How many others know of this site?

[Nick Pozaric]

How many other people in the architecture business know about this site besides the ones that are on here?  Do you guys know of any lurkers or anything like that?  The reason I thought about it was because we had someone very well known at our course today thats big in the design businesss and in casual conversation  I asked if he knew about this place and he said no.

[Tim_Weiman]

Nick,

A few years back I spoke to someone well connected in the construction/maintenance segment of the golf industry. He recently attended an industry conference where - in his words - "all everyone was talking about was GCA.....what was said on GCA about the work done at Merion".

So, my guess is that a very high percentage of people in the business are at least aware of this site.

[Robert_Ball]

Nick,

One indication of GCA's popularity is its Google PageRank of 5.  PageRank is a measurement of a site's relative importance on the web based on the number of pages that link to it.  Other sites with a PR of 5 include golfweek.com and the Tour's golfweb.com.  USGA.org and golfdigest.com have a PR of 7.

GCA's PageRank is helping to move it to the top of the search results for some of the more popular terms discussed here.  So, if someone in the business doesn't already know about the site then they probably don't spend much time on the web.  

Robert

[Mike_Cirba]

This thread reminds me of the old adage from my human sexuality professor speaking about male onanism:

1% will admit to it and 99% are liars.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I think if you're in the business of golf courses and you don't know about this web site, you're not paying close enough attention.

[Lou_Duran]

That's what I like so much about this site.  You learn something new all the time.  Thanks again to Mike Cirba.  After consulting my dictionary, I now know what I've been doing here for a few years.

The "serious" golf community is really fairly small.  There is not much that goes on here of substance that goes unnoticed.  Lurkers and informants are everywhere.  Fortunately, I guess, a good portion of the content and all the finger pointing/ "you or so and so suck" is not terribly relevant.

Like with everything else, one sifts through and takes what's good and ignores the bad.  But when what's at least objectively good by many standards is consistently described here as "putrid", then perhaps the site does loose its effectiveness.  Isn't this really the important issue here (its impact), as opposed to its name recognition?