Shackelford Fireballs RANKERS

[Tom Huckaby]

George:

Your asking hymn songs of the choir here, at least to me.  I admit my many shortcomings all the time.  If you read all this - and again I sure don't blame you for not doing so - you'd see I fully admit that at least part of my arguments stem from self-interest, that I enjoy the perks involved in being a rater, that I do it for fun and for access to more golf, that I find many flaws in the system.

I'm just not going to admit something that isn't true.  Neither is shivas.  And I believe both of us are intelligent enough to understand the mechanics of all of this.

In any case, I'll reiterate my bottom line on this issue:  I do believe some raters do let their play effect their assessments.  But I'd guess such are in the great minority.

Interesting too in that I'd guess I know most, if not all, of the same people you do, in this rating game.  And my take on this stands.

TH

[George Pazin]

I agree it's a minority, but it's probably not as small as you and Shivas think. Even if it is, those few might be enough to sway things. We'll have to put in a call to statistician Brent Hutto to let us know what percentage of rankers have to be swayed to have a significant effect on the end result.

I'd make a lousy rater, if for no other reason than, in my own hardheadedness, I'd ignore all the criteria of the magazine and instead use my own, number one of which would of course be ease of walkability. And number two would have to be how accomodating is the course to bogey golfers.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dave M.:

Unlike my friend shivas apparently, I've fully acknowledged that such conflict - regarding comps and the like - can, and does exist, and the effect would be inflated ratings, or not.  I just believe it's a necessary very practical part of the system, given the magazines are not going to start paying for raters' green fees, and thus we do our best to overcome it.  But we've beaten that to death - no need to go into that again now.  Not with me anyway.  

What I was talking about here is how ones PLAY effects ones assessment (which I think I made very clear, but hey, among my admissions is that I often fail to convey exactly what I mean).  And again, on that issue alone, I'd like to think we know ourselves better than you do, and our fellow raters at least as well.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

I agree it's a minority, but it's probably not as small as you and Shivas think. Even if it is, those few might be enough to sway things. We'll have to put in a call to statistician Brent Hutto to let us know what percentage of rankers have to be swayed to have a significant effect on the end result.

I'd make a lousy rater, if for no other reason than, in my own hardheadedness, I'd ignore all the criteria of the magazine and instead use my own, number one of which would of course be ease of walkability. And number two would have to be how accomodating is the course to bogey golfers.

George - fair enough.  So we can disagree on the percentage.  I just bet if we went over this one by one re the people we know, we'd agree on damn near everyone.  So I find it's strange our percentages would come out differently... but maybe that's due to my sunny belief in the goodness and honorability of my fellow man.

As for you, heck, those are two criteria for GD.  We need you, brother.  

TH

[Dan Kelly]

I could be wrong in this inference, but I don't think so, and it's my opinion that matters most to me.

Reminds me of recent story in "my" column, under the heading "Ask a silly question...":

Writes Al B of Hartland: “A friend and I were having a good-natured but spirited discussion about politics.

“As friends, we are able to argue without animosity, while making it clear that the other is a complete nincompoop who knows nothing and suspects very little.

“After he made a statement that I could not believe he would make, I protested: ‘How can you say that? Don’t you ever read the newspapers?’

“ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘I don’t read enough to spoil my opinions.’ ”

[A_Clay_Man]

David, I didn't mean to interject me personally. I meant the royal "I" Which I just made up. But you can consider it similar to the royal we.

I'm very familiar with perceptons of impropiety issues.  Under DM's strict definition of conflict of interest (make that my interpretation of his strict interpretation) the magazine should not accept advertising revenue from any course considered to be eligible for any list, the magazine should concoct. Is that correct David?

Since we are not employees of the magazine how is there a CI?

[Rick Shefchik]

Dave, it's not that simple.

Have you ever seen a restaurant reviewed in a newspaper and seen an advertisement from that same restaurant in the same newspaper, either before or afterwards?

Stew on that.  Money is fungible.  This ISmore complicated than you think...

Shivas --

I've stewed on that for a while, and I'm still not sure what point you're making here. At our newspaper, restaurants will often advertise with us before or after being reviewed. The reviewer doesn't know whether the restaurant is an advertiser, and the restaurant doesn't know who the reviewer is because she pays for her own meal and doesn't announce herself to them. If the restaurant owner likes the review he or she might be more likely to advertise with us, and if it's a negative review, we certainly run the risk of never seeing a dollar of that restaurant's advertising budget again. But how we review a restaurant and whether they advertise are totally independent decisions, as they must be if our reviews are to have any credibility.

