Have Anonymous Posts Contributed Anything?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

Your friend "Bye" reports he wants to remain anonymous to "offer more insight". Presumably, that's the whole purpose of anonymous posts!

But, then why is it so hard to offer examples?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Tim Weiman,

You can just click on Bye's name, select that you want to view "all" of his posts, and then presto!  they are listed chronologically for you.  You can decide whether any of them offer "insights".

[Mike Benham]

But Tim has a point to all of this, and I hope everyone reads further into it.

And the point is?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Kevin Reilly:

Obviously, I am deeply skeptical that anonymous posts really offer the "insight" some suggest. To the contrary, I believe our most serious discussions of controversial issues have come from people willing to sign their own name.

Let me cite several controversial topics where the discussion took place mostly between people willing to sign their name:

Riviera - Changes by Fazio
Merion - Bunkers by MacDonald
Sandpines - Assessing Rees Jones' performance
Olympia Fields - Overall course quality
Rustic Canyon - Tee shot issues
Friar's Head - Permitting issues
Crystal Downs - Green speed maintenance
Melbourne - Changes to various courses
National - Potential changes
Oakmont - Tree removal, new tees, etc.
Yale - Restoration issues
Doonbeg - Overall course quality
Bethpage - Restoration issues

In each case, people came forward willing to be accountable for what they say. Shouldn't we be able to detail an equal number where people have offered controversial "insight" anonymously?

Are the benefits of anonymous posts more myth than reality?


Mike Benham:

We have always assumed that the benefits of anonymous posts outweight putting up with what Pat Mucci calls the "bad" ones. If that is the case, surely folks here would be able to detail the benefits convincingly with numerous specific examples.

So far that hasn't happened. Makes you wonder. Maybe allowing anonymous posts doesn't really offer the benefits we assume.

[Mike Hendren]

Lighten up on JakaB. John also known as Barney is not well, as evidenced by an incredibly obscene outburst I witnessed first-hand on the 16th tee at Victoria National a few months back - not to mention the fact that he was deploying a - dare I say this - a PUTTER COVER!

The man is an enigma, I tell ya.

Sadly,

Mike Hendren

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Hendren:

This thread was not directed at JakaB. He is well known to many on this site and on more than one occasion we have exchanged emails on matters he prefers discussing privately.

JakaB likes to ask provocative questions, sometimes in a funny way. That's fine with me.

[Mike Benham]

We have always assumed that the benefits of anonymous posts outweight putting up with what Pat Mucci calls the "bad" ones. If that is the case, surely folks here would be able to detail the benefits convincingly with numerous specific examples.

So far that hasn't happened. Makes you wonder. Maybe allowing anonymous posts doesn't really offer the benefits we assume.

Tim -

I don't disagree with anything that you state (sorry for the double negative) about the alleged benefits of posting anonymously.  However, I don't see a way to limit the anonymous posters who want to be.  

Sure, you can create the requirement that someone must register with a first and last name but that won't stop anyone who wants to remain anonymous ... go to the phonebook, pick a name and register as "Frank_Smithson" ...

The true test is in the body of the text of the poster.  If an industry veteran posts accurate information, information that other board stalwarts can support or confirm, that anonymous poster will become accredited.  If the imformation is junk, then that poster will not be taken seriously.

Mike

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Benham:

Thanks. I really wasn't trying to go any further than simply examining whether there really have been many valuable anonymous posts.  

You allude to "information that is junk" discrediting an anonymous poster. I agree completely.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kevin Reilly:

Obviously, I am deeply skeptical that anonymous posts really offer the "insight" some suggest. To the contrary, I believe our most serious discussions of controversial issues have come from people willing to sign their own name.

That has been my position since day 1.  Your opinion was different, as I recall, back when an anonymous poster came forward with some accusations about the Golfweek course rating process. He alleged that results were being manipulated after rating sheets were returned to the magazine.  I called out the poster at the very beginning...saying that if he was going to make an accusation like that he should have the ball$ to use his own name.  You and others felt differently and gave the poster plenty of "air time."  I said then, as now, that I wasn't going to engage in a conversation, online as it is, with someone that wants to stay behind some veil of secrecy...unaccountable for the things they post.

[Tim_Weiman]

Kevin Reilly:

I believe your recollection is correct.

Very rarely do I support anonymous posts or take much interest in rating issues. However, in the example you cite the anonymous poster obviously felt there was something wrong with the rating process at Golfweek and stated his belief that rating sheets were manipulated after being turned in. Further, this person apparently didn't feel he could post under his own name for fear of some kind of retribution, I suppose.

If I recall, Brad Klein did respond to the anonymous poster's suggestion either disputing or clarifying the process he follows compiling the rankings. For those with an interest in the subject, there may have been value to the discussion.

If I was right, we now have one example in support of the notion that anonymous posts add value. If you were right, we are back to zero. In either case, the count is still pretty low.

