A while back I asked the folks at DGS if another rating system could replace the one grade report-card that courses now get. It was panned ( probably too much work.) Recently a "news" comment reminded me of the issue; a fellow complained that a low grade came without any supporting references. Just earlier this month I individually questioned a cookie-cutter review that railed against any private course receiving high ratings.
We "seasoned" players might generate, then recommend, a better system. This would not be to make the system less democratic, but to make it more useful. Subjectivity and personal preferences would not be eliminated just more easily recognized. (I admit that some of my reviews have been highly subjective, as plenty of accurate objective reviews were already done) As we close this summer season and approach the next one it would be good to have some on-line exchanges to see if a brainstorm occurs. Feel free to try out (on the "talk" page) some of your ideas for a better system. Depart as far as you wish from the idea below. If you wish to tweak or build on it that would be welcome. The trick will be to send something to DGS that does not require a lot of computer-code writing.
Idea #1 - Identify the most common course characteristics and give them each a number from +3 to -3.
Examples: Shot variety, grounds maintenance, facilities (toilets, shelter, parking), challenge (pro is +3 to family fun is -3), etc. Include a "comments" section for those who want to go-on about the song birds or the cursing teenagers.