The Zero Poll

[Danger]

I was thinking of trekking out to the Conejo YMCA course once the new one in Thousand Oaks opens. Just to snap some pictures for the site lol, I am very curious about these baskets.

 

[srm_520]

Mason Park - http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=1523&page=1&mode=rev#7396

My only 0 rating. I used it because - while you can technically still throw some discs at a few baskets - the course itself is basically unplayable anymore. Basically, I would use a 0 rating for any course that still exists but already has one foot in the grave. Mason Park - you are that 0.

Strange enough - that is the course I have received the most votes on, not the ones I gave 5 stars. hmmmm.....

 

[harr0140]

Really? So the laundry room in my basement should get at least a full disc, it's got 2 baskets you can throw at! Maybe I should get Harr to come play it and add it to the site.

Don't tease me after the New Year or I may have to break my new years resolution. Fortunately for me the "other" 2 holer was only 4 miles away from my house.

 

[optidiscic]

Well after a few days of the zero poll.....my initial suspicion appears to be true. There are 57 votes for people who never used a zero and only 6 for people who use the zero to rate a terrible course/ the 4 other zero users would be using zero to mark a course that is unplayable. In essence, amongst the active users(participate in reviews/forums/polls) of the site (and we are leaving the join-review my home courses-never log on again thousands of members...) it is practically a 6-1 ratio of non-zero to zero users. This is why I have a distaste for zero being part of the scale because it is not used by the majority of users(I have nothing against the theory of zero...but it's just not being utilized ...there are only 19 of over 3000 courses rated a zero)....If the majority of users do not use the zero for any number of reasons:
-don't realize the zero option exists
-believe any course due to existing is at least better than nothing (zero) ..my argument
-save it for mythical circumstances (much like a 5)
In the end the numbers don't lie and the scale is pushed to the right and this is why we have grade inflation:
the scale operates more as a
1 2 3 4 5
with no zero and 3 being average

rather than the site formated
0 1 2 3 4 5
with 2.5 being avg.

I don't really think TimG will ever change the rating scales. I don't expect everyone to change their ratings to incorporate the zero. I don't expect new members to fully comprehend the scale b4 rating courses.(I thought 3 was avg myself until reading the forums and adjusting my ratings) My whole point is that I think this simple phenomena is what creates rating inflation. I think Home Boy Bias in reviews, Experience in Reviews, Non-Trusted Reviewers writing reviews and Number of Courses played per review etc. are all minimal influences on rating inflation compared to the NOW DOCUMENTED absence of reviewers ever using the zero on the scale and thus everything naturally leaning to the right.

I proposed for fun a 1-10 scale to get rid of the zero (and possibly keep .5s to add more increments) so that members would use the lower scale and balance out the numbers. If a course was crap it could only be as low as a 1 or .5. If it was gone TimG would mark it extinct.

In theory the zero makes sense but in practice it's not being used and the numbers lean a bit to the right.....I tend to realize this when reading ratings and reviews.

In conclusion, I am still torn on the zero personally....any course is still better than nothing in most cases but unplayability for whatever reason seems to warrant a zero.....If I show up and a course is gone I notify TimG and it becomes extinct.

Happy Holidays....I hope this makes sense, again I don't disagree with zero in theory just realize it's not being used correctly in practice and the stats are skewed so why not adapt to reflect whats actually going on (........cringing as I know someone will say why don't you like zero I love zero...holding breath!)

 

[prerube]

We said we do not use 0, but we use .5

 

[optidiscic]

We said we do not use 0, but we use .5

explain?

 

[optidiscic]

I use .5 sure ...it's something, not much but it does have some value.

 

[zenbot]

I was thinking of trekking out to the Conejo YMCA course once the new one in Thousand Oaks opens. Just to snap some pictures for the site lol, I am very curious about these baskets.

If you feel like ruining your day go ahead.

 

[Lewis]

Opti I would tend to agree with the consensus here that zero should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances that make a course unplayable. The difference between a zero and an extinct course may be rather small, such as "Well there are 7 of the original 9 baskets there, but they're all so broken that they won't catch a disc," vs. "I can tell there used to be a course here, but all of the baskets are gone."

I wouldn't use a zero for a course that has several playable holes, and it would take an awfully FUBAR course for me to give it less than a 1. I like to avoid the extremes of ratings scales, so I will probably keep my reviews between 2 and 4 unless I see something really awful or really awesome. Also I have nothing wrong with 3 being the target for an "average" course.

