The GPS discussion here has some relationship to another idea I am working on for both the DMN site and for local runners in general, and that is the idea of having runners rate the desirability of local races according to some sort of measurement scale, say one to ten, or yes/no, for a number of criteria.
I'm in the early stages of this idea, but I want your feedback on it. Do any of you think it's a feasible idea? What would be the benefits? What would be the challenges?
Here's how I see it working. Lots of runners submit their ideas for all the criteria by which they judge a good race, for example, is it certified or not? Certainly there are others, and I'm going to find out from a large population what they are.
Then a form of survey is given to runners who have run this race and the results are compiled in order to assign a given race with some normalized "score".
In addition to certified courses, I think other criteria may be as follows:
-reasonable entry fee
-interesting course, or quality of course
-the race supports some good cause (think of Jeph Abara's races for example, or WRM)
-a no-glitch history, or poor history (think hot chocolate for the latter, RAW races for the former)
These are just a few, and after some discussion agreement could be reached on the critical ones, the ones most runners find important. Let's suppose we came up with ten criteria. These could then be weighted in some way, again by consensus, so that a minor criterion would not carry as much weight.
My questions for discussion here are:
What criteria are important to you?
What other thoughts and opinions do you have about such an idea?