The point of rankings

[Mike Sweeney]

Oh, btw:  I thought you were a founding member of the Links rating staff.

Sadly, I did think of this after I posted, but I was on my way to Animal Kingdom with the kids, so you got me. Of course using the word "staff" is a litttttle bit of a stretch for an online survey that I filled out for golf buddy. That said, if Tom sends me one of those rater cards and it gets me on Pine Valley, you can refer to me as a Links "staff member" down the road. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Oh, btw:  I thought you were a founding member of the Links rating staff.

Sadly, I did think of this after I posted, but I was on my way to Animal Kingdom with the kids, so you got me. Of course using the word "staff" is a litttttle bit of a stretch for an online survey that I filled out for golf buddy. That said, if Tom sends me one of those rater cards and it gets me on Pine Valley, you can refer to me as a Links "staff member" down the road. 

No problems.  I do believe that me and Dan King are the only two guys left in the world who couldn't tell you the ten best courses that they have ever played.  You are not alone.

Tom has been very clear in his recent postings that there are staff raters and public raters.  You of the chosen ones carry some weight beyond the unwashed masses.  What, I don't know.

[David Davis]

Rankings sell ads they don't sell magazines.

Here is the online data for US traffic as ranked by Quantcast:

Golf Week #6239 - http://www.quantcast.com/golfweek.com

Golf Week Rankings #67,613 - http://www.quantcast.com/golfweekrankings.com

Golf Club Atlas #71,516 - http://www.quantcast.com/golfclubatlas.com

Rater for me, for fun, but not for websites/magazines.

Mike,

Thank you for showing hard proof that ratings do not sell magazines or even increase page views.  After reviewing both Golfweek and Digest it appears that equipment sells Digest and tournaments sell Golfweek.

Please everyone take a look at the Golfweek numbers.  You will see zero spike when the Rankings were posted in March.  What you do see are spikes during the majors and a blip before Christmas.  Same for Digest except the Christmas issue is off the charts.

http://www.quantcast.com/golfweek.com

It is also fun to search the city where you live and see how many cookies are being had.

Oh, btw:  I thought you were a founding member of the Links rating staff.

John,

What am I missing here? How are you drawing the conclusion that rankings don't sell magazines based on Golfweek's online stats?

There would seem to be a lot of missing variables here. Living in Europe I don't really know much about Golf Week. I don't believe it is distributed in The Netherlands. I've never heard about their rankings for example. However, Golf Magazine, Golf Digest and Golf World (in the UK) seem to have the most following in terms of their rankings issues.

It makes perfect sense that equipment reviews, majors and "ratings" would be the number one sellers but I don't remember anyone saying rankings were the #1 seller, just that they helped sell magazines and ads and drive traffic. I'm certain there is proof to back this up.

Perhaps all the diehard golfers that are into rankings are already subscribed to these magazines and it's only the once a month weekend hacks, the non golf lifestyle audience that dream of cool equipment and watch 4 tournaments a year that drive these extra sales and traffic spikes you are using to prove your own point, be it wrong or right. Just saying, lots of variables and no way to draw the conclusion you are making based on those web traffic reports.

[Mike Sweeney]

Tom has been very clear in his recent postings that there are staff raters and public raters.  You of the chosen ones carry some weight beyond the unwashed masses.  What, I don't know.

It appears that I did not make the cut onto the "A Team" at Links. 

As you now know my secret sauce about internet traffic, perhaps you can start your own panel and I can make you king!!

Headed to the pool now so it will have to wait till after dinner.

[John Kavanaugh]

David,

If the magazines were blank pages I do believe that fewer would sell.  I don't believe that if ranking panels were disbanded and organized rankings never published again in the manner they are now that one subscription would be lost.  Absent fired raters off course.

Doesn't it make some sense to you that if rankings were even a small part of why magazines sell you would see a spike in internet hits when the rankings are published?  The data shows zero additional interest.  As a matter of fact hits went down on the days following the posting of the latest rankings on the Golfweek site.

I just spent two weeks in New York and didn't see a newsstand selling magazines, the box stores that sell magazines are closing and even some grocery stores are closing the magazine isles.  The only place I know to buy a magazine is in an airport.  Have you ever watched people buy magazines in airports?  Do you really believe that a guy who is deciding between Maxim, Mens Health, Car & Driver or Golf Digest gives a damn about if that issue is a rankings issue or not?  What possible scenario can you dream where a consumer chooses a golf magazine because it is a rankings issue?  How many times would this scenario need to occur over all the airports in the world on any given month to make it substantial towards sales?  Please, just one example how rankings sell magazines.

Wait till next March or so when Digest comes out with their Rankings issue of once every two years.  It's hilarious to watch the guys on this site beg for a post of the list so they don't dare have to buy a copy.  We will even get reports from guys who go to where it is being sold and report back without paying. The best of all is the thread started by a Golfweek rater, commented on by Golfweek raters and trashed by...you get it by now.  Raters love rankings and that is it...but you already get that.

[Brad Wilbur]

I just checked, and this is the fourth worst thread on the front page.

[John Kavanaugh]

It's important that I make it very clear that I do not want magazines to quit ranking courses or disband their corps.  I have far too many friends who find pleasure from the exercise and respect for those who administer the programs.  Rankings are very good for the magazines they just don't increase sales of the damn things.

Brad,

I didn't start this thread and have refrained from starting similar ones like "Why do magazines sell?" or "Is marketing by ranking a textbook failure?".  What surprises me most is that Dan King cares about the point of rankings.  Why would he of all people start a rankings thread?  Is he a Ron M. minion?  Am I going to have to pay up come Monday?  I'm getting nervous.

[Matthew Petersen]

I find the question almost comical. Humans are hard-wired to rank virtually everything in our lives.

A couple people mentioned Hi Fidelity, which is a good example of a character who takes that urge to the extreme, but everyone does this. We all like to reminisce about the finest things we have enjoyed. Meals, golf courses, vacations, and on and on. So we rank things. Golfers, at all levels, golf courses, golf destinations, etc.

We all do this, so is it any wonder it slips into magazines and web sites? How are golf course rankings different than the millions of best of lists every music magazine runs? Or Time naming a Person of the Year? Or all the movie ranking discussions. Ranking is what we do.

[John Kavanaugh]

I find the question almost comical. Humans are hard-wired to rank virtually everything in our lives.

A couple people mentioned Hi Fidelity, which is a good example of a character who takes that urge to the extreme, but everyone does this. We all like to reminisce about the finest things we have enjoyed. Meals, golf courses, vacations, and on and on. So we rank things. Golfers, at all levels, golf courses, golf destinations, etc.

We all do this, so is it any wonder it slips into magazines and web sites? How are golf course rankings different than the millions of best of lists every music magazine runs? Or Time naming a Person of the Year? Or all the movie ranking discussions. Ranking is what we do.

Matthew,

It is not true that everyone does it.  I can't tell you how many times I sit down and honestly believe that I am having the finest meal in my life.  Just two days ago I had a cheeseburger presented to me that even my friends couldn't believe.  Absolute perfection from bun to condiment.  God did I enjoy it.  Can you imagine if instead of living in that beautiful moment I started to compare it to other fine burgers in my life?  Or worse, compare it in the afterglow.

Probably the best example that you may be familiar with is my opinion that I am one of the finest minds in golf.  Not a doubt in my mind.  You should have seen all the rankers come out to dispute me by listing their rankings of fine minds.  Feinstein...really!?!  I'm still pissed by the comparison.

You see, some of us lucky ones who don't rank are the happiest people you will ever meet.  We start everyday off with a blank slate and may just run into the most loving beautiful wife ever, a perfect poached egg or the finest flop shot hit by man.  I don't know how you do that if everything in your life has to compete with a list.

[Dan King]

Matthew Peterson writes:
We all like to reminisce about the finest things we have enjoyed. Meals, golf courses, vacations, and on and on.

Cool. I'm curious, what is the 86th best meal you ever ate, and what made it better than No. 87 but not as good as No. 85?

Cheers,
Dan King

Happiness? A good cigar, a good meal, a good cigar and a good woman - or a bad woman; it depends on how much happiness you can handle.
 --George Burns

[Tom_Doak]

Nobody has yet mentioned that rankings are great for the bank accounts of a handful of golf course architects, and good for the egos of any of them who have a course ranked anywhere by anyone. 

[Dan King]

John Kavanaugh writes:
I do believe that me and Dan King are the only two guys left in the world who couldn't tell you the ten best courses that they have ever played.

If push comes to shove, I probably could come up with my favorite 10 courses I have played.  But why would I turn it into a numerical list and share it?  One of my favorites on the list in the Village Golf Course in San Jose.  It isn't that special of a golf course, but I played there a lot with my Dad. It might have meaning to other golfers who have lost their Dad and played a lot of golf with him at the Villages, but that is a small audience and if there are already golfers like that they don't need me to tell them how much I enjoy playing there.

Cheers,
Dan King

Hush-a-bye, baby, pretty one, sleep;
Daddy's gone golfing to win the club sweep.
If he plays nicely (I hope that he will)
Mother will show him her dressmaker's bill.

