[paul cowley]

I think this discussion group could use a little new blood....and at a greater pace than what we are normally receiving them.
Building the group up to around three thousand seems like a good target.....but what say yea?

[cary lichtenstein]

only a little?

[ed_getka]

Paul,
   I don't think so. There is a steady core that is here, and the rest come in hang out for a year or so and then leave again. They are probably more sane than us.

[paul cowley]

I am curious to know how many people [if any ], are on the waiting list....if there are many, maybe we could have a one time amnesty program and allow them in [with proper documentation of course].

Who knows...there might be someone out there right now.....someone who is just waiting as I type this.... someone who might even have the answer to the Merion thread..........and we are just sitting here.........clueless .

[Kyle Harris]

Paul,

Both points in your last sentence are mutually exclusive.

[Jon Earl]

Who knows...there might be someone out there right now.....someone who is just waiting as I type this.... someone who might even have the answer to the Merion thread..........and we are just sitting here.........clueless .

Surely only God knows the answer?

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I couldn't agree with you more about that. I never was a fan of this registration limit anyway. This is the Internet---I say let anyone contribute on here, 3,000, 30,000 who cares?

We are inbred, severely so, and the fact is there are about ten times more hits and "viewers" than those who are registered and allowed to post on here. Ran and some of us have always been a aware of that and a bit more than a little fascinated by it and curious about it.

Do some of those who view those who contribute on here think we are a bunch of wackos? There's no question about it as a number of them have been telling me that for years.

I say let them come on here and tell us what they think, where they think we are right or wrong.

And do you know why? It's because they are the real world, not us. As you say, we are nothing more than this teeny little inbred slice of it.

"Golf and golf architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone."

It's a "Big World" in golf and golf architecture, and I for one, see no reason at all not to invite that entire "Big World" to contribute their opinions on golf and architecture and even on us onto this website if they feel like it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul and TE,

Ask yourselves, was the site better before or after the Sports Illustrated article ?

Did the growth in the number of participants diminish the quality of the discussions ?

[paul cowley]

Patrick it would be hard for me to make the comparison as that is right about the time I discovered the site. I look to you and Tom to be more of the vanguard for quality here. I participate to learn, but probably more for the humor and camaraderie.
Rather than me pontificating about what I think, I would much prefer people play my courses so they can find out for themselves....that said, I need to get out to build a course [and no, I do not have bankers hours, I'm on the west coast ].

[JeffTodd]

While I am a bit of a wallflower here I would caution against opening the flood gates. From my limited experience on other sites I've found that nothing will send a message board spiraling into the abyss like a rapid influx of new members. Typically, the vanguards of board content (usually only a few dozen people in practice) are slowly but steadily overwhelmed by new voices, and the quantity of off topic posting increases while the quality of on topic discussion goes downhill. Not long thereafter the old guard becomes frustrated, decreases their posting frequency, and the new members essentially take over.

If you like the personality of this board then I think you'd be wise to advocate a very gradual increase in new membership. New blood can be a good thing, but when too much arrives too quickly the character of the site can be compromised in a very short span of time, and there is no going back.

[JESII]

Many of you long-timers frequently lament the lack of postings from some of your favorite one-time posters...that is primarily the result of the actively participating group and non-participating audience getting larger. Why would they want to weigh into a public debate with me? What could he have to gain?

Not sure what the right answer is, but a segmented OT section would help the clutter...so would a 'one-page per day' rule so that once 20 new threads are begun, one has to be cut off before another can come on.

[Jim Sweeney]

Very ironic that this topic is up today because just as I was opening GCA I was asking myself what I have been learning here lately.

On the other hand, I do enjoy the voyeristic aspect of seeing pics of courses I have yet to play.

[Robert Thompson]

More participants equals more posts equals more bandwidth and space to store thousands more messages. Since there is a thread about contributions four below this one at the moment, I think some of you might note that more people probably equals a bigger cost.

Maybe if there were less posts about college football and other topics that have nothing to do with this group, you could admit a few more people.

[RJ_Daley]

The OT posts are the most indicative of inbred nature of the forum.  We all know each other, know where the other guy's goat is tied, and constantly pull each other's chain, be it politics, sports, or culture.  When a topic like Merion breaks out, the responses and answers are 90% predictable.  

But, just reading the above ideas, the issue has two very good cases to be made for and against. This same topic is discussed every off-season.  Many of us not able to get out to play and see new courses get daffy (more so) in winter.  Although as a northerner, I already have 4 rounds in in 2007, it isn't the same as being able to really go somewhere regionally and experience new or interesting architecture.  So, we get into food fights, and long debates about the BCS and such.  tis the season...  We usually get over it and back on track later in spring.  Yet, we get interesting posts in the winter as well like the Riviera and Rustic comments.

