News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« on: January 07, 2017, 02:05:21 PM »
I just received my actual paper copy today.


The best part is Jerry Tarde's column in the front of the issue, which is all about their system.


"Want to become a panelist?  We'll tell you upfront:  It's a thankless though ultimately rewarding activity."


But the BEST news is that "Dean Knuth, the chief statistician for Golf Digest's course rankings, advises us that we need to raise our minimum number of evaluations from 45 to at least 70 to make the 100 Greatest statistically above reproach."


Ugh.  But that's not the best part!


"To reach that goal, we're dedicating our efforts to double the size of the panel by 2020."


So be sure to get your letters to the editor off right away!


P.S.  Maybe we could convince them just to adopt every registered poster for Golf Club Atlas into their panel.  It would save them some trouble ... and eliminate the biennial bitching about their list, as we could all complain about the thanklessness of the task, and nobody would argue with us.  Plus, they could do worse.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet they do.


P.P.S.  The title of Jerry's column?  "The Golden Ticket"  [as a web site I liked to read sometimes says, "presented without irony"]


P.P.P.S.  My apologies for dredging this back up; it just reinforces what we've been arguing about.  No need to comment!

Andy Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2017, 02:16:29 PM »
The system gets worse with everyday. That entire organization is a sinking ship. The internet is bleeding it out.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2017, 02:36:41 PM »

"But the BEST news is that "Dean Knuth, the chief statistician for Golf Digest's course rankings, advises us that we need to raise our minimum number of evaluations from 45 to at least 70 to make the 100 Greatest statistically above reproach."


So a course that gets 69 evaluations (rather than 44) won't now be included!


"P.S.  Maybe we could convince them just to adopt every registered poster for Golf Club Atlas into their panel."


Lots of high end reviews for the likes of Goat Hill and Painswick please!


Atb

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2017, 02:47:53 PM »
So a course that gets 69 evaluations (rather than 44) won't now be included!



Fear not Thomas!  They are going to send another wave of new panelists to all those courses to make sure they have a chance to be included!


P.S.  What do GOLF DIGEST panelists have to pay to participate?  And what's 900 times that?  I'm guessing that's the real statistical rationale behind their change.

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2017, 02:55:56 PM »
GD should drop their ratings and use http://www.golfadvisor.com/golfers/local-golf-advisors/ This site is owned by Golf Channel.


http://www.golfadvisor.com/about.html


Course ratings, like economics, are not an exact science. Golf Advisor offers viewpoints from different levels of local golfers and travelers, not just single digit golfers who are access seekers.
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2017, 03:01:36 PM »
GD should drop their ratings and use http://www.golfadvisor.com/golfers/local-golf-advisors/ This site is owned by Golf Channel.


http://www.golfadvisor.com/about.html


Course ratings, like economics, are not an exact science. Golf Advisor offers viewpoints from different levels of local golfers and travelers, not just single digit golfers who are access seekers.

Golf Advisor is part of GolfNow....go figure that one...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2017, 03:13:01 PM »

But the BEST news is that "Dean Knuth, the chief statistician for Golf Digest's course rankings, advises us that we need to raise our minimum number of evaluations from 45 to at least 70 to make the 100 Greatest statistically above reproach."



Well it has been a LONG time since I took a statistics class, and I would really like to see the data on the statistical difference between 45 vs 70.


Like many things in the good old USA, we take a good thing and overdo it - again and again....
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us."

Dr. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2017, 03:25:21 PM »
Well it has been a LONG time since I took a statistics class, and I would really like to see the data on the statistical difference between 45 vs 70.

More data is generally better, though there is a lot more to quality than sample size.

And regardless of how big or high quality the data set is, there are limitations to the types of operations and tests you can perform on ordinal scale data. Averaging them is generally not proper.

Peter Pallotta

Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2017, 03:37:13 PM »
Ah, the democratization of the process.
Do we remember the Orson Welles speech in 'The Third Man'?
How the Borgias in Italy produced the Rennaissance and Michealangelo and The Mona Lisa, while 500 years of Swiss democracy produced...the cuckoo clock!

