Kalen, I find it interesting your win-win-win scenario seems to ignore whether golfers actually benefit from all this.
..but by all means, what would be better? Please be specific with reasons on why it would be superior, how it would work fiscally, and how it would avoid the pitfalls of the current system.
I'm all ears...
The Confidential Guide approach is better. Hire one or few professionals to discuss, describe, debate, rate, etc. That way, over time, readers could actually begin to understand the perspective of the expert, and react accordingly.
I have a lot of respect for the opinions of some individuals, some of whom happen to be raters, but in the aggregate, I don't think the ratings provide much useful information.
David,
I completely agree with your first statement....but then again it was never my intent to say how others outside of the loop benefit, only to provide an explanation of why the current system runs and likely won't stop anytime soon.
As for having only a select few, there are several problems as I see it...here are a few.
-- The lack of sheer data points. A few guys can only see so many courses and devout so much time to discussing them.
-- Fiscally how does this work? Are they paid? Does someone fund them upfront for all the travel and otherwise?
-- Do we all have to wait 10 years for the guide to come out?
-- Who chooses who these select few are? And if one quits, does the work load double for everyone else?
-- When one of these guys shows up at a course, everyone and their brother will know who they are and roll out the proverbial red-carpet. How will these guys know if they are getting an authenticate experience or not?