I was a Golfweek rater from 2009 to 2012, and since then I have been with Golf Digest as a panelist.
When I first asked to join Golfweek's panel, I joined because I'm a golf course nerd like anyone else here and I thought it would be fun to be involved, have a say in the final rankings, and to go and see new golf courses. There is no doubt that additional access to golf courses and comped rounds of golf is great if you're a rater and I certainly used my "card" often early when we were living in Chicago. You can debate the ratings "game" all you want but I always tried to file thoughtful ratings and I always tried to include lesser known courses than to focus heavily on Top 100 golf courses or whatever. I also was (and hopefully am) polite during any rating situations...I always called/e-mailed the pro weeks (or months) in advance, I never requested to play during busy times, took caddies, bought stuff in pro shops, asked questions, wrote thank you letters, etc.
The beginning of the end for me at Golfweek was when I attended my first and only "rater retreat" in SW Michigan. At the time, we were told one was mandatory every other year in order to stay on the panel (even though I've since found out this rule isn't enforced among GW raters evenly). We ended up playing Point O Woods, Harbor Shores, Lost Dunes, and the Warren Course. I think the trip, which also included a couple of nights at a Hampton Inn and one modest dinner, cost maybe $600 which you justify given that you're playing four rounds of good to great golf in a fun part of the country. Guys flew in from all over the country for the event and I met some really nice guys. However, candidly, quite a few of the people in attendance really didn't know what they were talking about at all. Much like the retired and married rater couple from Florida who tried to tell Brad that they rated their home course in FL a "10" because of it's beauty. Or the rater I played with at Harbor Shores that played poorly and while having an out of body experience on the ~4th hole said in my response to an architectural question "I've seen all I need to see, this place is just typical Nicklaus shit." Later that night at dinner the raters discussed if it was possible to give the course a "0" which I was the only person who bothered to speak up to say how ridiculous of a statement that is (Harbor Shores isn't great, but it's not a 0 by any stretch).
Someone above mentioned how GW's visit guidelines seemed reasonable. They are, but they are followed selectively. I attended an event at Conway Farms a bunch of years ago where 12 raters were asked to play in an event on the same day Brad was to be at the course and speaking at a dinner that night. It ended up being the club's "spring stag night golf event" and when I showed up they gave us golf balls, lunch, cocktails, a steak dinner, golf, etc. all comped which is was against the rules but Brad was there so you have to assume it was ok?
It eventually got to the point where it was clear that GW was treating the rating program as a revenue stream for the magazine. It's fairly obvious that the "mandatory" retreats are revenue generators as Golfweek lines up a bunch of comped golf but turns around and charges the raters regardless. They were constantly hawking merchandise such as Golfweek Rater logo'd golf bags and the like to drum up even more $. Then they began charging raters $250/year as an "administrative" fee which isn't charged equally and isn't charged if you've been with the panel for a long time or apparently are in the industry.
After I heard a very unfavorable story regarding the Golfweek panel from a friend in the industry I decided I was going to move on and I was accepted as a Golf Digest panelist a few years ago. I had received an acceptance letter from Golf Digest and not 12 hours later I received an e-mail from Brad asking if I was now a GD panelist. I returned his e-mail as politely as possible saying that I was planning on sending him a resignation letter but hadn't had time, but that I was very thankful for my time on Golfweek's panel and that I hoped he felt I contributed in a meaningful way. I received the following in return "Have fun -- though you won't with GD. You're trading up for prestige and industry-wide respect and losing experience and camaraderie."
I did not respond but it reaffirmed to me that I was making the correct decision.
My time on Golf Digest's panel has been largely positive. There isn't nearly as much pressure to get out and rate a bunch of courses every single year (I think the minimum goal is 5-8?). I'm much busier these days I don't have nearly the time to travel and play golf like I used to. I belong to a golf club that is a 7-iron away from my home and I'm now married, have a dog, a kid, other hobbies, etc. that makes it hard for me to tell my wife that I'm gone on Saturday to go play 36 holes in the next state over.
Ironically, I really haven't used my Golf Digest much at all as I've been able to file most of my ratings by rating courses I've played organically through friends or while playing for work on the road. For example, I played Windsong Farm (for the 3rd time) as part of the Mashie this year, which is a candidate course, which I later submitted a rating.
Golf Digest also doesn't force you to travel to a "retreat" in order to gain education from the head of the panel like Golfweek does (they do an annual webinar). I don't always perfectly agree with all of GD's rating criteria or even the final results, but its been fun to be involved with the process and I continue to file my ratings in a (somewhat) timely and thoughtful manor.
The news this week that Golf Digest is going to be charging each panelist $250 is somewhat surprising, but not unexpected. I don't exactly agree with the principal of having to pay dues to this "club", or that I am essentially paying GD for access that an unrelated entity is supplying for free, but it is what it is. In the grand scheme of things, $250 isn't really all that much on an annual basis and if it gives me the opportunity to see one or two new courses I wouldn't be able to play otherwise then it's worth it. So, I'll probably pay the $250 and stay involved for the time being.
Overall, I think the rating "game" at Golf Digest fairly harmless. As Kalen points out, everyone is looking for something. Courses and memberships want the rankings, raters want to play new golf courses for reduced or comped fees, and GD wants the panelist data to help put together the rankings which they are proud of and date back over 50's.