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2017, 03:38:29 PM »
Golf Channel owns Golf Now and Golf Advisor. NBC Universal owns them both, among other propertiies. Originally established in 2001 by Cypress Golf Solutions in Scottsdale, Arizona, it was acquired by Comcast via its Golf Channel unit in March 2008. It has since become a unit of NBC Sports Digital, a division of NBCUniversal (following Comcast's purchase of the company)
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 03:40:08 PM by Steve_ Shaffer »
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2017, 03:46:58 PM »
Ah, the democratization of the process.
Do we remember the Orson Welles speech in 'The Third Man'?
How the Borgias in Italy produced the Rennaissance and Michealangelo and The Mona Lisa, while 500 years of Swiss democracy produced...the cuckoo clock!


Peter nails it.


Bob

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2017, 03:49:50 PM »
Are there any changes to the survey methodology and/or statistical analysis?


If not, the Central Limit Theorem ain't saving their crappy system. They'll still have correlations (aka specification error) across their criteria.


If this means they include outliers that's a positive step but they could (still) see some screwy distributions, which will necessitate new statistical manipulations.


Hopefully they're doing more than just increasing the volume of garbage in.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Daryl David

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2017, 03:57:08 PM »
So a course that gets 69 evaluations (rather than 44) won't now be included!

P.S.  What do GOLF DIGEST panelists have to pay to participate?  And what's 900 times that?  I'm guessing that's the real statistical rationale behind their change.


Well let's say it's $250 a year. That's only $225k. Hard to call it a money grab for a big publications company like Condé Nast. Drop in the bucket.

Mike Sweeney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2017, 03:58:12 PM »
Ah, the democratization of the process.
Do we remember the Orson Welles speech in 'The Third Man'?
How the Borgias in Italy produced the Rennaissance and Michealangelo and The Mona Lisa, while 500 years of Swiss democracy produced...the cuckoo clock!


I think Michelangelo was funded by the Medici Family, but your point is noted:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo_and_the_Medici


Nothing is absolute, but I am finding that "less is more" is better most of the time. Obviously Golf Digest is turning this into a business which is understandable.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us."

Dr. Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

V_Halyard

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2017, 04:05:24 PM »

P.S.  Maybe we could convince them just to adopt every registered poster for Golf Club Atlas into their panel.  It would save them some trouble ... and eliminate the biennial bitching about their list, as we could all complain about the thanklessness of the task, and nobody would argue with us.  Plus, they could do worse.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet they do.


Heresy...
"It's a tiny little ball that doesn't even move... how hard could it be?"  I will walk and carry 'til I can't... or look (really) stupid.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2017, 04:14:30 PM »

Well let's say it's $250 a year. That's only $225k. Hard to call it a money grab for a big publications company like Condé Nast. Drop in the bucket.


But a very nice raise for the guy who makes the call to increase the size of the panel !


And I've had a couple of texts from people suggesting that it might be more than $250 for a new panelist to be indoctrinated.  I had no idea.

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2017, 04:28:00 PM »
If that's their aim I would think there is a lot of value in delivering this segment to advertisers. Depending on what information Condé Nast solicits from panel members, advertisers can combine that with other sources like Facebook to get a really detailed understanding of each panelist and to track them across the WWW, delivering all sorts of personalized messages, pricing, etc. GD panelists are likely the type of consumers advertisers drool over.


It is breathtaking how much corporations know about people these days.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2017, 04:42:01 PM »
Hmmm ... got me thinking ... do GOLF DIGEST panelists have to be a member of a private club?


If so, the complimentary golf is more justifiable ... at least they are paying somewhere.  That's one reason I joined Crystal Downs many years ago; I don't feel as guilty about accepting free golf when I'm paying $4k per year to a club that doesn't even open til May!

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2017, 04:57:43 PM »

Tom,


My information is old, but I don't think so. I had the impression that most were of some means, like airline pilots who traveled anyway.


If it were a requirement, I suspect this group would start arguing whether there should be a quota for public golfers, or a floor and ceiling as to how much dues the private guys paid, etc.


I mean, for those who don't like the GD system (read that anyway you want) there is no end to what they can find to criticize.


What I don't really get is the debate as to why GW is better.  Brad basically patterned his off GD, but obviously wanted to make his different enough to justify/differentiate two magazine lists.  It's still points, with slightly different, but mostly overlapping criteria.  You can make the argument that his list, as the second stab at it, is a bit better, and that GD perhaps felt like they had to stick to their original legacy lists for consistency, but big whup.  They are both trying to get to the same place.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2017, 05:56:26 PM »



"Want to become a panelist?  We'll tell you upfront:  It's a thankless though ultimately rewarding activity."


