Updated Reviews - How?

[Billipo]

Is there a polite or appropriate way to encourage reviewers to reevaluate reviews?

I am not talking that designer disagree with their comments or views. I am talking about older reviews where comments may not be relevant or course has been significantly updated over time.

Examples would be rating affecting comments like "if the course had cement pads, I'd rate it much higher", or "I wish this 9 hole had 18 holes" or "tee signs suck, making navigation difficult" meanwhile the cement tee pads were added, the course was expanded, and/or new tee signs/navigation tools were incorporated.

Just a few examples. Basically the course is not the same as when course was reviewed. In some cases, I bet the comments even helped drive change, but are irrelevant at this point. Maybe the "course upgrades" are the improvements desired or they may still not be effective but maybe in some other way. From "Needs cement tees" to "Tee pads too short", etc.

I think the reviews in the end would be a better tool for those who are just discovering a course and determining if the current course is worth exploring.

 

[ru4por]

I think this is a losing proposal. Most reviewers are not going to update anything. They either won't care, will not be interested in learning the new site or simply are not around any longer. I suggest that most reviewers, that WOULD rewrite a review, probably already have.

I suggest providing some insight on strengthening golfers use of the reviews. They ALWAYS need to be read with a discerning eye. The information contained in any review is somewhat limited for any user. IE...There are a couple fantastic reviewers here, that I make very little use of. They simply find completely different things as important, from what I do. Therefore their reviews, while well written, thorough, detailed, have little information that I am seeking.

I find I turn to some of my personal "trusted" reviewers and I generally seek them out. Keeping my reading to the last couple years. I also try to read recent to older. This usually solves the updated equipment issues. CAVEAT...I am kind of a quality bagger. I tend to play the higher rated courses in any area. They usually have more and better reviews, as well. I think this pathway, opposed to amending a lot of older reviews, is more pragmatic.

 

[DFrah]

I think this is a losing proposal. Most reviewers are not going to update anything. They either won't care, will not be interested in learning the new site or simply are not around any longer. I suggest that most reviewers, that WOULD rewrite a review, probably already have.

I suggest providing some insight on strengthening golfers use of the reviews. They ALWAYS need to be read with a discerning eye. The information contained in any review is somewhat limited for any user. IE...There are a couple fantastic reviewers here, that I make very little use of. They simply find completely different things as important, from what I do. Therefore their reviews, while well written, thorough, detailed, have little information that I am seeking.

I find I turn to some of my personal "trusted" reviewers and I generally seek them out. Keeping my reading to the last couple years. I also try to read recent to older. This usually solves the updated equipment issues. CAVEAT...I am kind of a quality bagger. I tend to play the higher rated courses in any area. They usually have more and better reviews, as well. I think this pathway, opposed to amending a lot of older reviews, is more pragmatic.

I agree with all of this. Also to add to it, I generally do not update my reviews without actually revisiting the course.

I have gotten a few DMs since I started reviewing along the lines of "Hey - thanks for reviewing my local course last year. We recently upgraded all of the tee pads and tee signs which you had listed as Cons before, want to up your rating accordingly?" These messages have always been kindly written so they don't BOTHER me, and I assume that they are truthful. That said, it still feels weird for me to update a rating/review just based on someone else's message.

Despite all of the words I write in my reviews, my overall feelings about a course are often difficult to translate into words. How much should I increase my rating "accordingly"? That's difficult to assess without re-visiting in person and re-playing the course.

If it's a local course, re-visiting it is more doable. But some courses that I have played are on the other side of the country and I will not be able to get back to them anytime soon. In these cases I would consider adding a note to the bottom of the review that says "I got a DM stating ____ - if I'm able to return one day, an updated review and possible updated rating will happen then." I did that for this course that I really loved and that I might decide is now worthy of a 5.0 if/when I get back there: Rainshadow DGC - Reviews

 

[Billipo]

DGCR is the only location that I pay any attention to ratings and forum comments. It seems in general DGCR course ratings are more through and taken much more seriously.

