Has Golfclubatlas.com lost its touch?

[Kyle Harris]

Get out and get some new motivations. I just played Morgan Hill for the first time.

More to come later, but I loved every minute of it.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

The site has lost some interest for me in recent months.  I think a number of factors are in play:

1.  Many of the topics posted and courses most frequently discussed have already been covered to death in past years; that's the reason I didn't write about Augusta or Pebble Beach or Shinnecock in the front of The Confidential Guide.

2.  Also like The Confidential Guide, once you run out of old classic courses you are out of them, and it's very hard to cover so many new courses in the four corners of the earth.  When new courses are discussed, too much of the focus is on "yea" or "nay" instead of on whatever features of the course were really interesting or different.

3.  I'm not sure if Tim Liddy is right that other architects see this as "my" forum, and I'm glad there are a half-dozen other architects who post regularly, but there really need to be more for the site to maintain its interest.  I notice when I discuss architecture with Jeff or Forrest that about half the time it degenerates into "me vs. the Society," which is really not my intent -- maybe I'll have to join the Society just to take that factor out of the picture.

4.  As to the reason that people have stopped posting, I think the posts above have made the primary reason clear -- some of them have managed to get a life!    I have one, too, and I find it hard to maintain a presence here as much as I have.  I would participate less (and find more balance) if I didn't receive encouragement from several people on a regular basis, and if people didn't direct questions to me that I felt bad for missing.  But when I'm on dial-up from Montana, it's hard to make much headway.

5.  Kyle is right, too:  if everyone is posting and no one is out playing golf, we're not expanding our horizons too much and there's nothing new to say.

[Sean Leary]

I don't know if what I am going to say has been mentioned before about O/T posts, and if it has I apologize. It seems like the turnover of adding new people to the DG happens quicker now than in the past, and when that happens, the new people want to contribute after waiting however long to be admitted.  That being said, I think that O/T posts are often times an easy way for newcomers to get their feet wet with posting before they get the courage to ask meaningful questions/ offer opinions regarding architecture.  When this happens, there are so many new posts that interesting ones often get pushed to the back pages. As Pat Mucci notes (sic), if they are going to participate, why join the discussion group if they have nothing to bring to the table?  Well, maybe they do, but are afraid of looking stupid in one of their first posts.  O/T posts maybe allow them a bit of comfort in posting before taking on the sharks, so to speak.

Maybe if Ran slowed the turnover of new posters onto the site would reduce the number of O/T posts.  I don't know.  what I would hate to see happen if for our most prolific posters whom we all learn the most from to stop posting because of what is happening.  I know when I see a post from Messrs. Doak (as well as the other architects), Mucci, Paul,  etc. no matter under what topic it is I am going to read it because of what I can learn.  But I also will read any post by JakaB, Huckaby, Hendren, etc because they are as likely to make me laugh with something they say. And that is part of the reason I l(and many others) look on here.  I think (and hope) that there is room for both.

[Sean Walsh]

I have delayed for quite some time in posting on this thread.

I approached this site from a very low base of GCA knowledge  (some would say it has climbed any higher).  I am sorry if for others here the site "has lost its touch".  It definitely hasn't for me.  I check it every day and learn something from someone more knowledgeable than me every day.  

I can't say whether the site has lost its edge of whether some of the long timers have just seen it all before.  I do know that it is rude and churlish to insinuate that the new blood on the site are a bunch of mindless doak-biased simpletons.  And further to the point that we are ruining their private club.  

The best things about this site have not changed in the two years I've been here.  
*Learning
*Making friends and meeting people from around the world.
*Hearing it straight from the horse's mouth (Thanks to Tom, Mike, Ian, Kelly, Forrest and all the other working architects we have here - not to forget the other professionals that are availble)

IN SHORT -  LIGHTEN UP

[TEPaul]

Sean:

That post of yours is nice---it's encouraging. Thanks!

Churlish??

Wow, that's expressive!

Mindless doak biased simpletons??

My God---a cut so deep as that?!

Keep it up, my boy, you silver-tongued rascal you!

[Sean Walsh]

Tom,

Sorry I obviously can't match your standards of verbosity and am the anchor to which this site is attached.