But the BEST news is that "Dean Knuth, the chief statistician for Golf Digest's course rankings, advises us that we need to raise our minimum number of evaluations from 45 to at least 70 to make the 100 Greatest statistically above reproach."


Ugh.  But that's not the best part!


"To reach that goal, we're dedicating our efforts to double the size of the panel by 2020."




Does Dean Knuth get a commission?


I would say the next time a rater calls me I'll tell him to leave me a credit card number and I will refund him if we get 70 ratings.
We've never sniffed 45 evaluations, much less 70.


What's the point of allowing raters if you don't get rated?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 06:41:06 PM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Parker Page

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2017, 06:04:01 PM »
Hmmm ... got me thinking ... do GOLF DIGEST panelists have to be a member of a private club?


If so, the complimentary golf is more justifiable ... at least they are paying somewhere.  That's one reason I joined Crystal Downs many years ago; I don't feel as guilty about accepting free golf when I'm paying $4k per year to a club that doesn't even open til May!


Tom-

I'm a member of the panel, and I am not a member of a private club.  I'm a teacher who's a long way from such a membership.  I'm grateful that there's not such a requirement because, as Steve says in his post, I AM an access seeker – not, however, for the reasons for which he labels us so pejoratively.  I am seeking access because I'm interested in great course architecture and value greatly my chance to contribute in some very small way to the conversation.


Parker
Judge Smails: "How do you measure yourself against other golfers?"

Ty Webb: "...Height?"

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2017, 06:16:04 PM »
Hmmm ... got me thinking ... do GOLF DIGEST panelists have to be a member of a private club?


If so, the complimentary golf is more justifiable ... at least they are paying somewhere.  That's one reason I joined Crystal Downs many years ago; I don't feel as guilty about accepting free golf when I'm paying $4k per year to a club that doesn't even open til May!


Tom-

I'm a member of the panel, and I am not a member of a private club.  I'm a teacher who's a long way from such a membership.  I'm grateful that there's not such a requirement because, as Steve says in his post, I AM an access seeker – not, however, for the reasons for which he labels us so pejoratively.  I am seeking access because I'm interested in great course architecture and value greatly my chance to contribute in some very small way to the conversation.


Parker


Parker.
Welcome to the forum.
Sounds to me like you did join a club......
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2017, 06:37:44 PM »
Jeff Brauer,


We didn't "pattern" our ratings off of Golf Digest other than wanting a ratings panel. We developed a totally different model, based on criteria relevant to real, everyday golfers, that reflected 2X as many courses out there, most of them in the public domain, and we focused on rater education trips, fun, gatherings. That wasn't patterning on anyone.


As for statistical rigor, the argument about needing to go from 45 to 70 is nonsense. Once you get to about 30 the stat remains virtually immune to the contribution of N+1.

Tim_Cronin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2017, 07:55:50 PM »
Jeff Brauer,


We didn't "pattern" our ratings off of Golf Digest other than wanting a ratings panel. We developed a totally different model, based on criteria relevant to real, everyday golfers, that reflected 2X as many courses out there, most of them in the public domain, and we focused on rater education trips, fun, gatherings. That wasn't patterning on anyone.


As for statistical rigor, the argument about needing to go from 45 to 70 is nonsense. Once you get to about 30 the stat remains virtually immune to the contribution of N+1.


Knuth, a numbers guy (developer of the USGA's Slope ranking system), should know that. Which makes me think it's not about the ratings, but the Benjamins.
The website: www.illinoisgolfer.net
On Twitter: @illinoisgolfer

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: We Missed The Best News About the Golf Digest Rankings
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2017, 10:54:51 PM »
Hmmm ... got me thinking ... do GOLF DIGEST panelists have to be a member of a private club?


If so, the complimentary golf is more justifiable ... at least they are paying somewhere.  That's one reason I joined Crystal Downs many years ago; I don't feel as guilty about accepting free golf when I'm paying $4k per year to a club that doesn't even open til May!


I wish I was only paying $4000 a year.....
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back