 

[Countchunkula]

I agree with what's been said so far. I'm probably not going to update the text of one of my reviews without another round played at the course in question. I do update numerical ratings from time to time, but that's subjective and again I probably would want to see the course updates for myself before making a change.

I definitely wouldn't take offense to a friendly PM notifying of updates and might make it a point to play that course again. No promises though.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

I generally do not update my reviews without actually revisiting the course.
...

If it's a local course, re-visiting it is more doable. But some courses that I have played are on the other side of the country and I will not be able to get back to them anytime soon.

This.

 

[Cerealman]

If reviews I've written several years ago had been updated with more recent info by more knowledgeable reviewers, then I'm typically OK letting my original review stand. If I've re-played the course and there a significant difference, then I might edit my original review -- most likely IF I'm also changing my rating.

When I re-played Joseph C. Miller DGC in Columbia, Mo., this summer, there had been quite significant improvements to the course and since I was increasing my rating to 4.5, I also added a new paragraph about the betterments.

 

[MikeK]

As you can see Billipo, the reviewer crowd here isn't as interested in providing up-to-date information about courses as they are about padding their review stats.

I would think that if someone uploaded pictures of new tee pads, or that the number of baskets is updated, that reviewers would want to reflect that, but I guess these reviewers here don't trust anyone enough.

Really, why take 45 seconds of time to reward an improved course with a better rating?

 

[PastorofMuppets]

As you can see Billipo, the reviewer crowd here isn't as interested in providing up-to-date information about courses as they are about padding their review stats.

I would think that if someone uploaded pictures of new tee pads, or that the number of baskets is updated, that reviewers would want to reflect that, but I guess these reviewers here don't trust anyone enough.

Really, why take 45 seconds of time to reward an improved course with a better rating?

I have yet to be contacted by anyone saying a course has been improved or declined and asking me to update my review. If I physically play a course again and notice changes good/bad I will update accordingly. If someone were to message and say hey, these things have been addressed, I would gladly update my review. I would hope though, that by then there would be multiple new reviews above mine that were more relevant to the current conditions. Take Holler in the Hills for instance. It was one of the best rated courses in the country (and is still rated VERY high) propped up by old reviews. The course is close to unplayable currently and practically abandoned. I don't think the previous 200 people who reviewed it should now have to update their reviews and ratings 10 plus years after they last played it. The most recent reviews indicate the sad state of the course. Probably 75% or more of the reviewers aren't even active anymore.

 

[DFrah]

DGCR is the only location that I pay any attention to ratings and forum comments. It seems in general DGCR course ratings are more through and taken much more seriously.

Same for me! I could really reword what I said before to fit into this context.

I'm happy to be notified of changes to courses that might make my reviews outdated. When possible, I will revisit the course to play it again. And when I DO revisit a course and find changes (whether previously notified, or not), I usually update my rating/review accordingly.

But I don't want to impact the overall rating by updating mine without the full information i.e. a new firsthand experience (that's the "thorough" and "taking it seriously" part in my mind I guess). I'd rather defer to any more recent reviews, which as the others have said are likely to be more accurate with regards to current state of the course.

 

[Billipo]

Based on forum comments, best recourse seems to be making clear that course has changed. Update pictures, course comments, etc. and let everyone figure it out what is relevant on their own.

Probably not worth bothering reviewers.

 

[BillFleming]

If you are going to ask players to 'revisit' their ratings of a course, how about something like this?

Things have changed since you last rated this course, if you don't mind, how about reviewing and maybe updating your rating the next time you play the course?

 

[Pizza God]

I have revisited old reviews when the course was upgraded.

However, unless the course was changed, my rating is not going to change. I don't base my reviews on the quality of the tee pads or even baskets in most cases. I review how much I enjoyed playing the course and were the hole interesting.

