I’m not only a roller coaster geek, but also a big fan of ratings and reviews of any kind. And, I’m always looking for ways to improve my rating system. One thing that came to mind was adding additional subcategories to my ratings.
For example, I gave Goliath at Six Flags Over Georgia a 9 out of 10 which is an ‘Excellent’ on my rating scale. I also gave Intimidator 305 a 9 out of 10. If I could add two or three more subfactors that described my experience on those two pretty different rides what should they be? Also, could I come up with a few factors that could be applied to non-roller coasters like dark rides, drop rides, etc? Here’s what I came up with so far:
Fun – How much did you enjoy it?
Intensity (Roughness) – How rough (taxing on your body) was it?
Re-Ride Worthiness - How much do you want to ride it again? Or how likely are you to ride it again?
I’m trying to hit on three very basic questions that the average park-goer would ask a friend who’s ridden a ride that they haven’t. (Of course enthusiasts should find the factors useful too.) Take the I305/Goliath example. I’d give that ride a 5 on the intensity scale, and a lower 2 or 3 for whether I’d ride it again. I’d give it a 4 out of 5 for fun, mainly for the unique twisties, but for me, one rides probably enough especially if there’s a long line. On the other hand, Goliath would get: 4/5 for Fun, 3/5 for Intensity, and a 5/5 for re-ridability (re-ride worthiness – not sure about the name yet).
Additional ratings might distinguish between really fun thrill rides (like Kingda Ka) that you might not ride again because they’re so short or because they’re too intense for your tastes. Or it could reveal rides that are less intense, but so fun that their definitely worth a re-ride. And so on.
Oh. And try to forget the Intensity Scale that I developed. I may keep it, or scrap it as it might confuse people. I think these three factors could say a lot about any ride. And, my hope is to allow readers to contribute to these ratings and also do some interesting things when I start collecting enough data.
What’s Your Take?
I’d love to get everyone’s feedback as I’m not sure if these factors will be as clear and as meaningful to you as they are to me. What factors would you include? Would you re-name these or switch certain ones out? Leave a comment below.
I’m also working on a way to allow for everyone to get in on the ratings. I’ll still have my rating, but you, the reader may have a turn as well. More on this later.
December 17, 2011 at 05:51
I really like this scale. It is always nice to know how the score was reached. I am trying to start a roller coaster review site and I have a 100 point system. Each ride is rated like so: theme (5) trains/seats/restraints (10) airtime (10) or according to the type of ride, it may be inversions intensity (10) and experience (65). Just want you to know, but you made me want to start the site. Thanks!
December 17, 2011 at 23:56
Would a 100 be the perfect or best ride? If so, what would that mean for intensity? Does your scale consider the most intense rides to be the best?
December 17, 2011 at 07:29
The new system looks very good! It's defenintly informative, but I'm going to miss the old intensity scale…
December 17, 2011 at 11:49
This new rating system sounds awsome.Just a doubt: which is more rough: 1/5 or 5/5?
December 17, 2011 at 12:31
A 1/5 would be very tame and a 5/5 would have you going for headache medicine. The higher the number the more you enjoyed it (fun), the more it beat you up (rough), and the more likely you'd be to re-ride it (re-ride worthiness).
December 17, 2011 at 14:16
Demon nearly gave me a concussion! and it was given a only a 2 for roughness and 5 for re-rideability? I warded groups away from that ride! By the way, when are you coming my way to MN?
December 17, 2011 at 23:45
I think I remember you saying that about Demon. It sure is crazy how different experiences can be from person-to-person. This is one of the reasons that I'd like to find a way to allow for an aggregate site rating. Then, your high roughness rating would at least be included in the overall rating.
December 17, 2011 at 17:25
A good set of quasi-objective ratings might be airtime, overall force and roughness. These are things that are physical enough that people will generally know what you mean when you describe them, but nevertheless things revealed in a review that you can't necessarily tell just by looking at the coaster's stats (or even a POV video).
December 17, 2011 at 23:53
I tried to stay very general, but airtime is pretty important for woodies. It just might take a little explaining for the non-coaster geeks. And I wanted these ratings to be general enough to be used for any type of ride in case I wanted to include flat rides, dark rides, etc. But on the other hand, I could have airtime added to these 3 for coasters and not have it for flats. Hmmm….
December 19, 2011 at 02:58
I like the Idea of applying unique categories to certain types of coasters, especialy ones that are rare, such as Fourth Dimension and Bobsled coasters. While the overall fun level could speak for this to a certain extent, I think that individual ratings that showcase something imnportant to the ride would be a good addition to this system.
December 18, 2011 at 15:04
I'm thinking back to when you said Kumba was your favorite coaster, but not necessarily in your top 10. (Kennywood's Thunderbolt is the same for me.) I think that's when the re-rideability and fun factors really kick in. Am I understanding that correctly?
December 23, 2011 at 05:00
That's right Judy. These additional factors help show those differences.
December 19, 2011 at 14:37
cc, yes a 100 point would be perfect. maverick is the closest so far with a 95. and the intensity would be a good thing like the voyage is intense.
February 11, 2012 at 15:53
What's the name of the site?
December 20, 2011 at 12:11
You could do a cost worthiness rating too. For pay per ride coasters, you would give it a 1-5 depending on if it was worth the money. For example, Peonix at knobels would get a 5.
December 22, 2011 at 21:29
No. I think Phoenix would get a 6 or a 7 (out of 5).
January 14, 2012 at 03:59
I like that Jack. Nice thought for pay per ride attractions.
January 1, 2012 at 20:33
on my blog i do a scale out of 50 to expand the range so comparing rides is easier
January 2, 2012 at 14:40
What's your blog?
January 6, 2012 at 03:30
themeparkrides.org