[JC Jones]

As I mentioned on the other thread, there is a discrepancy between the posted rank and the actual rank based on the posted data.  Here is a look at the data and the differences:








Obviously this isnt the cleanest, but the column on the right shows the difference between the actual and the published.  I'll be curious to know why there is this issue.

[Tom_Doak]

Interesting, especially since a few courses have negative errors, where most have positive ones.  Makes it a bit less likely to be a simple spreadsheet error.


FYI, your must have a typo in your data on Forest Highlands.  I doubt it went to zero.

[JC Jones]

You are correct on Forest Highlands.  I noticed that after creating and uploading the images but didn’t want to go through the process again 


I didn’t figure it detracted from the overall point....

[John Kavanaugh]

Editors earn the right to fudge the numbers as needed.

[JC Jones]

Update: Golf Digest has pulled the data from their website.

[Terry Lavin]

Nothing like a ranking list to enlist voluble chatter.

[Eric Smith]

.

[Eric Smith]

Update: Golf Digest has pulled the data from their website.

Why?

[John Kavanaugh]

It's too soon for Sand Hills to fall out of the top ten. All if not most of the obvious changes were made to make the courses present better in magazine format. No big deal. Sure Spring Hill is bumped down 14 spots but it is still top 100. Childs play. Let's all just stop pretending that this isn't how it's been done for years.

[Eric Smith]

.

[William_G]

thank you JC

[Steve Lang]

    Hard to believe those raw decimal places are significant and their differences drive things, the subjective editorial biases have to .    There'd probably be more discussion by just proposing #1 and then lumping courses into ranges e.g., 2-5, 5-10, 10-20, etc. and letting everyone argue from there.


IS there an allowance for permitting C&W music to be played?

[Bill Gayne]

Was Ohoopee not eligible for ranking? Palmetto not top 200?

[Jeff Schley]

Update: Golf Digest has pulled the data from their website.

Good work JC, what was the link where the data was?  Did you bookmark it by chance?
Very odd to go by quantitative methods, then not use them in your rankings.

[JC Jones]

Second Update:


As suspected, the posted data is the actual data that hasn’t been scrubbed for “outliers”.  Outliers are defined as scores entered by raters that are 2 or more standard deviations from the mean. 


I have always taken issue with the outlier policy (it also figures into a rater’s “report card” - which I’ll discuss in a separate thread) for a whole host of reasons.  The interesting thing about this data being posted is that we can now see the actual effects of outliers on the rankings.


Lastly, if you’re wondering how this could happen, apparently Hennessey is saying Knuth sent him the “wrong” data and despite being an editor, Hennessey ran with it.  I wouldn’t expect a public acknowledgment of the error from the magazine - despite their very public effort to legitimize the rankings because of all the sub data they use.

[Daryl David]

Has to be embarrassing for the magazine. Quite the mistake.

[Lou_Duran]

Sure Daryl, though said embarrassment must be in proportion to that expressed by the New York Times, Washington Post, and NBC News for having to retract their false stories about Giuliani.  Mistakes are never made in publishing internet content.     


BTW, if JC Jones is alleging a process known as Winsorization, it is commonly done in analyzing data.  I know other rankings that do the same thing.  One I was a part of would summarily exclude the polarized ratings of a few popular, "passionate" raters who used the entire range of the scale (0-10) to punish courses they disliked and elevate those they favored.


I am curious, however, about what has happened to JC Jones.  That exercise took great amount of effort.  Seems like it would take an awfully big ax to grind to motivate the expenditure.

[John Kavanaugh]

Sure Daryl, though said embarrassment must be in proportion to that expressed by the New York Times, Washington Post, and NBC News for having to retract their false stories about Giuliani.  Mistakes are never made in publishing internet content.     


BTW, if JC Jones is alleging a process known as Winsorization, it is commonly done in analyzing data.  I know other rankings that do the same thing.  One I was a part of would summarily exclude the polarized ratings of a few popular, "passionate" raters who used the entire range of the scale (0-10) to punish courses they disliked and elevate those they favored.


I am curious, however, about what has happened to JC Jones.  That exercise took great amount of effort.  Seems like it would take an awfully big ax to grind to motivate the expenditure.

I've seen JC lose it over much less. Much, much, much less.

[Mike Hendren]

In addition to The Honors Course, I'm glad to see the Volunteer state weigh in at 167 and 168 with Golf Club of Tennessee and Spring Creek Ranch.  On the "how would you split 10 rounds" measurement, I'd take the following 9 to 1 over either of them however: 


Lawsonia Links
Moraine
Holston Hills
Yale
Idle Hour
Forsgate
Palmetto
Beverly
Desert Forest
Augusta CC
French Lick Hill Course
Blue Mound
Pine Needles
Mid-Pines
Fenway
Glens Falls
Teugega


Just to name a few off the top of my head.


Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()