As Tom and Sean alluded to it's much easier to know where one rater's coming from and compare your bias in relief to his. I like Robert Parker's wine reviews. I know he tends to prefer big, high-alcohol upfront fruit-bomb type reds, as do I, so I can pretty much take his recommendations and be confident that I'll have a high hit ratio of those wines that I'll like. The same can be said for the Confidential Guide, although critically the actual write-ups of individual courses are just as insightful, if not more so, than the numerical Doak rating.
It's the amalgamation of these individual biasas where it becomes difficult. Bill, I appreciate your desire to put mathematical rigor to the process. I think it's the all-in-one process that's the issue. Frankly, I think if you simply rated every course on Mike Nuzzo's Fun, Pretty & Challenging scales, or some variation thereof, AND PUBLISHED EACH LIST, then one could target their own biases or cross-reference accordingly. Then a course like Medinah gets it's proper due as one of the top Challenging courses, places like Old Head and Tralee get their due as scenic tracks and courses like Kingsley get recognized on the Fun list. Of course places like Pebble or Pac Dunes which would rate highly on at least 2 of the 3 lists become even more attractive to those who want pretty/challenging or pretty/fun etc..