[DMoriarty]

Since we are back to discussing rankers, I found this article from the LA Times Calendar section (Nov. 2) interesting . . .

http://www.calendarlive.com/dining/la-fo-mariani2nov02,0,4923125.story?coll=cl-home-more-channels

From the article . . .

. . . The line is sharply drawn. Most serious journalism outlets — including The Times and food magazines such as Gourmet and Bon Appetit — bar critics from accepting free meals. . . .

. . . A free meal may cost a restaurateur hundreds of dollars, but that's a small price for national exposure . . .

. . . Reviewing standards are simple, and clear. The code of ethics widely observed . . . recommends reviewers dine anonymously when possible, and not make reservations under their own names. Reviewers should not write about restaurants run by friends. And reviews should be based on several visits, to make an appropriate judgment on the food and service. Failure to maintain that objective distance violates the basic contract with people who turn to reviews for guidance. . .

. . .The people who suffer are the readers," said Kelly McBride, a journalism ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. "You assume when somebody is speaking in glowing terms about a restaurant that it is because they did a true, fair and accurate review. But if the restaurant knew they were coming ahead of time and they didn't have to pay for the meal, you can't be sure the reviewers' loyalties truly lie with the reader. . . .

. . .The minute you're given special treatment that is not given with the regular fare of the restaurant … that's basically crossed the ethical line," said William A. Babcock, chair of Cal State Long Beach's journalism department and former director of the University of Minnesota's Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law. "Everything needs to be done to make sure things are on the up and up. The best way … is to go incognito, and take notes surreptitiously. That's Basic Reviewing 101. . .

So why is it that these rules don't apply to golf course rankers, or raters for that matter?  

[Kevin_Reilly]

Would work fine at a public course, but access to a private course would prove difficult under an assumed name and affilation (or lack thereof).

[Mike Benham]

Would work fine at a public course, but access to a private course would prove difficult under an assumed name and affilation (or lack thereof).

I've never seen a newspaper or food publication review of a private club's dining room ...

I don't see the direct comparison between food critics and golf course critics for GD, GW, etc. and the resulting rankings published by these magazines.  A restaurant review is done by an individual and reported as such with a byline and detailed explanations.  The golf rankings are done by numerous critics and the final tally of the results are done by NASA's supercomputers so no individual can put their personal stamp on the review.

And to call the raters rankers is inaccurate, they play a course and rate it based on the critieria given.  They don't play 10 courses and then rank them 1 - 10 ...  They are golf course critics ...

David -

I'm not sure what answer you expect to get or what answer will satisfy your inquiry.  You probably need to ask the magazines for the why ... and any answer you get from a rater who says that they never use their status to gain access or get a comp, you simply aren't going to believe them ...

[Dan King]

Mike Benham writes:
I don't see the direct comparison between food critics and golf course critics for GD, GW, etc. and the resulting rankings published by these magazines.  A restaurant review is done by an individual and reported as such with a byline and detailed explanations.

Not always. Think of the Michelin Guide. Similar to GD, GW, etc.. but still adhering to standards of journalism.

And to call the raters rankers is inaccurate

I got no problem following Huckaby Junior's lead and just call 'em wankers.

they play a course and rate it based on the critieria given.  They don't play 10 courses and then rank them 1 - 10

And the final result is a ranking. My guess is wankers go in knowing their input will be used for the rankings. Just because they don't get their hands actually dirty making the list doesn't necessarily mean their hands are clean.

They are golf course critics ...

Only assuming you ignore Basic Reviewing 101.

and any answer you get from a rater who says that they never use their status to gain access or get a comp, you simply aren't going to believe them ...

Is there such a beast? Hard to say if it was believable since I've never heard or seen any wanker say such a thing. I hear them making a big deal about the times they didn't use their status, but never heard of one who never used it.

How much you want to bet we will see many more TPCs on the Golf Digest list now that they are in partnership with the Tour?

Dan King

Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, and the trouble is I don't know which half.
 --Viscount Leverhulme (Confessions of an Advertising Man)

[Jim Nugent]

Isn't it a little easier to cook the books for a restaurant critic?  If they know who the critic is, the chef can prepare more delicious food.  They can serve better wines.  

Golf courses seem to me more limited.  They can't change their routing or design right before the rater shows up.  They're stuck with the course's condition.  No matter how good the service, they can't turn Trump into Pebble for a day.  

Dan -- quote from the Ogilvy book, right?  BTW, the reason the Viscount didn't know which half he wasted is that he didn't do direct response advertising.  If he had, he would have zero questions.  

[Andy Troeger]

Jim,
  I agree with your thoughts. A golf course differs fairly significantly from a meal in regards to it being somewhat the same every day.

