Top 50 Parks

Could it possibly be done - probably. I have no idea what it would take from a programming point of view. I have enough trouble remembering which button to push to turn my computer on. This all adds up to a lot to extra work for Jeff. As if he doesn't have enough to do with his real life, job, family, parenting, etc, etc.

Is it worth the effort - certainly not, if it was me having to do all the work. I'm so lazy, I haven't bothered to list the coasters I've been on let alone assign them a numerical value. Hell, I couldn't tell you which rides are at the top of the list. It doesn't matter to me; I don't look. I doubt I would list/rank the parks I've been to either.

So it probably could be done, but I probably would never use it. But then again, I'm just a grumpy old man.... Now get off of my yard and shut off that god darn rock and roll.

Lord Gonchar said:

The thing is that Jeff has even provided a key at the top of everyone's track record. Just switch 'roller coaster' to 'park' and off you go.

Right, which is why I agree it would be easy to do. Just not very interesting, in that I'd have a buttload of 5's and a couple...less than that.

Whereas, very generally speaking, collective coaster rankings tend to be very similar--compare, for example, CBuzz with Hawker and you'll see a lot of similarities (barring the few odd foreign coasters with a tiny sample size atop the latter list)--I have a feeling a park ranking on this site would be pretty different. Just a prediction, but I could see Knoebels and WDW competing for the top few spots (I know they'd both score 5's on my list), which are two parks so far opposite each other in every way (except that they're both great). Take the top 10 coasters from the Top 100 and aside from the glaring wood/steel difference, all of those coasters (except maybe for Millennium Force) are some of the most airtime-filled rides around.

It would be interesting to see the results of our compiled park rankings in that sense, I suppose, but...I dunno. Just not that interesting overall, I guess.

But I suppose the same could be said about the coaster rankings, depending on how you look at it.

Damn, I hate having to edit a million times. How does one add a URL when the URL formatting tool isn't working?

I'm with gonch. I don't see why it'd be hard to compare parks.

When I finally ranked my track record, I just thought "would I rather ride [x] or [y]?" and put one on top of the other. Then did the same the whole way down the line.

You're not ranking the best. You're just ranking your favorite, which is why I could do it easily.

To me, 'the best' and 'my favorite' are synonymous...as long as it's 'what I think is the best'.

Vater said:

Right, which is why I agree it would be easy to do. Just not very interesting, in that I'd have a buttload of 5's and a couple...less than that.

Then you're doing it wrong. Every park can't be among the best you've been to.

The way Jeff describes the rankings, it should work like a bell curve. Most parks are average. some are slightly better or worse. Few are significantly better or worse.

If you're at mostly 5's then they should probably be mostly 3's.

The same would apply to the coaster ratings.

But yeah, just like the coaster rankings, I doubt you'd find anything significantly different or informative. Certain rides and parks are just widely considered good.

Gonch is admittedly swaying me now.

The five-point approach I used for the coasters was always intended to prevent over-thinking it or requiring a lot of time commitment. But it was also intended to point out that no one gives a **** if you think one ride is #4 and another is #5.

Ok, fair enough. So, let's say I've been to 10 parks, 8 of which I consider equally awesome, and the other 2 are ok. Assuming I rank the ok parks each as a 3, I should rank the awesome ones as a 4? And how does the fact that I have 8 parks which I consider exceptional ranked lower than a 5 factor in with everyone else's rankings?

I know I'm not supposed to over-think it, but I have a hard time claiming one park better than another. Six Flags over Georgia is as nice as Cedar Point is as nice as Busch Gardens Williamsburg is as nice as Dollywood, etc...all for very different reasons.

I definitely agree that one could easily rank parks just as much as they can roller coasters. The only problem I see is that it's pretty tough to give a park 0 or 1 "stars."

I can understand a coaster that beats the crap out of you, and is just generally unpleasant might get a terrible rating. But a park in general is usually at least fun. After all, it's an amusement park. Not to say that you can't have a bad time at them, though. I'm just saying I struggle to come up with any park that I would give less than a "3."

But from a purely semantic standpoint, the current scale isn't "Was the park better than watching TV?" It's "better than other parks" and "not as good as other parks." Even Visionland (now...something else I can't remember) was better than watching TV but it was among the worst experiences I've had at a park so according to the scale, I'd give it a 1. Seems straight forward to me.