[David Ober]

Tom,

Sorry I obviously can't match your standards of verbosity and am the anchor to which this site is attached.

Yes, but you clearly know that it's (generally) improper to end a sentence with a preposition!  Well done!

[Dan_Callahan]

I check this site daily and enjoy virtually all of the threads—include those that are OT. Having said that, it was Geoffrey Childs' ongoing documentation of the goings on at Yale that first drew me here. Since he stopped posting, I don't think anything of comparable depth and passion has taken its place.

For someone such as myself who came to this site with very little knowledge about GCA, those threads were a goldmine—they included history, architecture, politics and everything that is good (and bad) about restoring a classic course. The best thing about them was that there was a point to them, and they stayed on topic for a period of months. Geoffrey was on a crusade, and it made for captivating reading as he compared photos from the original course to the Rulewich "restoration."

Today's posts tend to be more like a discussion you would have in a bar. Topics seem to appear spontaneously without context, linger for a few moments, and then disappear without notice. When you wake up the next day, you can't even remember what was said.

[Mike_Golden]

As someone who has gone from a daily reader and fairly regular participant to a very occasional glance at best I think all you have to do is look at the thread on Classic Golf course ratings to see all that is tedious and boring with GCA-the constant restatement of the same position, the veiled comments about people taking advantage of positions as raters to play free golf, the blah, blah, blah, blah......

I've pretty much given up participating here because it's no longer fun, no longer interesting.  In reality, the only topics that have any interest (or humor) are the O/T ones, the ones the cognescenti believe should be done away with.

As for me, I got involved in internet golf architecture in what seems like ancient times, have made some lasting friendships, had some very memorable experiences at places I had never expected to visit, and, actually learned something about the design of golf courses which has actually helped my golf game and enhanced my perspective while on a course.

I suppose that's enough even if there's nothing more to look forward to regarding this site.

[TEPaul]

Mike Golden!

Goodness gracious, how I live and breath. Yours is an impressive name to see on here again.

GOLFCLUATLASERS, this man Mike Golden has been on these golf architectural websites for as long as anyone can remember. I think he even started the first one ever known. Some say his primary influence was Pugin, Rushkin and Morris, the A/C Movement, Horace Hutchinson and Country Life Magazine. Those were back in the good old days known as "Arts and Crafts Golf".

[Mike_Golden]

TE Paul,

I suppose for someone as well read, traveled and experienced as you it must feel like slumming to have posted in this esteemed community over 21,000 times in the past 6 years or so and have to bear the brunt of reading tripe from someone as poorly educated and unworldly as you must think I am.

Of course, if you had any sense at all (or one fewer martini tonight) you would have taken my comments as a fond remembrance of some very nice times in my life that go back to 1996 or so, right after Al Gore invented the internet.  Bye.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

I was thinking the same thing when I saw your name Mike, that you go back a long ways in this game.  Even thought neither of us post much anymore, it was good to hear from you again.

A blast from the past.

It also makes me feel not so insignificant to see that you have been here as long as I have and dont have over 1000 posts.  I am always struck when I see new guys on here that already have more posts than me.  I guess you are a firm believer in quality over quantity.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I don't know how to take that last post. But I'll tell you one thing that I don't want you to ever forget--not ever.

In my entire long and odd life, have I ever, at any time, had a martini. I once smelled the fumes coming out of that kind of bottle but I swear I have never, ever, taken a sip of that, that, that, KaKa. That stuff can make you mean.

[TEPaul]

Turboe!

My Lord, those were the days, weren't they?

[Emmy]

Dear Fellow GCAers,

Has the site lost its touch? That's impossible, especially with this alert and spirited fraternity.

Occasionally, when I've been in the middle of a work assignment, the GCA site has served well as a resource center.

To those GCAers steadily contributing information on golf course design, thank you. To those contributing otherwise, thanks for the insight on GCA fraternity living!