[Jerry Kluger]

DM: If raters never paid for playing any course would it be fair to say that the playing field would then be even?  No rater in his right mind would ask what the guest fee is that he isn't paying in order to see what he is getting for nothing, so all courses would be on equal footing.  I also cannot imagine that a rater would take something of significant value from a course for nothing - a yardage book would be okay but a shirt, etc. would be wrong.  

One difference with golf courses versus restaurant besides the obvious fact that raters are a panel versus an individual reviewer, is that except for new courses, the rater is playing a course that has been reviewed by others and might be influenced by their opinion - then again he might not.  

[Matt_Ward]

Jerry K:

As an FYI -- Digest had to institute a "Ethics Code" when major violations took place when Shadow Creek magically elevated itself into the First Ten of courses for America's 100 Greatest soon after the layout opened years ago.

There was much talk / conjecture that certain raters were specifically targeted and brought to the facility for a "up close inspection." Not only did Digest go with a Ethics Code but also saw fit to insert such architectural wonderful categories as "Tradition" and bonus points for "Walking." Clearly, a reaction to the elevation of Shadow Creek and meant as a protection against the sudden rise of other newer courses. What's funny is that Digest created the two additional categories as a way to thrwart the unpredicatble nature of the raters it had specifically included for the sole purpose in identifying the best of American golf.

Let me also point out that many of the architects who take seriously such ratings are very aware of who certain raters are and make it a point to forward them "updates" on what is happening with their given projects and even assist with their wherewithal to come for a visit and play the course. Digest has since made it a point to avoid this "stacking the deck" with assigned layouts for people to play. If memory serves -- I believe Golfweek tries to do likewise. Still, the linkage between certain raters and their "favorite" architects is an issue that bears observing and can cause issues of fairness -- especially for those architects / courses that don't fly high on the name recognition totem pole.

Jerry, there are a number of raters who play it straight and simply offer their own opinion without any connection to either the architect, the developer or in group fashion with other raters. No doubt the idea that raters are comped canlead some people to believe that they are compromised because of such an acceptance.

Nonetheless, as I stated on a different thread but on a related topic, it is quite possible for a single individual to provide the reviews and simply remain away from the contamination mentioned by others on this thread. In short -- an architectural critic could do the job for a major publication today -- provided such a critic is not actively involved in the golf design business themselves. The appearance issue is still a real one IMHO and a clear wall would need be created.

In today's 24 / 7 information age the need for raters to scout the landscape is no where near the need it once was when such information on all the unique courses was truly limited. That's not the case today. There are no hidden fishing holes out there today. Word on any significant course today spreads like wild fire whether it be in New Zealand or New Jersey.

The magazines could then handle all aspects internally, pay for all fees and simply write reviews without any credible person or facility saying that some sort of chicanery was involved. Coverage of al the new developments / happenings would not be compromised or in any way be a logistical issue.

Too many times it is raters themselves who see their role as being indispensable -- that's clearly a matter of self interest trumpeting over the general interest IMHO.

[Jerry Kluger]

Matt: The raters who I have met appear to take the job seriously and are respectful of the people they come in contact with when they are given access to a course.  I have heard of instances where raters have a high and mighty attitude which I think does no one any good.  

[Mike_Young]

Matt,
I know of one name that is becoming a signature in some circles that almost assures the prospective client that he will bring them a "best new" GD rating if they use him.  And I don't blame him if I could pull it off.  
But the other thing that has not been mentioned in this thread.....do any of us know if the actual raters opinions are tallied and used if they don't calculate as needed by the magazine.  
"give those raters comps"

[A_Clay_Man]

Shiv, You should set it up at RC. maybe they will comp?

David M,  I'm not a journalist, and it aint my system. As I said way earlier. Internal controls should easily spot any abuses of the privledge. And BTW, it was a privledge to be asked to join. The rest is all self-respect, and goes like this.....I go, I pay, I dont pay, it is all the same. I assign a rating. Repeat. This is not rocket science. If thats a lame argument, there will be no apeasing, whatever, wherever, that holier than thou attitude you continually nudge into the discussion came from.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Moriarty

Please set up a round for Shivas at Rustic Canyon.  Maybe his negative comments about the course can be taken more seriously when he actually sees the back nine this time.

[ForkaB]

Great idea, Mr. Hearst!

I suggest that Judge Judy be the match referee.