Vater said:

Ok, fair enough. So, let's say I've been to 10 parks, 8 of which I consider equally awesome, and the other 2 are ok. Assuming I rank the ok parks each as a 3, I should rank the awesome ones as a 4? And how does the fact that I have 8 parks which I consider exceptional ranked lower than a 5 factor in with everyone else's rankings?

Yeah...I don't know. I was using hard language to make a point. The ratings are up to your interpretation. But over the large data set, that's fine. We're still getting some insight as to your take. If you think every park is the bestest ever, then it's 5's across the board. I don't think that's an invalid opinion.

I think my problem would be that my bell curve would be too steep. I'd have mostly 3's. Very few parks stand out to me as exception in either direction. Off the top of my head I can only think of three parks that I'd give a 1 or 2 to. I'd have a handful of 4's and probably just a couple of 5's.

I don't know that a park ranking is necessary, but I think it could be done.

Vater said:

I know I'm not supposed to over-think it, but I have a hard time claiming one park better than another. Six Flags over Georgia is as nice as Cedar Point is as nice as Busch Gardens Williamsburg is as nice as Dollywood, etc...all for very different reasons.

Here's how I do it with coasters, and how I'd do it with parks. I don't try to compare which is necessarily better or best. I think of which one, at this very moment, that I'd prefer.

Yes, all those parks you mentioned may be good, but all else being equal if you had to go to one place today, which would it be? That's your #1, and so on.

My list is more fluid. If I'm in a CP mood, that's my #1. It could easily also be Hershey or Disney or anywhere else except Elitch Gardens because that place sucks.

I should have known that this would spark a debate... Of course I fall into the category of ranking parks is not all that different from ranking coasters. My question was more geared toward whether it was technically difficult.

I think the only "challenge" is that using a similar algorithm requires a "track record" for parks. The CB100 uses experience and a minimum sample of riders to calculate the scores.

I think the park system is just as easy as the coaster rating system. I thought the beauty of the setup was that one didn't have to see how one ride compared to another, but rather just determine where the ride fell between totally sucking or being ludicrously awesome. I don't see how the park system would be any different. I'd give the Magic Kingdom five stars because I love the theme work and the atmosphere. I'd give Kings Dominion five stars because I like the ride collection and the general look and feel of the place. I'd give Valleyfair! three stars at best because there wasn't really anything remarkable about it. It's not at all about whether one park was better than the other. It's just about which parks I really enjoy and which ones don't set my world on fire. Easy-peasy.

It could be done. It's just a matter of how complicated the person doing the ranking wants to make it. By definition, there's a lot more factors involved in rating a park vs. a coaster.

Ride selection- what if a park has your absolute #1 favorite coaster, but not much else. ? What if it has a lot of rides, but a lot of them are down whenever you happen to visit? Some people will care more about the quality and number of kiddie rides, while others aren't aware there is a kiddyland in the park.

The other amenities-- food, games, souvenirs, etc. Customer service, courtesy, cleanliness, how quickly lines moved on rides and in food service.

Atmosphere-- including landscaping, layout, access to/from, and within the park, entertainment, crowd management.

Price vs. Value-- The price part is easy to figure out. The value of what each person gets for that price is the hard part. Maybe the better park is the one that didn't have all the hoopla and glitz of another place, but still provided an awesome experience for less money.

Overall, I think what makes it more difficult is that in the case or coasters, you either rode them or you didn't. Often times, we visit a park for several hours, but don't get to take in everything that's there, so we have limited info on which to evaluate the whole park. Or something happens that might skew the experience for better or worse that influences our opinions.

The easiest way to quantify this data would be a scale of 0-10. 0-5, whichever you fancy. Create a simple set of rateables like "Flat Rides" "Thrill Rides" "Coasters" "Food" "Admission Value" "Theming/Atmosphere" and whatever else. I don't think you would be able to average the score between these for the park because it's like comparing apples and oranges and mangos and etc. But at least you could click on the "water rides" category and see which park has the consensus of the best selection.

Or, since the coaster ratings are mostly the equivalent of quantifying how much "fun" people have on them, you could just allow the user to rank the park in general, 0-10, based on the completely subjective experience they had there.

You guys are WAY overthinking it.

Probably so. Because I don't really want to have to do it...and you know that if the feature is available, I'll have to do it.

I'm still holding out on ranking my coasters. Not only do I not give a crap what others think about the coasters they've ridden, I don't expect others to give a crap about what I think.

Pssssh... Says the one with 115 coasters on her track record. :rolleyes: