To Ran...

[Sean_A]

David

There may be one slight problem in that Ran doesn't own the rights to nab the pix on his site.  He may need to gain the permission of folks before grabbing the pix for something you suggest.  Even so, I like the idea of a separate space for tours.  Perhaps Ran can select which ones he would like to add as a partner section for his Courses by Country.  I spose folks could always use the IMO section for this.  Then an editing process would take place,  but I suspect many won't want to go through the process of a formal piece.  All in all, what we have works OK.  Though I do agree with Tom that sometimes there are too many pix.  I like about 30 pix and will usually shut down any picture thread which doesn't load immediately, but to each his own.

Ciao 

[Scott Warren]

Rich,

That post at the foot of page 1 explains your position much more clearly and I find I actually agree with you (and Tom and Sean).

I'm hesitant to say so because I know how much time goes into a complete review of a course - pictures and words - and those who post 100+ pic threads are doing it the way they want to, but I also find that degree of photographic depth without much (or anything) in the way of actual opinion or analysis of the holes fairly pointless.

Like Sean, when I open a thread to find there will be dozens upon dozens of pics and no interesting discussion, I close it down and move on.

I just don't understand what anyone gains from seven or eight pictures of a golf hole with nothing to describe or discuss it. Those who've played it shouldn't need seven pictures to remember it and those who haven't can get the same insight from two or three smartly-chosen images.

But to each their own, I guess. Some people probably care what the front gate, flags and lunch look like, I'm just not one of them and would rather get some discussion happening with pics chosen that illustrate and add to that.

[David Harshbarger]

Sean,

Golfclubatlas.com is a valuable domain.  Do a search for Pine Valley Golf Club.  Result #2 for me: the courses by country from this site. Google likes this site because the content is good and original.  But as you point out the edited IMO pieces are an effort, and if you don't want to go through that, the DG is the path of least resistance.  What I'm suggesting is that Wikipedia is a model of an in between structure between an edited contribution and a discussion group.  Like a discussion group, Wikipedia allows and encourages contributions, on any subject, at any time.  Like an edited piece, Wikipedia encourages contributors to act as editors and intervene and correct where necessary.  When you have engaged participants, the two roles seem to balance out, and you get a highly scalable content engine.

Going back to Rich's point, in my opinion, the way to provide a more focused discussion about the courses is to add structure that reflects a different goal: creating a more comprehensive and universal compendium on golf course architecture.

The payoff is that given the value of the site, the work done would become a global reference on golf courses and GCA, and given the power of the web, a prominent one. It's not like the DG would go away, rather, there'd be a forum where we could all build out our view on a subject we love without the disagreements.  More sausage, less sausage making.

Dave

[Mac Plumart]

To each, their own.  View the threads you like, avoid the others.

Here are three different styles.  Perhaps they all have their merits.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50208.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52985.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53515.0.html

[Mark Bourgeois]

To each, their own.  View the threads you like, avoid the others.

Here are three different styles.  Perhaps they all have their merits.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50208.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52985.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,53515.0.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/national-golf-links-of-america/

[Ulrich Mayring]

Well, I can certainly understand that some types of photo threads aren't interesting to some. But that has nothing to do with images, I can honestly say for myself that I find certain text-only threads to be completely dull and utterly superflous. That is the way of a discussion board, we are a group with diverse interests. I don't see this as a problem that needs solving by some kind of technical or organisational mechanism.

Yes, a photo tour can easily deviate from the topic of golf architecture. But I see that as a lesser danger then that of people not treating each other with respect.

Ulrich

[Mike McGuire]

Perhaps it would be simpler if the wordsmiths had their own section.

Edit:  How about thumbs up / thumbs down buttons available on every post?

[Colin Macqueen]

Mike,
One man's meat is another man's poison!  I like the eclectic nature of the threads and that we are free to follow them without knowing what other people's preferences are.
Cheers Colin