There seems to be a presumption that any change in a golf course is for the better. For instance, if a green is softened, it must be too severe. If a green is made more severe, it must have been too soft. If a fairway was widened it must have been too narrow.
A change can be made by one person with the authority to do so. It does not always make it right. So I won't assume that changes in Dismal River were made for the better. Maybe they were received by more people as better, but that does not make it better in my or another's mind. In fact, I often think changes that appeal to the masses diminish the uniqueness of golf courses and make golf much more boring. They may improve your rankings on Golf Digest, but that means little to me (although I definitely understand their importance to the average golfer).
For instance, I ran a trip of 28 guys to Bandon last September. Afterwards, I asked most everyone what they liked and disliked about the golf courses. Thankfully Mike Keiser is not prone to making suggestions based upon complaints, because I thought some of the changes would have been harmful.
At Pacific Dunes, the fairway bunker on #4 would not encroach the fairway so much as many guys complained that the drive was too narrow and #16 would not have as severe of a green complex because people thought it was unfair. At Bandon Trails, the second bunker on #6 would be gone and the green complex on #14 would be less severe. In my opinion, none of these changes would make the courses better, but several reasonable people made these comments. Meanwhile, I did not hear a thing about #9 at Bandon Dunes which I think is the weakest (and most boring) hole at the resort.
As Mackenzie said in response to the lack of criticism toward Cypress Point - "I had been so accustomed to having our best holes torn to pieces that I was actually disturbed at the lack of criticism" Thankfully architects take chances with their designs. Without them, the uniqueness of some golf courses would be lost.