I guess I come down on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".  That said with the caveat that we should let others who are waiting to get their 2 cents in, post.  The moderators may have to nix and nip in the bud early, any flame throwers and forum disrupters, as we have had some of those in the past.

[Jeff Doerr]

Paul,

I don't think the waiting list is really a problem. In my time watching and then joining the process worked pretty well.

I love the GCA threads and have tried to contribute some in my early time here on the board.

The who, how, why, where discussions are great.

[PThomas]

...I think things are fine as is

[John Kirk]

I also think things are fine.

When active new members are added, we often rehash many of the same, simple topics as we "educate" the newcomers with some of the group's general philosophies.

With (all due) respect to Patrick, the site was probably better before the Sports Illustrated article (and before me) because the site was new and less ground had been covered.  Golf course architecture is a finite subject, and we've probably studied it in more detail than anybody.  It's getting harder to delve further while keeping it interesting.

A big weakness is the lack of serious analysis of courses by Nicklaus, Fazio, and other prominent modern architects not named Tom, Bill, or Ben.  Furthermore, constructive criticism of course design (or maintenance) is disappearing.  Why is this happening?  First of all, some posters lack the finesse required to criticize without offending the club and its members.  Similarly, the club and its members are easily offended, and GCA members are reluctant to risk alienation.

Finally, there are gentlemen here with very desirable private memberships, and they are constantly fielding requests for access.  I do not want to see that burden increased.  

[Lou_Duran]

Is inbreeding really the problem?  I think it has more to do with natural tendencies toward factions and cliques, and the conformity that these bring.  There are highly predictable patterns relative to who participates on any given thread based on who starts it and the immdiate replies as opposed to the subject matter.  Since human nature is not readily prone to change, little can be done about it.  Adding people on a regular basis may keep it fresher, but unless we can go off topic, the threads and commentary become repetitive for most who've been here awhile.

 

[John Kavanaugh]

There are around 50 posters on this site..I think there is room for more.  Two things are difficult..It is tough to critique the positive and difficult to remain interesting and creative for four or five straight years.  I throw alot out there and some sticks and some doesn't.  I get just enough feedback that I keep coming back for more but the playing perks ain't bad either, come to think of it.  Next time you see a newbie make a point give him a little kiss if you want him back..We might get a good longterm poster out of it.

[Brian Noser]

John if you throw enough s%^& some of it is bound to sitck.. . I am a newbie when it comes to this stuff. If I see something that strkes me the wrong way I post or if I see somehitng I actually know I will post. My main pet peave is the distance threads (Ie punish the long hitter to make it fair)Mostly I like to read some of the stuff and look at the pics you all post. If you add more people, like some one said add a few at a time not thousands.

[Kalen Braley]

As a newcomer to this site, I think it would benefit greatly by having different sections to make posts in. Sections such as:

Course maintainence
Off Topic
New Courses
Ratings
etc, etc

What these categorys are in the final say would be up to Ran and Co, but it would make the site alot more user-friendly and allow people to really focus in on what they want to chat/learn about!!

Just my two cents.

[Mike_Cirba]

John if you throw enough s%^& some of it is bound to sitck.. . I am a newbie when it comes to this stuff. If I see something that strkes me the wrong way I post or if I see somehitng I actually know I will post. My main pet peave is the distance threads (Ie punish the long hitter to make it fair)Mostly I like to read some of the stuff and look at the pics you all post. If you add more people, like some one said add a few at a time not thousands.

Brian,

How does reducing overall distance for everyone "punish the long hitter to make it fair"?

Thanks

[John Kavanaugh]

Brian,

As you can tell by Cirba jumping on your comment, there is a good news/bad news reality to this site for good players as follows:

The bad news is that long hitting good players are seen as ignorant babboons who simply kill the ball, chip up and putt, sometimes poorly because they are ignorant of subtleties...then jump in a cart and move on.

The good news is that everybody else are hacks..

I have always found that students of architecture play several muligans and always seem to critique the negative not because they choose too but because that is where their game takes them.  A poor player will always have more options on a hole than a good player and thus find it easier to pull the good player back into their world rather than take the time to become better themselves.   It is simple human nature that crosses over into more fields than golf.  Just keep hitting it solid and laugh your way into the bar.

[Jerry Kluger]

Perhaps there is a reluctance to post on GCA because some people simply don't like getting ridiculed on a public forum.  You aren't sitting down and having a private conversation over a drink or over the telephone - your words are being read by as many as 1500 people.  People can be wrong and their errors can be noted without a personal attack.  1500 people can bring enough knowledge and insight to a subject to keep the discussion interesting provided they are not hesitant to do so.

[Jordan Wall]

...I think things are fine as is

I agree.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()