[GeoffreyC]

Frank Stanger and Dan Kelly

For the argument you make to hold any validity the actuual RULE that you quote

"By virtue of the Rule of Reciprocity, then, we are OBLIGATED to the future repayment of favors, gifts, invitations and the like...  It is so widespread that after intensive study, sociologists such as Alvin Gouldner can report that there is no human society that does not subcribe to the rule."

would have to be true.  I would contend that the psychology/sociology nonsense pseudoscience of that argument/rule has not been proven and CAN NOT be proven.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Proofs via psychological analysis?  SPARE ME!

My father was a professor of psychology and chief of a hospital and look what happened to me!  

JC

[Mike_Cirba]

So, I should feel "obligated" to provide a high rating to a course that comps?

That must explain all those 3's and 4's on my ballot.  

Interestingly, I can't think of any course I rated 8 or above that I didn't pay out of pocket for.

Yes, glad to know I'm bucking the predestination of my species.  

[Frank_Stanger]

Yes, forgive me.

I can see you are all the exception to the rule.

[Mike_Cirba]

Frank_Stanger;

If the "Rule of Reciprocity" was actual science, and a proven "rule" (don't you love how people self-title their theories "rules"?  ), don't you think we'd all be a lot better sons and daughters?  

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Mike,

I am strongly in favor of comps..not just for raters but for everyone...but do you think there should be a limit per year of how many rounds one rater should be comped.  Do you see any risk of the rater losing touch with the ever so important cost of the game.  

I don't recall ever having a rater (or a writer for that matter) asked to come out more than once a year...  It's never been a problem...

[Mike Hendren]

This entire thread has been worth reading if for no other reason than the MasterRater's post - the funniest thing here, or anywhere I've seen in the last ten years, easily.  

"Nobody hipped me to that, dude!"

I'm surprised he didn't post on the Tequila thread.

I've got to know that author of that post.  Reveal yourself.  Priceless.  Thank you.

Mike

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Hendren;

I completely agree!  

I'm also beginning to think that the rest of us are simply engaging in mental "MasterRating".  

[Dan Kelly]

In order for there to be a flaw in the system, the comps must cause errors in the ratings.... You don't have the fact and that's that....

Of course, Shivas, by your own testimony, these ratings are pure opinion -- so there CANNOT be an "error" in them.

No "rights." No "wrongs." Just opinions.

This difference is fundamental and crucial to the duty that the reporter has.  It is HIS integrity in question and the reader is relying on HIM to be be fair and impartial. With raters, however, nobody is relying on any individual rater.  There is no reliance on the reader's part of any one person in particular like there is in reporting.  None.

As a reader (all I've ever been, all I'll ever be), I am relying on your PUBLICATION to be fair and impartial. I believe all of these course-rating publications would be more likely to be scrupulously fair and impartial, in their accumulated ratings, if the hundreds of raters EACH had a reporter-like duty to be reliably fair and impartial -- and to avoid potentially compromising circumstances.

You guys are ... missing the critical logic link in your analysis, which is that comp rounds actually affect the opinions of the raters, without which your logic would get a big fat "F" on any bluebook in America..  

Why can't you guys see that?  

We can see it.

We can also see, very clearly -- as clearly as I'm sure all of you raters see it -- that absent the confessions of a corrupt rater (if any), there is no way on God's green Earth to *prove* that comp rounds (and other inducements) actually affect the opinions of any individual rater or the raters' panels as a a whole.

You've got that going for you ... which is nice.

And that's a fact.

[David Wigler]

Yes, forgive me.

I can see you are all the exception to the rule.

Frank,

Without debating the merits of the theory, you have reached the wrong conclusion.  I do feel the need to repay the favor.  Gib does as well and explained it thoroughly in his post 6 pages ago.  If a course comps me, I will always buy a shirt, balls, gloves, course book, etc.  I also send a nice card to the course thanking them for hosting me (Paul Richards is the best I have seen at this).  I do not feel obligated in any way to let it affect their rating.  Mike Cirba is right, I have given a bunch of 2's, 3's and 4's to courses that comp'd me completely and 1 of the two 9 1/2 - 10's that I gave, had me pay.  

[Dan Kelly]

John;

In facing your conundrum, what I'll usually do is buy a shirt or something of value in the pro shop to show my appreciation.

Maybe that Rule of Reciprocity isn't so wet, after all -- eh?  

[Frank_Stanger]

Mike Cirba said:

"In facing your conundrum, what I'll usually do is buy a shirt or something of value in the pro shop to show my appreciation.

I don't suggest that as a universal rule, but merely an idea to consider by others."

So perhaps the Rule of Reciprocity is in play...  hmmm.

[THuckaby2]

Of course that's just my opinion, and Huckaby could be wrong.  

Hey wait a second, I had so successfully removed myself from all of this, for several pages now...  

Well done!

TH

ps - I am liking the BBGE system more and more and more.

[Frank_Stanger]

Dave Wigler:

My only point about the Rule of Reciprocity is this:

When someone gives you something of value, people feel a need to do something of similar value in return...  That could mean buying a shirt, balls, a sweater...  Or in other cases, it could have an influence on one's perception of the course one is rating.

I'm not saying comps are wrong or corrupt, but merely that they COULD influence SOME raters in a way proportionate to the perceived value of the "gift".

Ratings are big business, but ratings are just opinions.  

Personally, I find ratings interesting and don't care who gets comped (or even paid) for their opinion.

I do think that publications have an obligation to fully explain their methodolgy (including the fact that some raters may be comped).

Then readers can make up their own minds as to the value of the ratings.



 

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes, forgive me.

I can see you are all the exception to the rule.