Hush-a-bye, baby, safe in your cot;
Daddy's come home, and his temper is hot.
Cuddle down closer, baby of mine;
Daddy went round in a hundred and nine!

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

The clubs like it if they make it in to the 100. They hate it if they don't. They like going up. They hate going down. We treat it seriously primarily because we know we can have an effect on the clubs revenues by where we place them. Other than that, it's a bit of fun.

What concerns me most is the risk for knee-jerk reactions by the clubs, based on a slip in rankings.

It would be interesting to know why certain prominent clubs in Ireland have undertaken costly renovation work in the last few years. I recall one club mentioning that they had slipped down the rankings, and that the recently completed redesign would restore the course to it's proper position in the rankings.

Personally, I don't pay any attention to rankings. I think they are a bit silly, but they do generate debate, and that's not a bad thing.

[Bart Bradley]

The clubs like it if they make it in to the 100. They hate it if they don't. They like going up. They hate going down. We treat it seriously primarily because we know we can have an effect on the clubs revenues by where we place them. Other than that, it's a bit of fun.

What concerns me most is the risk for knee-jerk reactions by the clubs, based on a slip in rankings.

It would be interesting to know why certain prominent clubs in Ireland have undertaken costly renovation work in the last few years. I recall one club mentioning that they had slipped down the rankings, and that the recently completed redesign would restore the course to it's proper position in the rankings.

Personally, I don't pay any attention to rankings. I think they are a bit silly, but they do generate debate, and that's not a bad thing.

Donal:

What about a knee jerk reaction to the rankings that leads to an improvement/restoration of the course?  Why would a reaction to the rankings necessarily be bad?  What if a course has deteriorated because of maintenance practices/lost architectural features and needs a kick in the pants to get things right?  What if a course has been resting on its laurels instead of preserving its history or performing proper tree maintenance then slips in the rankings and responds by doing the right thing?

Bart

[Jim Colton]

Right or wrong, many clubs and their members care about this stuff. I bet it even exists at the highest levels (Pine Valley vs Cypress, for example. Heck, even Sand Hills had a GW rater retreat a couple years ago!) Most course (and architecture firm) websites are quick to highlight their various rankings, including any random one that might apply (best In state, 4-star places to play, etc)  I recently played a course that had its own yearly calendar published and on display in the locker room and the current month had the Golf Digest top 100 in the margin with said course bolded and highlighted. I know of renovations that have been done where a primary motivation was to stop or reverse a downward trend in the rankings. Sadly, I'm sure GMs and supers have lost their jobs over such falls. Maybe the ratings shouldn't matter. But it's hard to argue that they don't.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I really don't get rankings. To me it is no more than a way to sell magazines. But there are plenty of the rest of you that are really into it. Why?

I like rankings/ratings/lists.  I don't see a difference in rankings, lists or ratings.  The key in my mind is understanding the criteria and/or methodology used to develop the rankings/ratings/lists.  I use the rankings/ratings/lists as a tool to determine where to play.  The rankings/ratings/lists are not the only reference I use but they are a pretty strong reference as I know what I'm going to get and I'm a pretty risk averse person.

I'd also be curious if they are just rankings geared toward rankers. If you think the ranking of golf courses serves a purpose, it would be helpful to know if you yourself are a ranker.

I'm not an official ranker/rater/lister for any organization/magazine/website.  I did post my top 25 on this website.

I'd also like to know if you rank other things in your life? Anybody have a wanking ranking?

I can remember creating lists in middle school with my friends composed of girls with the best features.  The lists are probably still in my middle school year book.

When applying to college I created a spreadsheet with lists of colleges based on different criteria and that's essentially how I determined where I went for my first year of school.

The military loves to rank me compared to my peers.

[Mike Sweeney]

John,

So you like the data, list, and statistics of Quantcast to verify your theory that golf rating list don't sell ads:

Mike,

Thank you for showing hard proof that ratings do not sell magazines or even increase page views.  After reviewing both Golfweek and Digest it appears that equipment sells Digest and tournaments sell Golfweek.

Please everyone take a look at the Golfweek numbers.  You will see zero spike when the Rankings were posted in March.  What you do see are spikes during the majors and a blip before Christmas.  Same for Digest except the Christmas issue is off the charts.

http://www.quantcast.com/golfweek.com

It is also fun to search the city where you live and see how many cookies are being had.

Now here you claim that you are a non-ranker.

You see, some of us lucky ones who don't rank are the happiest people you will ever meet.  We start everyday off with a blank slate and may just run into the most loving beautiful wife ever, a perfect poached egg or the finest flop shot hit by man.  I don't know how you do that if everything in your life has to compete with a list.

