I do find it interesting the seemingly contradictory issues going on here:
From the magazines perspective, they would want to get as many ratings as possible to have both a statistically reliable rating that would only get more accurate with an increased number of submissions. Additionally, if they now charge raters, they not only get money from that, but also benefit from an unpaid work force and extra money from publishing sought after course lists.
Meanwhile, the courses obviously care about these ratings or they wouldn't be willing to accommodate the raters on a frequent basis. And in some cases, maybe they make the list and it generates a windfall of publicity and new memberships. However, at least they are willing to "pay" for it in the form of comp'd rounds.
But in all this, if a rater travels a lot and plays tons of courses to get more submissions, which both the magazines and courses actually want, then somehow the rater is now is the bad guy aka the access whore??
Its this demonization of raters, who are actually providing the service that the magazines wouldn't get otherwise....is the part I don't get. And given they have to use their own money to travel, and now possibly pay to be rater, why is it such a stretch for them to get something out of it in the form of playing an increased variety of courses.
Furthermore, what's the alternative to any of this? Paid raters? Then the magazines would surely cry and throw a fit.