  In general and with that said, a rater would be advised to play it as many times as possible in different conditions etc, but that's another thread. However, I admittedly can think of a couple of courses that I specifically thought less of due to extremely poor service; somehow I don't think a rater would have had those same problems  

  I think the lists might be better for following the Reviewing 101, there's certainly nothing wrong with it (other than to raters themselves potentially), however its already been hit on the head that with private courses much of this would be nearly impossible.

[Mike_Cirba]

You know, the funny, ironic thing with all of this bashing of raters and ratings is that without the "Top 100" lists started by Golf Digest in the 60s/70s, many of us would never have heard of many of the great courses of the country/world, nor would we have our mutual interests stimulated to learn more about golf course architecture.

I think it's fair to say that the original rankings, along with a few obscure writers like Herbert Warren Wind (hardly a household name among average golfers), begat "The Golf Course", which begat "The Architects of Golf", which begat some of the folks practicing in the field today, which begat additional interest (does anyone really believe that GolfClubAtlas would have existed in the 50s and 60s?), which begat sitting here typing on GCA right now.

I find it wholly amusing that the effort to identify and highlight the best golf courses is somehow branded as an unseemly affair when most of us wouldn't be here typing at each other if it wasn't for that effort over the past 40 years.

I always have to wonder what someone's real beef is when they arbitrarily and capriciously lump the whole effort together into some neat, easily stereotyped, negatively-branded category of "raters", or "wankers", or whatever.  

Like everything else, if you don't like it, change the channel.

[Evan Fleisher]

You know, the funny, ironic thing with all of this bashing of raters and ratings is that without the "Top 100" lists started by Golf Digest in the 60s/70s, many of us would never have heard of many of the great courses of the country/world, nor would we have our mutual interests stimulated to learn more about golf course architecture.

I think it's fair to say that the original rankings, along with a few obscure writers like Herbert Warren Wind (hardly a household name among average golfers), begat "The Golf Course", which begat "The Architects of Golf", which begat some of the folks practicing in the field today, which begat additional interest (does anyone really believe that GolfClubAtlas would have existed in the 50s and 60s?), which begat sitting here typing on GCA right now.

I find it wholly amusing that the effort to identify and highlight the best golf courses is somehow branded as an unseemly affair when most of us wouldn't be here typing at each other if it wasn't for that effort over the past 40 years.

I always have to wonder what someone's real beef is when they arbitrarily and capriciously lump the whole effort together into some neat, easily stereotyped, negatively-branded category of "raters", or "wankers", or whatever.  

Like everything else, if you don't like it, change the channel.

Now THAT is some astute observing there, Mr. Cirba...and I concur wholeheartedly.  It is precisely because of all the various rankings, lists, etc. that we are all here today doing what we do and loving what we love.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Just a note to remind everyone throwing insults that the OWNER of this site and golf's most beloved figure is himself a panelist/rater.

[HamiltonBHearst]

If the owner of this site is a rater it just proves that all raters are not created equal.  I find the write-ups on courses by country far more informative than the compilations of ratings or rankings in golf digest.  

Clearly, GM and GD do nothing to help preserve the classic courses in the U.S..  I do appluad GW efforts to at least get people thinking about architecture in a different way.

[JohnV]

". . . The line is sharply drawn. Most serious journalism outlets — including The Times and food magazines such as Gourmet and Bon Appetit — bar critics from accepting free meals. . . ."

Restaurant reviewers for those publications are paid and/or their expenses are paid.  If GW, GD and GM want to start paying their raters, I'm sure everyone would be happy to be anonymous and not take any freebies.

At least 90% of my golf course ratings have been anonymous.  Some of us prefer it that way.  Only when I've been on a specific GW outing, there were a large group going to a course and they had been told that raters were among them or my host has told them in advance have I identified myself as a rater.

[Mike Hendren]

Mike Cirba,

Is it plausible that some Hillbilly in Lawrenceville, Illinois (for hypothetical purposes only) who really loves the game and its playing fields would by word of mouth alone, come to know of the great golf courses in this country even if he didn't subscribe to any periodicals?  Even if his brother wasn't a golf course architect?  

Doesn't the true gourmand go by word of mouth, instead of working some list?  

Just wondering.

[JESII]

I think Mike Cirba and John Vander Borght make very strong points. I have never been very interested in the arguments on here about which course should be 27th or 53rd or whatever, but I appreciate the process and the results.

Is it fair to say that, in more than rare instances, the circumstances play a role in ones rating of a course? In other words; service, access, cost etc...

[Dan King]

Jim Nugent writes:
Golf courses seem to me more limited.  They can't change their routing or design right before the rater shows up.  They're stuck with the course's condition.  No matter how good the service, they can't turn Trump into Pebble for a day.

Then go anonymously.

If the fees are paid by the course or there is a free meal or a free hat or anything like that, the review is weakened. Perhaps the reviewer has every good intention, but it is human nature to respond favorably when treated special. The courses know this, but the reviewers and readers don't seem aware.

Dan -- quote from the Ogilvy book, right?

Yep.

BTW, the reason the Viscount didn't know which half he wasted is that he didn't do direct response advertising.  If he had, he would have zero questions.

True. He also didn't think of forming a partnership with a media outlet to get better, free coverage. Wonder how the TPCs are going to do now that the PGA Tour and Golf Digest have formed a partnership?

Mike Cirba writes:
I find it wholly amusing that the effort to identify and highlight the best golf courses is somehow branded as an unseemly affair when most of us wouldn't be here typing at each other if it wasn't for that effort over the past 40 years.

I would.

Why settle for the poor system in place now? Why not push for a better system? Nobody is saying reviewing golf courses is bad. All that is being said is the current system is broken with its obvious conflict of interests. Why not want a better system?

Like everything else, if you don't like it, change the channel.

Or change the system -- which was the original point of the piece by Geoff that has many bothered.

Geoffrey Childs writes:
Just a note to remind everyone throwing insults that the OWNER of this site and golf's most beloved figure is himself a panelist/rater.

I was joking when calling them wankers because that is what Huckaby Junior calls them. I would hope people understand that usage.

BUt I would be surprises if Ran has a problem with people discussing the ranking systems and its possible shortcomings.

John Vander Borght writes:
At least 90% of my golf course ratings have been anonymous.  Some of us prefer it that way.

I think that is great. Maybe you can help other raters who believe it is impossible to do their job without first identifying themselves.

Doesn't it bother you that you are working within a system that broken? Don't you think others should avoid identifying themselves?

Dan King

We are all reasonable. We have always been reasonable. We are noted for our sweet reasonableness.
 --The Rev. Ian Paisley

[A_Clay_Man]

I only became a wankhur recently, yet all the courses I've golfed in my life now have a ranking.

Which of the rankings,  pre-wankhur or post wankhur, are more credible?

Dan, There is no "COST" to the course. Just an opportunity cost lost. You cite human nature, yet fail to recognize other traits, such as honor and self-respect with regard to those who do the wankhing.

There should be no corruption in Government, too.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

I love Geoff but if his article had a "point" that you think would help produce better rankings I must have missed it.

I have nothing against producing better rankings...I think everyone inside the process want that too.

I'm just saying that I don't think I've heard an idea yet on this or the other thread that would serve that purpose nor do I believe that a paid staff of anonymous raters who somehow had the mysterious clout and access to play anywhere they wanted would result in improved rankings, either.

The latter supposition assumes that some large percentage of raters must have been "bought off" by preferential treatment and that's just horseshit, Dan & David.  

They must have some pretty good soup at Pine Valley and a damn fine burger at Sand Hills to buy that many votes.    

[Dan King]

Adam Clayman writes:
Dan, There is no "COST" to the course. Just an opportunity cost lost. You cite human nature, yet fail to recognize other traits, such as honor and self-respect with regard to those who do the wankhing.

Kid yourself all you want, someone has to pay for you to play golf. If it isn't your publication and it isn't you, then the only alternative is the course. The reason the course does it is because they think it will work in their favor. They believe that by treating you special, you will judge them in a better light. Guess what, more often than not, they are right.

Think about going to a golf course, waiting in line for a few hours, sitting through a frost delay, overpaying for the course, forced into a cart and then getting put into a 6 hour shotgun.

Think now about a course that smoozes you from the time you hit the lot. They take care of you, feed you, comp your green fee and maybe throw in a hat.

Regardless of quality of the course, which one will you more likely be pre-disposed to like?

Courses know this, rankers and readers seem to be failing to grasp this.

There should be no corruption in Government, too.

And much like the rankings, the reason why there is so much corruption in the government is the system encourages it.

Mike Cirba writes:
I'm just saying that I don't think I've heard an idea yet on this or the other thread that would serve that purpose nor do I believe that a paid staff of anonymous raters who somehow had the mysterious clout and access to play anywhere they wanted would result in improved rankings, either.

Golf Digest or whatever mag you work for does have the clout.

Maybe that is my answer. Someday, should GolfObserver have some money perhaps it would be good to create a course rating system along the lines of the Michelin guide to dining. We could sell it as an honest rankings rather than the ones by the other magazines were the courses buy their position.

