Raters and Freebies.

[THuckaby2]

Andy:

Gotcha, well said.  I guess my problem understanding this is that I do ALL of my golf on a "personal" basis - I am never there as part of a job... or at least I've never thought of it that way.  This too is food for thought.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

A better rating system would utilise paid raters who visited courses anonymously, pay the full whack and get reimbursed later.  Of course, this is not possible due to both economics and the fact that the exclusivity of many great courses requires that raters have to "out" themselves to get on.

This lack of anonymity, however, leads to a serious problem which I don't think has been mentioned above.  I would be surprised (even astonished!) if a course which knew that a "rater" was coming didn't do their damnedest to "tune up" the maintenance meld, as well as make sure that all the staff was on their very best behavior.  I doubt if raters always get to see how a course plays day in day out, but maybe I am just too cynical......

I haven't had the chance to read this whole thread, yet, but I saw this while skimming it and (risking the accusation that I worship too much at the altar of Goodale) have to say: Bravo, Professor!

You are not too cynical.

You have described EXACTLY how the restaurant-criticism business is conducted at my newspaper -- and at any self-respecting newspaper. And you have revealed exactly why it's done that way -- and exactly why the golf-course-rating game (and the golf-course-reviewing game, and the golf-travel-writing game) should be conducted the same way.

Our critic makes a reservation under an assumed name and pays for her meal with a credit card not bearing her real name; her face NEVER appears in any advertising, or in the paper -- so the restaurant doesn't know she's coming, doesn't know when she's there, doesn't know she's been there. She gets treated just like every other diner. She makes several trips to any restaurant before writing her review -- so as to sample a wide variety of the restaurant's offerings, on several different occasions. In this way, she can judge whether the "maintenance meld" at the restaurant is consistently good, consistently bad, or inconsistent.

Our theater critic doesn't get comped, either. Nor does our movie critic, except when his only chance to see a movie in a timely way is to attend a private press screening.

Here's my view: Raters shouldn't get comped. Period. They should pay the green fees and be reimbursed by their employer. If that system is too expensive for the employer,  the employer should drop out of the ratings game.

I, alas, have no answer to the Access problem.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

And then I insult the hell out of many hosts, for whom the money is nothing and it's the thought and graciousness that counts...

When you're a rater, it's business, not personal. You are doing a job for the public by discerning if the course is worth someone's hard earned money and/or valuable time.

[THuckaby2]

Andy:

Understood.  What I'm asking about is the many times that people host me just because we're friends... rounds that have nothing to do with the "rating" process... under this draconian system, do I have to act this way in these rounds also?

Dan K:

Again, the general thought is a good one, but the presumptions are wrong, the focus is misplaced, and it's really much ado about nothing.  Read all my other crap on this, if you care to.  

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Mike B:

I've been reviewing this thread but you're last post about simply "looking" at the course alone is absurd.

Do you review food by simply looking at it on the plate?

Do you simply review a movie by only viewing the trailer?

In both cases -- the answer is no.

To the group:

I've been involved with ratings for quite some time and let me point out what others have stated. If you demonstrate sensitivity to the needs of the prospective course you wish to visit (as Don M indicated) you will be in a much better position to accomplish your task and not inconvenience the course in anyway. Courtesy works wonders by those who consistently practice it.

One other thing -- people who are raters and who do travel frequently -- must pay their own expenses to get to the sites in question. I didn't receive an expense tab from GD when I rated for them for 17 years. They got "free" advice from
me -- in the business world they would call that a consultant and some sot of compensation would be involved.

Last thing -- if the magazines wanted to go strictly in-house instead of having panelists that would be one clear option. The key though would be to have in-house people cover as much, if not more, ground than the panels do now.  

P.S. If people on this thread actually believe I (or other dedicated panelists) will be swayed one way or the other by the fact that I payed for a green fee or was comped then you don't know me. I love the game and believe my credibility is worth more than that.

[ChasLawler]

Tom - my point was simply that you shouldn't accept a discount or freebie as a rater. If you have a host/friend who wants to pick up the tab because you are a great guy - then by all means accept it.

I don't really care anyway, only in that it seems you've gone out of your way to to explain how you never look for a handout as a rater, but that if they offer it you'll take it. That to me is BS - because by telling them you're a rater, you're looking for that handout. You may not be asking for it, but you're digging for it.

And Scott - you're probably right. A lot of courses might not get rated at all if the raters weren't getting comped. I'm just trying to give Tom a hard time.

but maybe Scott - those courses that wouldn't get rated without handing out freebies to raters shouldn't really be rated anyway?

