing very good or better courses. Quickly and easily allows us to create a short list to focus on when planning trios. I fail to see why private courses shouldn't be rated the same way as any other course to allow for consideration in the same manner.

2) Maybe I'm just used to the 0-5 rating paradigm, but when I play a course, I have a good feel where it falls on the 0-5 spectrum: it's a 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, etc. Much harder to decide "where this 3.5 ranks among all my other 3.5's."
... but I know it's a 3.5.

3) If you hit five or so privates on a trip, who wants to bother re-ranking those into what may already be an extensive list? That requires people to keep a spreadsheet or other tracking method.

The main reason I went from being a lurker to actually joining DGCR many years ago, was to track my courses played on DGCR and not have to keep my own list.

I'm with Bogey on this one. I feel that any available data should be able to be easily accessed just using the basic "Browse map" function. You can also sort ratings by different levels of TR's if you wish, and many other filters. I just played the Ashland school playground "course" and was able to review it. Chuck designed it I believe. I played it like a practice area. No tees, no signs and 8 random baskets. Why can't there be an 8 basket practice area? why are they limited to 2 baskets? Or 3,4,5...Where does it end?

Most public school courses here (WI) have no tees or signs. Many are missing baskets. So if we didn't rate private courses, while reviewing them, Flip, Rollin Ridge, Harmon, Caliber, etc. wouldn't even be top ten courses. That'd be a shame. It'd also defeat the purpose of what we've ALL built here. It ain't broke and all...

 

[dreadlock86]

What changes to your reviewing style do you make when reviewing private (think built in a backyard) courses?

nothing ever changes in my review rubric/criteria no matter what kind of course it is. (disclaimer - practice areas are not courses and i do rate and review those differently)


this question might be better stated "what are the important aspects of a course that you taking into account when reviewing and are private courses generally any different across these factors?"

nearly all amenities are just a bonus for me. i'm happy as long as the baskets stand up straight and catch reasonably and the tees are safe and serviceable. signage, benches, trash cans, disc shops, water fountains, restrooms... that's all extra. just give me fun golf and smart design. i'd take one practice basket over all that other stuff combined at most courses.

i always cringe when i read reviews that say something like "concrete tees and signage would make this place a 4.0". concrete tees and detailed signs won't make any hole any more fun or challenging. the hole is exactly 363', you still didn't get close with your star destroyer.

 

[DavidSauls]

Not sure private courses should be rated. They should simply be objectively described along with comments on elements that you liked. Negatives should mainly pertain to maintenance issues. No need to turn the net result of your review into a number. The title of this thread and the DGCR site uses the word "Review" not "Rate".

The same could be said for public courses, too. Don't rate, just review.

But ratings aren't done for the sake of the course; they're done for the sake of players who might play it.

Players aren't going to read all the reviews of all courses in an area -- they're going to sort by ratings, then perhaps read some of the reviews to refine their decisions. So let's not make it any harder for them -- nor make DGCR less useful.

If someone were coming to my area and asking what courses to play, I wouldn't say, "This public course is great, this public course is boring, and this private course I won't tell you whether it's great or boring, but I'll describe it to you."

 

[DavidSauls]

At any rate, I don't know about elsewhere, but around here private courses are popping up and becoming a bigger part of the local disc golf scene. It's more important than ever to rate them consistently with public courses, with an honest consideration of their pros and cons.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

At any rate, I don't know about elsewhere, but around here private courses are popping up and becoming a bigger part of the local disc golf scene. It's more important than ever to rate them consistently with public courses, with an honest consideration of their pros and cons.

How is Merrill Gray up in Winnsboro?

 

[BogeyNoMore]

...ratings aren't done for the sake of the course; they're done for the sake of players who might play it.

Players aren't going to read all the reviews of all courses in an area -- they're going to sort by ratings, then perhaps read some of the reviews to refine their decisions. So let's not make it any harder for them -- nor make DGCR less useful.

THIS ...all day, every day.