(I have only been contacted once and it was the course designer asking me how to make the course better/safer. From my understanding, they did change up some of the holes based on my recommendations, but I have yet to play that course again)

 

[wolfhaley]

I've rewritten one review I believe. It's for my most local course, which was one of my first reviews I'd assume. The course is still essentially the same layout as when I first played it but they have taken quite a few trees out due to EAB.

While I understand the OP's intent here, it's hard to take serious when they have not written one, single review. Armchair QB's and back seat drivers and what not.

The date a review was written is at the very top of each one, and date played.

Uploading reviews, pics etc. Is up to us, the users of this site. There's a small fraction of us that actually do this....

 

[Billipo]

True I haven't written a review. Astute observation. WolfHaley.

I don't review my own designs because obviously I have made every effort to create best play experience under my control. I personally find it very lame to post a rated review your own design. My opinion.

As far as other courses, I get asked by many different course designers to review new designs, proposed revisions etc. and I will discuss my opinions in person with designer or on the phone. These conversations are typically initiated by designer, but on occasion I will let designer know of observation unsolicited. Usually unsolicited comments on courses that I find quite impressive.

 

[sillybizz]

I only change my review of a course if I play it again and it has changed drastically since I last played it. Being that I'm a course bagger, rarely do I play a course a second time if I have traveled any sort of distance. Being that I'm a course bagger, I write reviews for other course baggers trying to decide if it's worth a stop in or not. I do not write reviews for locals or designers or to inflate (or deflate) ratings. The ratings of courses are fairly arbitrary and super subjective anyway. This seems like a grab for higher ratings for a course at least that's the way it comes off and I give 0 f's about the rating of a course or a course designers feelings. My reviews are snapshots in time and what was happening when I played it. I am honest in my reviews with my opinions. I doubt people are looking to my reviews from 2009 to get an idea of how the course currently looks. If you want the most current information read a recent review or add your own.

 

[HyooMac]

I don't review my own designs because obviously I have made every effort to create best play experience under my control. I personally find it very lame to post a rated review your own design. My opinion.

Very respectfully disagree. I love to read designers' reviews even though they're rare. I think there's no problem IF the reviewer identifies him/herself as the designer, and explains the thoughts behind the layout or any particular holes. Several recent ones I've read here in NJ allow the designer to provide insights into future plans too (like expansion, adding OB, etc.) This is especially good information to know when I bagging a new course.

 

[nothinbuttree]

If someone is bothered by an older review which assigns a rating based upon outdated features/condition/etc, what is stopping the person bothered from writing their own updated review? We review as of a date. If there are more current reviews, use those.

 

[Surge5]

Wish I'd seen this thread sooner. It seems I'm in the minority as I've re-written and re-rated many reviews. As I play more and more courses, my ideas of what deserves which score have fluctuated and I've gone back and moved ratings up/down. I will also amend things if I see changes have been made to a course (new tees/baskets, mandos, hole changes). This is why I follow the "Played" tab on the homepage fairly closely and read those reviews more carefully. Also I'm currently re-writing some of my older reviews because A: they suck and B: it's freezing so I don't have any new courses I want to go bag.

I've been reached out to about courses I've reviewed; @wellsbranch250 messaged after I reviewed Hitzman Optimist Park and re-evaluated his review after that. He also asked if anything had changed at Pensacola State College's 6-hole (it hadn't).

 

[HyooMac]

I just did a major update to one of my reviews (Tyler Sate Park East), and noticed that it appeared on the landing page among the new reviews.

Great @greens and team - thanks!

Is is too much to ask that a substantially revised review - on that's "new" enough to be on the landing page also be moved up the stack on the course's Reviews page?

My Tyler review, written yesterday based on play two days earlier, is #6 in the stack. It's behind four 2+ year old drive-by reviews.

I suggest considering review page order based on Review OR Updated date, or based on Played on date - whichever is more recent. It seems logical that the newest review or most recent play would have the most up to date information. What do you think?