"When I’m trying to rate a course I’ve just seen for The Confidential Guide, generally it’s more of a feeling than a rigorous analysis" TD
As Mr. Nicklaus once suggested, the number of site visits necessary to design a course probably depends on how far along one is on the learning curve. Some folks can develop the "feel" to rate a course from the parking lot or the back of the pro shop. A few here seem to have completed the learning such that they can even do so from pictures posted on the site and who designed the course.
I do like the suggested criteria, though attempts to be different or novel for its own sake are not a personal requirement. After all, golf is a game of tradition and the familiar. Nature should provide a capable designer all the variety we need.
Golf is a competitive game, so the ability of a course to hold challenging club championships is also an important factor in my book. If it can do so at higher levels while still remaining playable for its normal customers, it is held in higher esteem.
As to the routing, I think that many years ago, budgets, equipment, and that the game was played on foot had a lot to do with their compactness. Today, environmental restrictions, land-use objectives and requirements, changed preferences on how the game is played, and the cost to build courses near sufficiently large population centers have a lot to do with the routing. Also, some architects appear to care more about variety, balance, and ebb and flow within the routing, perhaps sacrificing a superior green site for a hole that closely resembled its predecessor in favor of one that requires different skills.
I can buy that greens probably better reflect the personalities of the designers. And perhaps their games as well.