[JakaB]

Mike,

Would Jesus do this to a friend...how could you out me and my p-cover.  Proof once again I am not who I pretend to be...some for the good and some for the bad.  Shivas...I apologize.

[Johnny Thunders]

Well, once again the little boys in the Treehouse are disussing their favorite subject - THEMSELVES!!!!

have anonymous posts contributed anything? No, of course not other than to kick you guys right in the nuthatch every now and then when you are taking yourselves far too seriously - like now for instance. Shouldn't Tom Paul wade in about now and hit us with a 30,000 word pontification?

And let's judge the percentage of anonymous posts right after we judge the percentage of quality posts by the regulars. Very, very low. If you guys would stop admiring yourselves in the worldwideweb mirror we might all be better off. Talk about architecture, not yourselves.

Quick, call rpurdy and see what he thinks.


Not that talking about yourself is all bad. For instance, this is from my song, In Cold Blood

I was raised in the street
A city boy, if you please
I've probably forgotten more
Than you'll ever need


Thanks for all your precious time.


Johnny Thunders

[Tim_Weiman]

Johnny Thunders:

I always wonder about people who suggest others are taking themselves "far too seriously". Don't they see the irony?

Anyway, the purpose of the thread was to explore whether any architectural issues or points of view have come to light as a result of anonymous posts.

Your song doesn't quite address that subject, if you don't mind me......seriously......saying.

[George Blunt]

Not many will remember me, or the post in question, but I can assure you that putting your name to controversial posts can have severe repercussions.

There are a lot of people within the industry (globally) that read this DG, do not participate in it, but most certainly act upon it.

For this reason, anonymous posts will always be a reality.  

Tim I am sorry that I cannot offer a specific answer to your question, but I can confirm that I will not post anonymously, but nor will I post controversially.

George

[Bye]

Kevin Reilly:

Obviously, I am deeply skeptical that anonymous posts really offer the "insight" some suggest. To the contrary, I believe our most serious discussions of controversial issues have come from people willing to sign their own name.

Let me cite several controversial topics where the discussion took place mostly between people willing to sign their name:

Riviera - Changes by Fazio
Merion - Bunkers by MacDonald
Sandpines - Assessing Rees Jones' performance
Olympia Fields - Overall course quality
Rustic Canyon - Tee shot issues
Friar's Head - Permitting issues
Crystal Downs - Green speed maintenance
Melbourne - Changes to various courses
National - Potential changes
Oakmont - Tree removal, new tees, etc.
Yale - Restoration issues
Doonbeg - Overall course quality
Bethpage - Restoration issues

In each case, people came forward willing to be accountable for what they say. Shouldn't we be able to detail an equal number where people have offered controversial "insight" anonymously?

Are the benefits of anonymous posts more myth than reality?


Mike Benham:

We have always assumed that the benefits of anonymous posts outweight putting up with what Pat Mucci calls the "bad" ones. If that is the case, surely folks here would be able to detail the benefits convincingly with numerous specific examples.

So far that hasn't happened. Makes you wonder. Maybe allowing anonymous posts doesn't really offer the benefits we assume.

So Tim, If I signed on as Robert Hall or some other false name, would that validate my posts?

[ForkaB]

Tim

Let me flip "Bye's" question.  Would your posts be any more or less valid if you had chosen on Day 1 to post as "Wim Teiman?"  In fact, how do we know that you are NOT Wim Teiman?  Just because you might tell us that you are not?  Maybe I'm Rihc Godolae and not Rich Goodale.  Who could tell, with my typing "ability?"

In any case, who cares who you, or I or Bye are?  Isn't it the content that matters, regardless of how one styles oneself?  Why do people on here care so much about those who wish post anonymously?  Sure, some of "them" have been, sometimes, assholes, but so have, sometimes, some of "us."  Too often it seems to me that this obsession for "transparency" is more like frustrated voyeurism than any reasonable attempt to promote or even safeguard the "truth"--whatever that might be--and the often unstated demand for "accountability" greatly overstates the importance of the issues that we (mostly) amateurs discuss on this site.......

Respectfully

Rich

[Bye]

Tim

Let me flip "Bye's" question.  Would your posts be any more or less valid if you had chosen on Day 1 to post as "Wim Teiman?"  In fact, how do we know that you are NOT Wim Teiman?  Just because you might tell us that you are not?  Maybe I'm Rihc Godolae and not Rich Goodale.  Who could tell, with my typing "ability?"

In any case, who cares who you, or I or Bye are?  Isn't it the content that matters, regardless of how one styles oneself?  Why do people on here care so much about those who wish post anonymously?  Sure, some of "them" have been, sometimes, assholes, but so have, sometimes, some of "us."  Too often it seems to me that this obsession for "transparency" is more like frustrated voyeurism than any reasonable attempt to promote or even safeguard the "truth"--whatever that might be--and the often unstated demand for "accountability" greatly overstates the importance of the issues that we (mostly) amateurs discuss on this site.......

Respectfully

Rich

Yeah, that's what I meant to say!

