Do you think it would help you decide whether you were going to do a particular race if there was a rating system on the race website, based on athlete’s feedback?
If yes, would it have to be a very detailed breakdown of things such as course design, aid stations, volunteers, course markings, post-race food etc.?
or
Is it sufficient to have a couple of overall ratings of the venue from the previous years participants? i.e. 1) Please rate the venue: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Just OK, Disappointing; 2) How likely are you to recommend to a friend?: Very likely, Somewhat likely, Neutral, Somewhat unlikely, Very Unlikely.
If someone hates the race I want to know why. Many times people will hate something for completely asinine reasons like the t-shirts were ugly or they did not have zucchini flavored gu at the aid stations or it was too cold at the start. It could have nothing to do with the actual race and just people complaining. I want to be able to judge if the complaints are legit
If they like it, I don’t want to hear why they liked it becasue it’s probably gonna be a rosy picture.
I think some form of open comment is needed because like Buzz said, People will say a race is bad because the run was “too hard”. If that is their only complain I can assume the rest is fine and the race is probably decent (I don’t mind a hard run) where if I just see that racer x hates the race and would never recommend it to a friend I don’t know if their reasoning is legit. It’s like teh quote “Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt” I can figure out if the reviewer is a fool.
For bike races, I only care that the event is run safely and organized so I can get results/awards in a timely manner. Schwag, food, portopotties, etc don’t make any difference.
Other than that, I make my decision based on the race course/elevation profile etc.
My concern is with an open forum it could digress into a subjective mess that gets away from the concept of a “clean rating system” that helps you make a decision. The examples buzz provided (Roads “too rough”, runs that are “hilly”, parking that is “a disaster”, “NO AID STATIONS”, etc. I never get it.) are good ones in that they can be very subjective. What I would like to be able to do is have a “roll up” of ratings on areas that are important, given by past participants. The course maps, parking, food etc information is on most race sites so I would hope those, combined with ratings, would give you a better perspective.
I take what most http://www.marathonguide.com reviewers say about a race pretty seriously. Especially if what they say is trended out by other reviewers. Obvious, but I give less cred to the more subjective things like T-Shirt, etc, than I do to experience based things, like lack of water on the race course.
fwiw, I do think there is room for an exclusive race review (only) type of website.
My concern is with an open forum it could digress into a subjective mess that gets away from the concept of a “clean rating system” that helps you make a decision. The examples buzz provided (Roads “too rough”, runs that are “hilly”, parking that is “a disaster”, “NO AID STATIONS”, etc. I never get it.) are good ones in that they can be very subjective. What I would like to be able to do is have a “roll up” of ratings on areas that are important, given by past participants. The course maps, parking, food etc information is on most race sites so I would hope those, combined with ratings, would give you a better perspective.
Do you think it would help you decide whether you were going to do a particular race if there was a rating system on the race website, based on athlete’s feedback?
If yes, would it have to be a very detailed breakdown of things such as course design, aid stations, volunteers, course markings, post-race food etc.?
What do you think?
I’d vote for this option – some of the things I dislike might not bother anyone else. I did a race yesterday and didn’t like the bike course because it was boring – 2 loops, each of which included riding up/down/up again on a 2-mile street. Others liked it because it was flat. I was annoyed because I was in the last wave, we started late, the heat index by the time I finished was 97, they ran out of gatorade at one aid station, and there was no food left after the race - I was 4th in my AG, so there were quite a few people still coming in. If I’d been in an earlier wave, I wouldn’t have even noticed. The volunteers were young and super-enthusiastic, but also a little unorganized and sent a couple of us in the wrong direction (yes, I know I’m responsible for knowing the course, and luckily I questioned them and only lost ~15 seconds). And so on… So, I’d like detailed feedback so I can draw my own conclusion about whether it’s a race I’d want to do.
Yes. When I was looking for a HIM a couple years ago someone pm’d me and warned me about the race support, so I didn’t do it. I have since known 2 people that did this race (1 of whom I warned) and both had the exact same complaints (actually, the issues were actually quite dangerous given the conditions and deficiencies in race organization).
Generic ratings are meaningless, because we all have differing - sometimes, directly opposed - criteria for picking races.
A race that serves beer or that has a lot of schwag is going to get high ratings from a lot of people, but is meaningless to me because I don’t drink the beer and I don’t want more things.
A grassroots race that has fewer participants, and maybe fewer volunteers, might hit a few snags and could get pounded in the ratings for “not being run tightly” or “too little competition.” But I generally prefer these more informal races.
I love races where standard distances are given up in favor of a more scenic course (e.g. a 27-mile Olympic course to take advantage of a fantastic road), but a lot of reviewers are going to ding it for not being standard.
So: allow people to comment on the detail. Otherwise, I have absolutely no idea what they are basing their rating on, and whether it is relevant to me.
Sparks and Devlin, what if people do not belong to Slowtwitch or know enough to go to that part of the Slowtwitch site? It is a good suggestion for a template though. Thanks!
Generic ratings are meaningless, because we all have differing - sometimes, directly opposed - criteria for picking races.
A race that serves beer or that has a lot of schwag is going to get high ratings from a lot of people, but is meaningless to me because I don’t drink the beer and I don’t want more things.
A grassroots race that has fewer participants, and maybe fewer volunteers, might hit a few snags and could get pounded in the ratings for “not being run tightly” or “too little competition.” But I generally prefer these more informal races.
I love races where standard distances are given up in favor of a more scenic course (e.g. a 27-mile Olympic course to take advantage of a fantastic road), but a lot of reviewers are going to ding it for not being standard.
So: allow people to comment on the detail. Otherwise, I have absolutely no idea what they are basing their rating on, and whether it is relevant to me.