Sad conclusion to the Scott-Taylor matter

[Patrick_Mucci]

This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while.  Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly.  Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil.  Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night.  It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.

Jeff,

In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate

[Adam Lawrence]

This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while.  Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly.  Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil.  Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night.  It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.

Jeff,

In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate

Patrick is right

[Steve Okula]

This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while.  Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly.  Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil.  Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night.  It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.

Jeff,

In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate

An honest question Pat: How did you arrive at the conclusion that the site is "extremely relevant"? I don't have a scientific poll, but in my observation the average golfer is completely unaware of this site, and I include both professionals and amateurs. Maybe its because I live in a foreign country and don't talk to English speaking golfers every day. Most superintendents I talk to, including many Americans and Brits (via the internet), don't know about it either, though golf architects I meet are much more likely to post/lurk.

Do you have any figures on the number of lurkers on this site? Jeff guesses there may be 3,000, but if, as you say, it is "exponentially greater" than that, it would be, what, 30,000 lurkers?

I would be pleased if this site were influential in the golfing world, but I've got my doubts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while.  Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly.  Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil.  Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night.  It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.

Jeff,

In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate

An honest question Pat: How did you arrive at the conclusion that the site is "extremely relevant"?

I don't have a scientific poll, but in my observation the average golfer is completely unaware of this site, and I include both professionals and amateurs.

Steve, you've chosen a specific subset, one that predisposes your opinion, the "average golfer"

The awareness of the site, by serious golfers, and more importantly, serious afficianados of golf course architecture, is quite pronounced.

Maybe its because I live in a foreign country and don't talk to English speaking golfers every day.

Could be.

Most superintendents I talk to, including many Americans and Brits (via the internet), don't know about it either, though golf architects I meet are much more likely to post/lurk.

I've never met a superintendent who wasn't aware of the site.

Do you have any figures on the number of lurkers on this site?

I would imagine that those IT folks who constructed and maintain the site would be able to quantify that, precisely, for you.

Jeff guesses there may be 3,000, but if, as you say, it is "exponentially greater" than that, it would be, what, 30,000 lurkers?

Take your choice, 6,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000, 21,000, 24,000, 27,000 or 30,000, all exponentially greater than Jeff's guestimate.

I would be pleased if this site were influential in the golfing world, but I've got my doubts.

If it wasn't influential, clubs wouldn't advise members/guests not to post items concerning the club on GCA.com.
If it wasn't influential clubs wouldn't restrict camera usage.
If it wasn't influential name architects wouldn't take exception to some of the postings.
Ditto Superintendents.
If it wasn't influential, ............ I'm sure that all of us can fill in the blanks.

When you consider that individuals, "prominent" in the world of golf, post and lurk on this site, how can you maintain that it's not influential ?

You're here, aren't you ? 

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

6,000 isn't actually exponential but I am with you on the point you're making. 

[Steve Okula]

This site has 1500 members, and maybe twice that many regular lurkers (don't know, haven't studied the web site stats Ran posts every once in a while.  Maybe 20 participated on the thread regularly.  Maybe 50 even read the first two IMO pieces by Phil.  Its not like we hear about this forgery on CNN every night.  It's small potatoes, a blip on the radar.

Jeff,

In the "golf" world this site is extremely relevant and the number of lurkers is exponentially greater than your estimate

An honest question Pat: How did you arrive at the conclusion that the site is "extremely relevant"?

I don't have a scientific poll, but in my observation the average golfer is completely unaware of this site, and I include both professionals and amateurs.

Steve, you've chosen a specific subset, one that predisposes your opinion, the "average golfer"

The awareness of the site, by serious golfers, and more importantly, serious afficianados of golf course architecture, is quite
pronounced.

But you have also chosen a specific subset, that predisposes your opinion, that of "serious" golfers and aficionados of golf architecture. Could you please elaborate on the word, "pronounced"?

Maybe its because I live in a foreign country and don't talk to English speaking golfers every day.

Could be.

Most superintendents I talk to, including many Americans and Brits (via the internet), don't know about it either, though golf architects I meet are much more likely to post/lurk.

I've never met a superintendent who wasn't aware of the site.