[A_Clay_Man]

Ms. Sheryl wants to know why, if JakaB hasn't learned anything or even consider gca a subject, why oh why does he spend so much time on site?

Is he in the CIA?

[Mike Hendren]

Mike,

Would Jesus do this to a friend...how could you out me and my p-cover.  Proof once again I am not who I pretend to be...some for the good and some for the bad.  Shivas...I apologize.

JakaB,

You were too kind to remove the "bloate" reference, knowing that I tend to be overly sensitive.

Polonius' advice to Laertes:  "This above all, to thine own self be true."

Jesus to His Disciples (Luke 8:17):  "For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, not anything hidden that will not be known and come to light."

Barney,  me or Katz?  Pick your poison.

Mike

[ForkaB]

Mike

I'm sure that JakaB was knowingly being as ironic as Shakespeare (in the latter's use of Polonius as a poster child for the overly platitudinous).

Hmmmmmm......so who is the Polonius of GCA?

[bill_k]

I suppose I would have to be considered an anonymous poster since I have never identified myself (I have not really posted enough to draw any attention either). However, when I joined this site two years ago the first thread that I responded to concerned Yeamans Hall Club. Someone (I forget who) had been raving about the course conditions and I simply replied that they must have been there on a weekend during the winter-because during the week in the winter and the entire summertime the course conditions are entirely different-pins sometimes went 7-10 days without being moved and bunkers were raked only occasionally.This at a time when the club receives 50% of its play. These are the conditions that the "lower class of members" to which Tom Doak refers in The Confidential Guide deal with regularly (things might have changed considerably with the new GM on board). I never meant to harm the reputation of Jim Yonce, who is a fine man,a credit to his profession, and perhaps the biggest reason for the resurgence and return to prominence of the golf course(and at any rate is hamstrung by a miniscule budget)- I simply wanted the other poster to know that the club only puts its best foot forward when the regular YHC members are around (again, this might have all changed since I left Charleston three years ago). Then, two days after I posted my remarks, the entire thread was deleted. I cannot imagine why-except Ran is a big fan of YH and would not tolerate any criticism of it (sorry, just a guess, I could be completely wrong). At any rate, since that time, I have confined myself to following the interesting discussions here on GCA and only posting when I have a question for some of the more knowledgable people here such as Macwood, TE Paul, and George Bahto. Because of my association with the golf industry, I have decided to remain relatively anonymous when posting. Likewise, in retrospect I feel it is dishonorable to take shots at an individual or club while remaining anonymous-so I will not do it again. But I still think it was wrong to delete that thread.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

I am surprised at your reaction to my inquiry about the value of anonymous posts. What is wrong with asking whether they have delivered the benefits we hoped for - interesting facts and/or controversial opinions that might not come to light if people had to post under their own name?

It is striking to me that so few examples of the potential benefits of anonymous posts have been cited in response to my inquiry. Could it be that we haven't gained that much from them? And, if so, what is wrong with highlighting the point?

When I ask whether our knowledge of any specific golf course, golf architect or golf industry issue has been increased by anonymous posts, I do so as a person who WANTS to continue learning. I'm not after "transparency" or even the "truth". Instead, I'm just trying to enjoy my favorite hobby a bit more.

Rich, I've long expressed concern that our discussion group needs greater industry input and international participation. If achieving the former requires anonymity, that's fine by me. But, for the time being I remain skeptical anonymous posts really contribute. Overall, they have been better in theory than in practice.

Bill K:

I don't specifically recall the Yeamans Hall thread and can't comment on why it was deleted. Ideally, however, GCA wil remain a place where people can express opinions that might step on some toes, not to intentionally hurt anyone, but hopefully to have a positive impact on the world of golf architecture.

[ForkaB]

Tim

I am surprised that you are surprised!

I think there are more more anonymous but valuable posts out there than you (or I) are able to remmber.  I do remember about 6-12 months ago someone posing as "CB MacDonald" who had some extremely interesting things to say about NGLA, but unfortunately left the board after a number of people obsessed with finding out who he was went to unreasonable lengths in trying to "out" him.

I also think that the ratio of valuable to trivial posts from those of us who post non-anonymously is pitifully low.  I think we should spend more of our energy trying to rasie the game of the people who are on this board than trying to harass those who are trying to join it.  Just my opinion, of course.

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich Goodale:

If my inquiry comes across as trying to harass those trying to join our discussion, I regret that. It certainly wasn't my purpose. The more participation we can attract, especially from industry and international folks, the more informative and rewarding our discussion will be.

As for the issue of "trivial" posts, I share your concern, but how many battles can I fight? Why not take the lead and start a thread on "How Can We Cut Down Trivial Posts?"

[Dan Kelly]

As for the issue of "trivial" posts, I share your concern, but how many battles can I fight? Why not take the lead and start a thread on "How Can We Cut Down Trivial Posts?"

Because that thread, too, would be as dull as dull can be.