sandwedge wrote:I like the idea of a list - provides feedback of a tangible nature to the designers and indicates how the community will receive a course if there are any new designers in the wings. I agree that the list should be kept to the basics - categories are enough IMHO; the rest is too cumbersome. I am looking forward to voting and giving feedback but my time is somewhat limited - I can type a few lines but actually scrutinizing a course for minute details may be a bit too muchSo here would be my 5 categories
1. Enjoyment and replay value, (Does it make you want to fire it up again?)
2. Realism, (Fantasy courses are more enjoyable if they are immersive IMHO)
3. Use of the architect (Are there spikes, sunspots etc.?; How do you rate the land plot itself?)
4. Set up (Can golfers of various skill levels compete on it together? My kids are a lot better than I am at this game)
5. Originality (Does it introduce something new to the design process? What is the library like that came with the file? I liked that vineyard in Blake ValleyI think this should be a category so that we can encourage designers to grow in their talent and abilities.)
I liked the 10 in Tin's post too - but it sounds like some are wanting a scaled down list. I hope this perspective is helpful to you in making a decision.
I like this idea the best, maybe rate each category 1-100. I don't think you'll have any ties that way. Let everyone come up with their own way to break down each category. They can certainly use Dar's list if they want, or come up with their own.