My rough idea of how the scale plays out in practice:

0.0 = Unplayable or extinct
0.5 = It still exists, but barely, and I can't see any way to enjoy this course.
1.0-1.5 = A course with severe flaws that would ruin the fun for most people.
2.0-2.5 = A below average course, but fun enough for locals.
3.0 = Average course - easy to enjoy a round here, but nothing special.
3.5 = Above average course, and worth a trip across town on the right occasion.
4.0 = Outstanding course that's likely to drive up your gasoline budget if you don't live nearby.
4.5 = A destination course worthy of a road trip.
5.0 = Disc golfing perfection. (Do these really exist?)

 

[zenbot]

0 means to me that I will NEVER go back. I've played some crappy courses that would rate half a disc. If I had nothing better to do I would probably still play them. If I lived next door to a 0 rated course I would rather practice putting with my portable. I would rather debate if it's acceptable to give a course a 0 or not.

 

[Smelvis]

There should not be a zero. Zero means there is no course.

 

[cydisc]

So does 5 = mythical perfect course that also doesn't exist?

I think 5 disc rating is merely a threshold. It's not the absolute best course in the world, but simply a course that delivers on all the criteria you look for in a good course.

I've yet to play a course that delivers on absolutely everything I look for. I've also yet to play the course that doesn't at least get credit for existing. I don't give zeros for courses that no longer exist. I simply don't review them. Instead, I send an alert to have the listing removed or at least contact someone for more information about its condition.

 

[cydisc]

There should not be a zero. Zero means there is no course.

No course means the listing should be removed.

Zero means there is no redeeming value to the course. That means different things to different people. To me, it means there is a real danger of someone being injured or property being significantly damaged through normal play of the course.

 

[zenbot]

There should not be a zero. Zero means there is no course.

This isn't a course existence site. It's a course review site. I grade a zero if I think that you should not make my mistake and go to this course. I think a lot of people are way too caught up in the argument that something is better than nothing. I've played "easy" courses. Many of them aren't challenging to me but they may be a great place to start for someone new to the sport/game. If a course can't even accomplish that and would give the new player a horrible understanding of the game then it gets a zero.

 

[volklgirl]

A course that no longer exists should be removed or marked extinct.

A course that is a 0 merely has no redeeming value or is unsafe for yourself or others.

 

[mashnut]

I think 5 disc rating is merely a threshold. It's not the absolute best course in the world, but simply a course that delivers on all the criteria you look for in a good course.

I've yet to play a course that delivers on absolutely everything I look for. I've also yet to play the course that doesn't at least get credit for existing. I don't give zeros for courses that no longer exist. I simply don't review them. Instead, I send an alert to have the listing removed or at least contact someone for more information about its condition.

So if you don't give a nonexistent course a zero, what's stopping you from giving that 0 disc rating to a course just above that level? In my mind, a 0 disc review is how I give credit to a course that exists but has no real redeeming qualities. If it's not a course, it doesn't belong on the site nor does it merit a spot on the rating scale. The scale is a rating of all the courses, meaning there are some that are the worst and should be at the bottom.

 

[MotoDj]

if i had a single basket in my yard i'd still rate it a .5

to me zero means nothing - non existent

 

[cydisc]

So if you don't give a nonexistent course a zero, what's stopping you from giving that 0 disc rating to a course just above that level? In my mind, a 0 disc review is how I give credit to a course that exists but has no real redeeming qualities. If it's not a course, it doesn't belong on the site nor does it merit a spot on the rating scale. The scale is a rating of all the courses, meaning there are some that are the worst and should be at the bottom.

I think I said exactly that in a post just above this one.

 

[bayouace]

http://www.dgcoursereview.com/reviews.php?id=2655&page=1&mode=rev#10797

This fun course has one zero rating, which is unfortunate. However, as Mark Twain said, it is difference of opinion that makes horse races.

 

[Beable]

I completely disagree with the people who sat any course deserves at least .5 discs. If you can give a course 5 discs, it's silly to completely discount the other end of the scale. You're not comparing courses to parks with no courses, you're comparing courses to other disc golf courses. There are some courses that deserve to be at the top, and some that really deserve to be at the bottom. IMO, there are just as many 0 disc courses out there as there are 5 disc courses and compressing the rating scale because you don't like giving 0s is silly.

I completely agree with this. Use the whole scale provided by Tim.