[Jesse Jones]

     As a new member I enjoy the some of the O/T stuff.
I agree with some of the posters that it takes a while to get to figure out the pace of conversations, learn who is bickering against who and knowing what and when to say it.
      I am not a professional in the golf world, but I consider myself a student of the game.
      And you can be nothing but fascinated by the discussions about Golf Course Architecture found here.
       As I continue to study this subject, I will post more comments.

[Darren_Kilfara]

I think everyone has his own personal tipping point when GolfClubAtlas begins to seem repetitive, unconstructive and/or uninteresting. That can be the case because you become frustrated with the discussions and wish they moved in a different direction in terms of tone or content, or equally it can be because you run out of interesting things to say (and probably become more likely to contribute to OT threads, simply because you *can* contribute to them). For these people, the most honest answer to the question Tom asks should really be, "It's not you, it's me."

Thankfully, there are always new posters who are nowhere near that tipping point, and there are always regular posters (like yourself, Tom) whose tipping points aren't like to ever be discovered, so interested are they in the subject matter. For these contributors, GolfClubAtlas will remain an exciting place for quite some time. In that sense, I would echo those posters to this thread who have talked about the natural evolution of the site - people come, people go, people get reenergized about GCA, people "get a life" or don't have the time or interest they once did, and all of that is perfectly normal. You can't expect the composition of any large group - business, church, golf club, internet forum - to remain constant over time.

Me, while I am still supremely excited to discover new golf courses and learn things about old ones - still rather more than I was before I first found this website, in fact - I am rather less interested than I used to be in talking about them on an internet forum. I haven't played golf since September for various reasons, and until the last week or so I'd been on virtual hiatus from the group since then. I can't say that I really missed it, and upon returning, I discovered that most of the topics being discussed are virtually the same (or familiar variations on an old theme) as they were before I left. I'm glad that the forum is still here, and I know I'll still pop in from time to time to ask the odd question - knowing that I'll get informed responses from posters both old and new - and even provide the odd answer where I can. Who knows, maybe I'll even become reenergized and want to participate more regularly again. But at the moment I don't think I have anything interesting to say that I haven't already said many times before, and trying to learn about golf course architecture here feels more like work than pleasure.

Of course, that's just my story. Not too long ago, I might have tried to interpret my feelings as a definitive judgement about GolfClubAtlas in general. Now, though, I think I know better than that: I can make that judgement for myself, but I wouldn't dare suggest that others need view the site in the same way. And thank goodness for that, I say!

Cheers,
Darren

[Joe Hancock]

I don't know how many of you have ever browsed through the list of registered users of the discussion group. One thing that stands out is the number of regitered users who have little or no posts.

Some of those RU's have been here for years, so that makes me wonder:

1) Is posting a lot of work for some personality types?

2) Is anyone monitoring that list to try to cull the inactive members?

3) If the percent of active posters is, say, 20% of all RU's now, has it always been similar even when there were more RU's?


I won't add any more thoughts at this time, as most of the logical discussion concerning the DG has been posted by others above.

Joe

EDIT: I lied, I do have one more thought to add. I have learned a ton here, but I have laughed a lot too, and that's a good thing. OT threads like "embarrassing moments on a course" with Barney, Shivas and David Cronan's wacky world experiences are unforgettable IMO.

[SL_Solow]