Well then, we're not talking to the same superintendents. We obviously move in different circles, and our respective perspectives reflect that. I'm speculating here, but I would guess the superintendents you talk to are mainly from top tier clubs. I associate with greenkeepers rom all over the place.

Do you have any figures on the number of lurkers on this site?

I would imagine that those IT folks who constructed and maintain the site would be able to quantify that, precisely, for you.

Jeff guesses there may be 3,000, but if, as you say, it is "exponentially greater" than that, it would be, what, 30,000 lurkers?

Take your choice, 6,000, 9,000, 12,000, 15,000, 18,000, 21,000, 24,000, 27,000 or 30,000, all exponentially greater than Jeff's guestimate.

What you are saying is that you don't have any better idea than I do of how many lurkers there actually are.

I would be pleased if this site were influential in the golfing world, but I've got my doubts.

If it wasn't influential, clubs wouldn't advise members/guests not to post items concerning the club on GCA.com.
If it wasn't influential clubs wouldn't restrict camera usage.
If it wasn't influential name architects wouldn't take exception to some of the postings.
Ditto Superintendents.
If it wasn't influential, ............ I'm sure that all of us can fill in the blanks.

When you consider that individuals, "prominent" in the world of golf, post and lurk on this site, how can you maintain that it's not influential ?

You're here, aren't you ? 

Fair point, because so are you.

[Ulrich Mayring]

There's no anger level on my side and, I suspect, that is true for most, who followed this debate. I also wouldn't go so far as saying that reputations were destroyed. But I do think that the folks, who played a role in this debacle, should come clean and present the entire story as it unfolded for them. But that is just my opinion, of course anyone is free to do as he pleases.

Ulrich

[Sean Leary]

There's no anger level on my side and, I suspect, that is true for most, who followed this debate. I also wouldn't go so far as saying that reputations were destroyed. But I do think that the folks, who played a role in this debacle, should come clean and present the entire story as it unfolded for them. But that is just my opinion, of course anyone is free to do as he pleases.

Ulrich

+1

I have a hard time believing that this was a total surprise to Ran, Phil or Neil, by the time the IST confession happened. They HAD to have some questions. I believe that is at least part of the reason that we didn't hear from any of them for a while.

[Tim Martin]

There are some on here who feel qualified to judge what is an acceptable level of indignation from others. There are also those who feel that if you didn't add anything to the thread before IST confirmed that the report was a fake that you shouldn't get to weigh in now. That approach certainly doesn't foster "frank commentary".

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci,

I can confirm that two clubs that are among the biggest names in American golf architecture and USGA national championships asked me not to post anything about them on GolfClubAtlas. Each of those incidents was about ten years ago. So, I believe this web site has been getting lots of attention in the world of golf architecture for quite some time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am with Steve, that few golfers really know about this site.  I picked the 3000 number, knowing that other than a few select architecture books, that is about what the typical architecture book sells.  ( I know Whitten says they sold well over 100K of architects of golf over many releases)

I also notice that there are fewer mentions of this site at industry conferences I attend.  When I first started, I got a lot of "Way to go, nice post" comments, but its actually been a few years since non participants have even mentioned it to me.  Not a valid sample size, to be sure, but one sample, and probably as representative as anyone else's examples/estimates.

Maybe the site has lost some of its buzz?

Also, there were no camera policies well before gca.com came along.  And golf course architects were sure sensitive to criticism (first Confidential Guide testifies to that) before this site, etc.  I could name others, but I don't think this site changed much, other than (like most internet sites) made it easier to wax eloquently (or not) on your favorite architect or least favorite hole.

Just telling my experiences. And, while I understand the need to make things right when there is a wrong, my guess is that Ran and Phil will go old school, admit it (they have) and then talk as little about it as possible, rather than many long drawn out expose type threads some are calling for.  I guess I side with the classier old school treatment, but others may see it differently. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Anyone who thinks this site is important must therefore agree that I am important.

[Bill Brightly]

Anyone who thinks this site is important must therefore agree that I am important.

Yes. Because there is strength in numbers.

[JLahrman]

Pat,

6,000 isn't actually exponential but I am with you on the point you're making. 

Before this devolves into another sidetrack, "exponential" isn't really the right word to use. That term would describe a rate of growth (or decay) vs. linear or some other function. It's not really useful to compare 3,000 to another number, because every positive number is exponential to 3,000. 6,000 is exponential to 3,000 - by the exponent 1.086574, to be exact.

Carry on.

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

6,000 isn't actually exponential but I am with you on the point you're making. 

Before this devolves into another sidetrack, "exponential" isn't really the right word to use. That term would describe a rate of growth (or decay) vs. linear or some other function. It's not really useful to compare 3,000 to another number, because every positive number is exponential to 3,000. 6,000 is exponential to 3,000 - by the exponent 1.086574, to be exact.

Carry on.

OK, I concede I was thinking in whole numbers. My bad. 

[David_Elvins]

David
An assurance yes, but on what basis ? Did he intend to assure you that the material was genuine or that he'd seen a report that says it was genuine. I'm sure Neil will regret more than anyone that he was conned and how he worded his pronouncements on here but the real question to you is when you accused him of deception did you mean that Neil was knowingly party to a fraud ?
Niall

Niall, Please read my post (Reply 141) in it's entirety.  I think it clearly states my position and answers all your questions.

[JLahrman]

Pat,

6,000 isn't actually exponential but I am with you on the point you're making. 

Before this devolves into another sidetrack, "exponential" isn't really the right word to use. That term would describe a rate of growth (or decay) vs. linear or some other function. It's not really useful to compare 3,000 to another number, because every positive number is exponential to 3,000. 6,000 is exponential to 3,000 - by the exponent 1.086574, to be exact.

Carry on.

OK, I concede I was thinking in whole numbers. My bad. 

Blame Mr. Mucci. HE, not YOU, was the one who brought the term into the thread!

[Ulrich Mayring]

Classy old school treatment is to admit only what has been conclusively proven and simply cannot be denied anymore? In German we call that the salami tactic: never give away the whole sausage, concede it slice by slice and let others do the cutting.

Ulrich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Okula,

I enjoy having conversations with Superintendents, PGA Professionals, Staff, Green Chairman and Presidents of the clubs I visit.

Clubs like Pebble Beach, Spyglass, MPCC, CPC, Pasatiempo, Streamsong, Bandon.
In addition, when I can, I also like to have conversations with the same individuals at private clubs, so I don't think my interaction with folks is as narrow as you imagine.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.

[Mike_Young]

Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.

yep

[SL_Solow]

The difference of course is that Pat rendered an opinion based on personal experience.  He did not try to pass it off as historical fact and did not try to suggest that documents that were not authenticated had  been authenticated.  Nor does Pat stand to gain from anyone accepting his conclusion.  Otherwise,  the circumstances are entirely analogous.  The influence of this site may be overrated by some and I suspect, underrated by others.  But let's not get ridiculous.

[Bill Brightly]

Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.

Or we can look at what is on the ground today. We can note that the "pretty" geometric style of architecture that has fallen out of vogue, see Nicklaus altering his courses, take notice of the dramatic rise in minimalistic courses (and renovations.) Gil Hanse gets the Olympic job and Trump hires him rather than Fazio to redo Doral.  C & C restores Pinehurst #2 to great acclaim and both US Opens are played there. We can also note that this all happens to coincide with gca.com's existance.

[Brent Hutto]

...

[Mike_Young]

Ironically, the same lack of verifiable identification of sources that was questioned in the DST report is what we must believe if we accept the purported level of influence of this site.

Or we can look at what is on the ground today. We can note that the "pretty" geometric style of architecture that has fallen out of vogue, see Nicklaus altering his courses, take notice of the dramatic rise in minimalistic courses (and renovations.) Gil Hanse gets the Olympic job, and Trump hires him rather than Fazio to redo Doral.  C & C restores Pinehurst #2 to great acclaim and both US Opens are played there. We can also note that this all happens to coincide with gca.com's existance.

BILL,
I think it would be fair to say that the combined membership of this site professes to know more about the ODG's and what they wanted to do with their projects and their strategies than the actual ODG's knew about themselves.  They were not nearly as complicated as the site makes them out to be.  IMHO