Rating/review system discussion

[Olorin]

What does everyone think about a level designation for a course? Like a red level course or a gold level course. Should that be written in a review or checked off in a review or just listed on the course page..?)

I usually include my assessment of the course level in my reviews, and when I post my hole-by-hole ratings and review notes I include the course level there too. This is based on the Level Score Average minus Level CR Par. I do not claim that my course level designations are infallible, esp because of tweener courses that could go either way, but I think they are generally realistic. I mainly do this for my personal use, but I do hope this information can help others as well.

 

[_MTL_]

So on one hand, everyone says everyone's review of the course should count the same, but then on the other hand, only skilled / seasoned players are capable of giving an idea of difficulty?

This seems like pretty much the exact same thing.

 

[Noill]

I've never heard of a green level... even lower than red apparently... hmmm

Tim agrees with you... he'd rather take the stats and figure a level that way than have users designate in their reviews... his argument for this is sound and I agree.

This level designation would be most helpful in a sort... otherwise, you can pretty much figure out the level via reviews, SSE, hole lengths, and even to a degree the average rating.

 

[sisyphus]

In my reviews, I often try to suggest what level a course seems to be geared toward. But only in general terms (...feels like a Rec to Int course...) In the 'other' section, I also have a sentence about my experience, so folks can take my info with a grain of salt. On the cusp of Intermediate skills, I've only got my perspective, but a player with 15 to 20 years' experience above, say a 950 rating might also have a hard time relating to the masses, as it were. I'm sometimes able to read between the lines about what level skills other reviewers have (especially when they refer to a course as "short" because all the holes are from 320 to 450 feet, for instance).

 

[GMcAtee]

In my reviews, I often try to suggest what level a course seems to be geared toward. But only in general terms (...feels like a Rec to Int course...) In the 'other' section, I also have a sentence about my experience, so folks can take my info with a grain of salt. On the cusp of Intermediate skills, I've only got my perspective, but a player with 15 to 20 years' experience above, say a 950 rating might also have a hard time relating to the masses, as it were. I'm sometimes able to read between the lines about what level skills other reviewers have (especially when they refer to a course as "short" because all the holes are from 320 to 450 feet, for instance).

I had the locals mad at me for labeling their courses Rec and the toughest Intermediate. My league scores can confirm my assessment.

 

[DavidSauls]

So on one hand, everyone says everyone's review of the course should count the same, but then on the other hand, only skilled / seasoned players are capable of giving an idea of difficulty?

This seems like pretty much the exact same thing.

I know how much I like a course. I have a reasonable idea of how much many other players might like the same course---I could give a recommendation.

I'm less certain I can pin down a course to a particular skill level.

I don't see them as the same, at all.

 

[New013]

While I agree with this 100%, it's interesting to see that you among others think that all reviews should count the same.

If you are going to one hand say "am players shouldn't decide difficulty" then you shouldn't on the other hand say "all reviews should be identical."

I will add, however, that difficulty is one of most mis-understood things in disc golf. Difficulty, IMHO, is the difference between Par and SSA, not simply what course par is.

A course with a par of 54 with an SSA of 50 is way more difficult than a course with a par of 62 and SSA of 54, even though scoring on the second course will be higher.

I don't see the two things as equatable. The difficulty level of a course is at its core objective. Yes different players will have differing opinions but if you get enough data on a course you could logically deduce how difficult it is per skill level.

A course review and rating is purely subjective if the reviewer is writing it honestly.

A low rated Am who has played and reviewed a lot courses may still not be able to grasp the difference between blue/gold because to them they're both just super hard. Just as it may be difficult for Wysocki to tell the difference between red/green... whatever colors are at the bottom.

If the perception is that I don't want more detail in reviews that's not what I'm saying. I break my reviews down in to classifications and I want reviews to be thoroughly hashed out. I'm just saying we should be encouraging people to do that in written form instead of assigning a bunch of number values that in no way correlate person to person.

Not to mention that if people are lazy enough to write a one line review why do you think they'll take the time to give these number ratings their due dilligence.

If you want to break down reviews that way just start doing it. i just think putting it up there will confuse more than it will help due to the nature of who is reviewing.

I'll also add that it does bother me sometimes that all reviews are weighted equally. Like when I see some idiot give Whipping Post a 1 and write one sentence. I just don't think the alternative makes more sense at this juncture.