Its hard to believe that I have been posting for more than 4 years.  The relatively small number of posts attributed to me are a result both of a (fortunately) busy work schedule and of my sense that I am here to learn and that I should  only contribute when I think I have something valuable to add or, on rare occaision, when I can't resist a cheap shot at a friend.  I too have noted that we have lost the active participation of a number of valuable contributors who are also good friends and I miss them.  However we should resist the temptation to conclude that the sky is falling.  While the site can certainly be improved, there remains much of value.  Allow me to make the following observations.
    1.  Turnover in a group such as this is inevitable.  People find other interests.  Conflicts arise among members that may be deemed not worth the effort to overcome or endure. As in all things human, change is a constant.  Thus while we should seek to retain the interest and participation of all our friends, we must expect and understand that turnover will occur.
    2.  This is a discussion group.  Discussion implies conflict.  If everyone agreed on all things, boredom would ensue in a matter of minutes.  Thus those who are upset that their positions get attacked are less interested in discussion then they are in confirmation of their own opinions or acknowledgement of their expertise.  Unfortunately none of us are that good so we should all expect to get attacked, even some of our iconic opinion leaders.  Having said that, we should remember that we are, in the final analysis, a group of friends talking about a subject of common interest.  Thus we should strive for a level of civility that will encourage people to participate.  It is entirely possible to attack someone's position without resorting to personal attacks.  Those who have observed that there appears to be a "majority position" on most issues are correct; it would be unusual if there were not.  But those taking a minority position must be treated with respect.  They are entitled to their opinion, it may be valid in certain cases, and in any event, without the dissenters there would be nothing to talk about in a very short time.  Moreover, notwithstanding any philosophical disagreement, they are our friends.
    3.  While new threads are the lifeblood of any discussion group, those posting should seek to make them interesting.  "Junk" threads are nothing more than distractions and space eaters.  No points are given for starting threads that push more interesting matters off the front page.  No, I am not revisiting the "off topic" issue, I have already had my say.  I am directing this observation to the vast number of "throw away " topics that are posted on an ever increasing frequency.
    4.   As long as I am on the topic of pet taboos, we should remember that while this is an excellent place to meet people and make friends, it is not a place to troll for invitations to golf courses.  Most of us who have spent time here have developed friendships which often result in friendly rounds at a variety of venues.  But those are incidental benefits flowing from the friendships made and are not the result of calculated attempts to get on highly rated courses.  Many regulars have developed "radar" to detect this activity and it can be tiresome.  It may even drive some people away.

   I have gone on too long.  This forum remains a great place to meet like minded people and to learn about golf course architecture.  Ran has given us a wonderful opportunity and a structure that has served us well.  If we remember the central purpose of the site and treat each other with the respect we would ordinarily give to friends and colleagues it will continue to be a source of education and enjoyment for a long time.  Moreover, if we abide by these principles, it will become unnecessary for us to seek help from an administrator in policing the site.  I look forward to a continuing dialogue.

[Tom Huckaby]

Shel:

That is all very wise, and each of your points should be taken to heart.

I just have to ask you though:  review page one right now - which topics would you consider "throw-away"?  I swear, the only two I see are this one, and Sweeney's reaction thread to it.  So sure, when there are too many of those, it's not a good thing.  I guess I just don't see this as the big issue that others do... because I also have zero problem making the one extra click to get to page two.  

Point #4 is very important.  But I do believe there is a self-policing mechanism for this, as access-trollers do get rooted out pretty quickly.  Still, it is a royal pain for the besieged, so this is an issue that requires constant vigilence.

TH

[SL_Solow]

Huck; thanks for the kind words.  As of now, there are fewer OT threads.  But about 10 days ago, we were innundated.  Our good friend Pat called the group out and notwithstanding the heated debate, it appears that there has been at least a short term abatement.  My note was a reminder.  We'll never be rid of OTs completely and they can be fun.  But the focus of this group should be on that which brought us together.  Thus my comment.

[Tom Huckaby]

Huck; thanks for the kind words.  As of now, there are fewer OT threads.  But about 10 days ago, we were innundated.  Our good friend Pat called the group out and notwithstanding the heated debate, it appears that there has been at least a short term abatement.  My note was a reminder.  We'll never be rid of OTs completely and they can be fun.  But the focus of this group should be on that which brought us together.  Thus my comment.

More sage counsel - well said.  I'd just hate to give the credit to Mucci for this.  

[John_Cullum]

More sage counsel - well said.  I'd just hate to give the credit to Mucci for this.  

You don't have to. Two-thirds of that OT stuff was just Gracely making the same point, and of course he got lambasted by Pat who failed to see it for what it was.

[Joe Hancock]

John,

I didn't see it that way, nor do I remember BG saying 2/3 of anything he posted was to make a point. Rather, I remember him saying his "Wind" thread was to make a point about rehashing topics, as well as it being an obvious and transparent jab at Pat.

BG actually tried to defend his posts as being legitimate threads.

But, maybe my memory is poor.

Joe

[John_Cullum]

Joe

Do you really think Brian was interested in how cars get parked in the parking lots of the most exclusive clubs?