The latter supposition assumes that some large percentage of raters must have been "bought off" by preferential treatment and that's just horseshit, Dan & David.

Stop trying to defend the system and think about it. Where would you get a more honest opinion, from someone who was treated special or someone treated the same as anyone who came through the door? It ain't dishonesty that causes rankers to get "bought off" it is the system that causes it.

Do you think the golf courses comp you out of public service or because they want something in return?

Dan King

The danger id not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.
 --Lord Acton

[Andy Troeger]

One thing that's not being mentioned on this thread. Do the courses themselves ever get to see how a specific rater rated their course? Basing my argument on the answer to that being no, then to those of you bashing raters, why would the rater be inclined to prefer the course with better service/comped fees/etc? Its not like the course would find out.

Ratings and rankings are judgemental, people think differently. We'll never all agree, but the lists give us something to argue about  I think we can pretty safely say that many raters take their positions very seriously and do a darn good job, and there are others who do it for lesser reasons. Its not a perfect system, but if it encourages people to think about GCA it works just fine in my mind.

[THuckaby2]

Two things:

1.  In case this wasn't just part of an elaborate extreme example by Dan, please one and all understand that course rating panelists are NOT showered with gifts when doing a rating (ie hats, lunch, etc.).  Yes we do get comped green fees from time to time.  But that other stuff occurs only in abuse situations, if at all.  In fact at GD we are specifcally instructed we cannot accept such things, and I'd have to assume its the same with the other mags.

2. Andy - the courses do NOT see the results of specific ratings; all they do see is the end result of the compilations as published by the magazines.

The practicalities of all of this are difficult.  Dan knows this.  But I for one am rooting for him to come up with the "honest" panel at GolfObserver.  It's going to take a lot of money, and to me it would be great if someone somewhere would do this.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Kid yourself all you want, someone has to pay for you to play golf. If it isn't your publication and it isn't you, then the only alternative is the course.

Dan-
You and I were once fortunate enough to be comped a round of golf, together.

Was there a real cost associated with that round? Who paid it? I know I didn't. Did Mr. Rhodes?

Did that comp influence your evaluation of the architecture?

I know it didn't influence mine. And as far as I can tell, I'm not kidding anyone, not even myself.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan,

Today's Confuciousian riddle;

If all clubs/courses comp raters, then how does an unscrupulous rater determine who to favor?

What's more, with balloting being totally done in secret, how does that unscrupulous rater then capitalize on having sold their soul for a $75 green fee?  

[Jim Nugent]

Dan, which courses do you think may have benefited from these conflicts of interest?  Should many courses in the top 100 lists NOT be there?  i.e. how big is the problem you are describing, and how many unfair ratings has it led to?

[Mike Benham]

Why settle for the poor system in place now? Why not push for a better system? Nobody is saying reviewing golf courses is bad. All that is being said is the current system is broken with its obvious conflict of interests. Why not want a better system?

Dan -

Why do we need a better system?  

Are you bothered by the results of the rankings and reviews?  

Mike

[Sean_A]

Dan is correct.  For sure courses comp rounds hoping for recognition.  They stand a greater chance than if the raters are not comped.  I am not saying the system is corrupt, but it sure is open to the charge!

I have always thought that beauty, clubhouse, service, ambience, history and price influence people's (raters are people) opinions.  While none of these have anything to do with architecture excepting beauty (depending on one's point of view), they are none the less valid and important aspects of rating because punters don't rent an architectural design for the day, they are paying for a fun and interesting day out.  The course is only part of the experience.  Before y'all get up in arms, think about it.  People want to go to St. Andrews at least in part to experience The Home of Golf.  Nuff said on that because it is absolutely true.  There are at least a hundred courses that have an allure for whatever reason.  

It is an entirely different question if raters admit to their influence.  My guess is most try not to be overly influenced by non-architectural issues, but to ignore them is impossible.  If it isn't the history of a club, it is the view from the veranda or G&Ts or the bar maid etc. etc.  If the above extraneous influences were not important, it wouldn't be necessary to play the courses in question.  Raters could simply view others playing for a day or so to render an opinion on the quality of the design in question without ever hitting a shot or sampling the delights of a clubhouse etc.  It would be refreshing if raters could acknowledge these shortcoming in rating a course, then everybody knows where they stand.  

I believe that rating is for public consumption.  If rating is for public consumption, than it stands that the public hopes to someday play many of the rated venues.  What does the public look for in a golf course?  My guess is that on a certain level, raters are looking for the same things.  

Ciao

Sean

[mike_malone]

 Sean,
     I suggest we blindfold raters and bring them to the first tee. Now I'm not sure whether we should pay their guides or not. I'll have to give that some thought.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()