 

[tbird888]

Review/rating != difficulty

For the record, ski trails are rated differently at each mountain. A black diamond run at one place could be a blue cruiser at another.

 

[New013]

Tim agrees with you... he'd rather take the stats and figure a level that way than have users designate in their reviews... his argument for this is sound and I agree.

This level designation would be most helpful in a sort... otherwise, you can pretty much figure out the level via reviews, SSE, hole lengths, and even to a degree the average rating.

What stats? You would need access to a sizable amount of rounds by players of varying skill levels to make that determination and even if you could throw in all of the PDGAs round ratings you would still not have enough data for most of the courses.

You can not judge difficulty just on SSE.

 

[Noill]

oh, was just giving the quick and dirty there... I don't think it's been concluded just how to do it yet. Start with an idea and work it out.

I think it's going to be a mix of information and testing to see how it lands... something like that.

 

[BrotherDave]

I think courses should only be quantified according to Appalachian beauty.

 

[kerplunk]

So on one hand, everyone says everyone's review of the course should count the same, but then on the other hand, only skilled / seasoned players are capable of giving an idea of difficulty?

This seems like pretty much the exact same thing.

In your OP you list difficulty as one of ten factors for a review of a course. So it seems you were the first person in this thread to point out difficulty and the overall review are not "pretty much the exact same thing."

 

[NDABRUSH]

I think courses should only be quantified according to Appalachian beauty.

You could have the official App beauty ranking. App beauty= 4, shot variety=6 etc.. Good ole Dog faced Dave.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I think courses should only be quantified according to Appalachian beauty.

That always cracked me up... as if other types pf natural beauty are meaningless.

 

[BrotherDave]

That always cracked me up... as if other types pf natural beauty are meaningless.

They are. :|

Ain't no beauty but Appalachian beauty cuz Appalachian beauty don't quit! :\

 

[New013]

I'm going to start scoring underwater beauty if the rains keep up thanks to all this global warming

 

[DavidSauls]

Send that rain south. We lowered our pond in mid-May, and it's hardly rained to re-fill it since. Drought Beauty is nothing anybody would want to value.

 

[armiller]

As the rocket guy said a few pages back, I didn't read everything...

First of all, DGCR does give some qualifications/guidelines for reviews:
5.0 "best of the best"
4.5 "phenomenal"
4.0 "excellent"
3.5 "very good"
3.0 "good"
2.5 "decent/typical"
2.0 "reasonable"
1.5 "passable"
1.0 "poor"
0.5 "bad"
0.0 "abysmal"

That's pretty simple, but it was a good starting place. The hard part for me now is making sure that my 2.5 from one place is comparable to a 2.5 somewhere else, or 4.0 to 4.0. When considering setting, other course options in the area, or other factors, it starts to get more complicated. That said, I don't think making the rating system more complicated helps at all.

I've said this before, but overall I'm extremely impressed by the ratings on this site. The vast majority of the time, I'm deciding between two scores for a course, and the DGCR rating is smack dab between the two numbers. When that's not true, it's usually only half a disc up or down. (Of course, I'm not counting courses with <5 reviews.) I also realize that a course with a 2.0 rating can be tons of fun and a good course to play, although it's not Milo, or Winthrop Gold, or Selah...

I think it's fine that DGCR reviewers have their own ways of rating, but I also think that each reviewer ought to make a decent attempt at giving ratings that compare the courses they've played fairly (at least according to their own rating system).

 

[enragedmullet]

I generally go by the tips for rating reviews listed here. Amenities are nice but not critical to a good rating, though, if the course is ho-hum, but has a lot of sweet extras, that might bump it up a half a notch. I'm looking at ease of play and challenge mostly, then aesthetics and amenities. Then upon reflection I'll go by the guide armiller copied up there and ask myself, was this place abysmal? was it bad? was it poor? and on and on until I can't justify going any higher.

 

[Noill]

phenomenal and best of the best seem hard to disambiguate... don't they?

once you get to 4.0, I have a hard time figuring what is what...

anyone else feel like that or... I mean, a course getting a 4.0 is a really great score... the last two pegs up (4.5 and 5.0) stop making as much sense to me... I also feel like some 5.0 scores are homerisms (home boy over-rated)... not all, but enough

I just feel like a 5.0 course is extremely rare and that 4.0 and 4.5 really cover it well enough... just thinking out loud here