John,

Please explain how an engineer can pave roads safely without rankings, statistics, and data. Do you pick your asphalt supply randomly ??  

Just for fun, be honest and please list your Top 5 asphalt suppliers.

[Jud_T]

We all rank things.  Otherwise how the heck do you know where to go for dinner tonight and what movie to see afterwards? If we didn't prioritize anything we'd all be wandering around aimlessly getting nothing accomplished. If you don't find it fun to debate which is the best dim sum, pizza or burger joint, the best recipe for tomato sauce, salsa or barbecue, or the most fun, challenging or scenic golf course, then you're just a spoilsport.

[Mac Plumart]

Yeah...what is the point of rankings?  And for that matter, what is the point of Soap Operas?

I don't watch Soap Operas.  I don't "get" why anyone should like them/watch them.  Therefore, since I'm not interested in them...they should not be on TV.  Given this, I am going to go online and rant and rave about Soap Operas and argue with anyone who doesn't agree with my beliefs regarding them. 

Why?  Because I'm always right, and anyone with a different opinion is clearly wrong and there opinion/interests are of no value to me or to society.

 

[Rich Goodale]

I wrote this a few years ago, and none of the blether above has made me change my point of view....

http://richmusings.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/rating-and-ranking-of-golf-courses-and.html

[Tony_Muldoon]

Yeah...what is the point of rankings?  And for that matter, what is the point of Soap Operas?

I don't watch Soap Operas.  I don't "get" why anyone should like them/watch them.  Therefore, since I'm not interested in them...they should not be on TV.  Given this, I am going to go online and rant and rave about Soap Operas and argue with anyone who doesn't agree with my beliefs regarding them. 

Why?  Because I'm always right, and anyone with a different opinion is clearly wrong and there opinion/interests are of no value to me or to society.

 

Ran alert!!!!  Someone has hijacked Mac's ID. After all he was top of this chart


[/quote]

GCA Members least likely to indulge in sarcasm.

1  Mac Plumart
2  Tommy Williamsen
3   ......

[/quote]

[Mac Plumart]

 

[John Kavanaugh]

We all rank things.  Otherwise how the heck do you know where to go for dinner tonight and what movie to see afterwards? If we didn't prioritize anything we'd all be wandering around aimlessly getting nothing accomplished. If you don't find it fun to debate which is the best dim sum, pizza or burger joint, the best recipe for tomato sauce, salsa or barbecue, or the most fun, challenging or scenic golf course, then you're just a spoilsport.

Micro-rankings are not rankings, they are decisions.

[John Kavanaugh]

John Kavanaugh writes:
I do believe that me and Dan King are the only two guys left in the world who couldn't tell you the ten best courses that they have ever played.

If push comes to shove, I probably could come up with my favorite 10 courses I have played.  But why would I turn it into a numerical list and share it?  One of my favorites on the list in the Village Golf Course in San Jose.  It isn't that special of a golf course, but I played there a lot with my Dad. It might have meaning to other golfers who have lost their Dad and played a lot of golf with him at the Villages, but that is a small audience and if there are already golfers like that they don't need me to tell them how much I enjoy playing there.

Cheers,
Dan King

Hush-a-bye, baby, pretty one, sleep;
Daddy's gone golfing to win the club sweep.
If he plays nicely (I hope that he will)
Mother will show him her dressmaker's bill.

Hush-a-bye, baby, safe in your cot;
Daddy's come home, and his temper is hot.
Cuddle down closer, baby of mine;
Daddy went round in a hundred and nine!

The absolute truth of the matter is that I have never seen someone list their favorite courses without the intent of creating envy from the reader.  I had no idea you loved your Dad so much and were one of the rare lucky people who got to enjoy time on the golf course with him that you cherish to this day.  I don't have that just like I haven't played NGLA or Cypress.  Good for you!!!

[Matthew Petersen]

So my post was a little overly broad. Not every single person ranks things. Fine. But clearly it is a common human tendency, which was the point of my post. Again, look around at other kinds of magazines. Tech magazines rank everything. Consumer Reports is nothing but ratings of products. Music magazines rank albums, guitarists, etc etc etc. This list could go on and on.

People are interested in rankings. It gives people a frame of reference and something to argue over, whether it's related to food, music, golf courses, cars, women, or refrigerators.

I don't begrudge Jaka or Dan or anyone else for "not getting it" and not being much of one for ranking things in their own lives. But look around the world and you'll see rankings everywhere, so marveling over golf course rankings as if they are some bizarre thing is simply odd to me. It fits right in with a very broad tendency throughout the culture.