Frank,

Without debating the merits of the theory, you have reached the wrong conclusion.  I do feel the need to repay the favor.  Gib does as well and explained it thoroughly in his post 6 pages ago.  If a course comps me, I will always buy a shirt, balls, gloves, course book, etc.  I also send a nice card to the course thanking them for hosting me (Paul Richards is the best I have seen at this).  I do not feel obligated in any way to let it affect their rating.  Mike Cirba is right, I have given a bunch of 2's, 3's and 4's to courses that comp'd me completely and 1 of the two 9 1/2 - 10's that I gave, had me pay.  

Dan/Frank;

I knew you guys would jump on that, but what you view as a conflict of interest I view as being a polite guest.

See David's post above for my views too.

There's a HUGE difference between buying a shirt and selling your conscience.  One is $60, the other is PRICELESS.

[Dan Kelly]

There's a HUGE difference between buying a shirt and selling your conscience.  One is $60, the other is PRICELESS.

Mike --

I very sincerely hope that you know you're not telling me anything there that I haven't known all along.

As I said yesterday: Harry Chapin was wrong.

Dan

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan;

Harry Chapin's point was simply that we all make compromises to some extent from our values in our lives.  In his case, he was referring to having to put on a suit and tie to go and lobby senators in Washington to pass his hunger initiatives.

His point was, sell out for something worthwhile.  

I don't think a course comp falls into that category.

[Forrest Richardson]

• Pro-V-1 with logo made to look like it was created in 1933: $2.99

• Roast beef sandwich served while architect and owners welcome a crowded room of raters: $10.50

• Reading twelve pages of on-line whinning, complaining and dribble about the rating system: Priceless

[Dan Kelly]

• Reading twelve pages of on-line whinning, complaining and dribble about the rating system: Priceless

Well, sure, but the other five pages have been gems.

[Forrest Richardson]

There are a lot of gems! I just haven't gotten through all of the pages yet...!

[Rick Shefchik]

If I were sitting around an editorial room discussing this with the publisher, I'd tell him that there is a potential for a conflict here, both perceived and real, and that it is paramount for the publication to monitor the situation to make sure than comps don't affect ratings.  If a rater's ratings show higher numbers for comped rounds than paid rounds that consistently go against the statistical norms, he should be gone because there is evidence that his numbers are tainted.  For all I know, somebody at each magazine checks into these numbers already.  But there is no point in going to the next step, because it has negative results for the end result -- raters shy away from expensive, but good, courses, and these courses only get rated by raters with the means to play them.  Because the ratings are not "value based", the process sets up for a bad result.  

Shivas --

An easier way to accomplish this would be to reduce the size of the rating panel to a manageable number and pay for their rounds.

[I've re-entered this not to try to change anyone's mind, but because the subject is now journalism, which I also know something about. Mike Cirba -- Sorry i didn't repsond to your challenge to post my list of the Top 50 modern and Classic courses yesterday. I wanted to, but I can't -- I've played just 2 of the Classics, and 4 of the moderns. If that disqualifies me from offering better methods by which the ratings can be compiled, I'll do as you suggested yesterday and shut up.]

[JakaB]

Dan,

When you played that nice new course by Jeff Brauer with Jeff Brauer...were you comped...and do you think that influenced your opinion of the course.   And if you weren't comped..who the hell plays a round with the architect of a course and doesn't get comped...that could explain your attitude.

Did you and RJ receive any special treatment at Sutton Bay...

[Dan Kelly]

In his case, he was referring to having to put on a suit and tie to go and lobby senators in Washington to pass his hunger initiatives.

His point was, sell out for something worthwhile.  

I don't think a course comp falls into that category.

Mike --

If that's what Harry Chapin meant by "selling out," then I guess he wasn't wrong -- just ... silly! (In my opinion. No facts to prove it!)

Of course you don't think a course comp falls into the category of things worthy of "selling out" for! I do wish you would stop implying that those of us who are critical of comped rounds (etc.) are questioning YOUR (Mike Cirba's) integrity. We are not.

I guess, though, I should speak just for myself: I am not. We've never met, in the flesh or on the phone or anywhere but online here, but I nonetheless have no doubt that you would not "sell out" for a course comp. What we are critical of is not you, but of a system that has the potential to compromise the judgments of raters (if any) with values less solid than yours.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan,

When you played that nice new course by Jeff Brauer with Jeff Brauer...were you comped...and do you think that influenced your opinion of the course.   And if you weren't comped..who the hell plays a round with the architect of a course and doesn't get comped...that could explain your attitude.

Did you and RJ receive any special treatment at Sutton Bay...

Yes, I was comped at the Quarry. I was there as an acquaintance of Jeff Brauer, not as a journalist. (I NEVER write about golf, except here, and he knew and knows that.)

Did it change my opinion of the course? No.

Did Dick and I receive any special treatment at Sutton Bay? Yes. The special treatment any one of you will receive if you go there -- but nothing more. We paid for all of our golf, all of our lodgings, all of our meals, all of our purchases in the golf shop. (Mark Amundson might have paid for a beer at the end of our round together. I don't remember for sure.)

[Rick Shefchik]

JakaB --

I was with Dan that day at the Quarry. We were "comped," but it was an unusual situation -- the course wasn't open yet. There was no way to pay for the round that day.

My paper picks up all greens fees and travel expenses when I write about a course, which is about ten times per season (they probably would balk at paying more often than that, so I try to keep the number of pieces I write and the expense incurred as minimal as possible. Most courses I write about are in the Twin Cities, where I live, with greens fees under $50. I understand the issue of a publication's limited resources.)

I probably should have sent a check to The Quarry after they opened, and billed it to my paper, but as I was in Northern Minnesota on vacation at the time and didn't write about the course till later, I didn't bill the paper for the round. Given our discussion here, I will do that if this situation ever arrises again.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()