[Jeff Fortson]

Scott Burroughs,

I have no problem with your perception of golf pro's if that is what it is.  I would agree that the stereotypes you are implying definitely do exist in my profession.  Ultimately, the difference lies in the fact that I have chosen a profession where I can enforce more change and create more enjoyment for the people that play the game than any other profession.  Can many of these "raters" say that?  If not, then what makes them so special as to expect special treatment?

I am on the front lines of trying to make this a better game in every aspect.  Just like thousands of other professionals, I have donated my life's work and soul to making this game more enjoyable and better.  I just can't understand how those that have been added to some panel, because their buddy put them on it, can have the balls to try to force a kid behind the couter (who's making minimum wage and dedicating his life to make your golfing experience better) to give him a break on the price at a course.  It's a joke.  Do I come to your place of business expecting or even asking for a break in price with nothing in return for trade?  No.  Yet, this is what I have been faced with at certain courses on a weekly if not daily basis.  And rudely, mind you!

Golf pros have a blown out of proportion reputation for being experts in the seedier things in life (i.e. booze, cigarettes, strip clubs, hookers, gambling)  .  If these stereotypes are true should I be entitled to free sex from the Bunny Ranch?  Or hey, how about just a free hand-job?  While the devil on my shoulder says yes, the answer is really no.

Don't get me wrong, many of the stereotypes you mentioned are true in some professionals, so go ahead and lay them on, because in the end I have earned my comped meal ticket onto many golf courses and I can sleep conscience free.

Plus, no one seems to want to answer the question of why there are not more golf professionals and course superintendents on these "rating" panels.  It seems like an obvious and systematic exclusion to me.


Shivas,

I agree that during a time when the course is empty that there is nothing wrong with an owner or pro letting a "rater" on the course for free or at a reduced rate.  You are absolutely right in your point about it being the owners choice.  In my experience, courses (especially resorts) are afraid to turn "raters" away for any reason and will bend over backward to get them out because they are afraid that they will get a bad rating if they don't accomodate them.  This is a problem that management companies and memberships need to iron out themselves, one which I am more than happy to help in.

My issue isn't necessarily about who's to blame.  My issue is that there are enough "bad seeds" out there ruining the image of the rater in the minds of golf pros which will do nothing but shut down comped golf in the long run.  If anything, I am trying to help "raters" keep their meal ticket by telling them to clean up their house.


Lou Duran,

Re: your comments on DoG's you have spoken with.  I agree with the comments they shared with you.  Many "raters" seem to be extremely poor golfers, which shouldn't be an issue, except that so MANY I have seen are really bad.  I think it's ok to have the occasional hack on a panel to broaden the opinions, but over 50% of "raters" that I watched tee off the first tee, at a very popular resort I used to work at, dribbled their tee shot.  Plus, many don't take notes, which is incomprehensible to me if you are there to "rate" it.  DoG's will get upset if "raters" don't like certain features of their course because it's that DoG's job to try to make everything right.  Wouldn't you be bummed if "raters" were criticizing work that you think is good?

I have reported "bad seeds" to management in the past but it goes no further than that.  The courses I experienced this at were too afraid of the consequences of reporting incidents would have on our course's rating.  

Let me make this clear for you and everyone else.....

My experience with the majority of "raters" has been very positive and I think there are plenty of guys out there that are doing the right thing as "raters".  Unfortunately, I have seen too MANY guys abuse the system in unbelievably improper ways that my view of "raters" is very sour presently.  I think rating panels should be more careful at who the bring on these panels and should weed out those that are abusing their privileges.

As for the KPIII, I hope to be there partnering with you once again.  My wife is due with our first child in mid-January so we'll see if I get the green light to do it.  As of right now, I'm in.  I will be probably more rusty this time than I was last year as I will be in NY the entire winter with my wife because of the pregnancy.  If parenthood is as time consuming as I have heard I'm sure I want have many oportunities to play much golf over the winter.  We'll still kick butt though, don't worry.


Jeff F.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Tom: I'm taking theory and how other (major) media outlets handle things. Golf is unique and a rating is different from a review. The latter requires only one person to participate.

I don't think you have to do anything differently unless the editorial board changes their policy. Not your problem.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan K:

Again, the general thought is a good one, but the presumptions are wrong, the focus is misplaced, and it's really much ado about nothing.  Read all my other crap on this, if you care to.  

TH

Tom --

Questions:

1. What presumptions are wrong?

2. How is the focus misplaced?

3. Is it possible I'm not talking about YOU, but about the SYSTEM?

Dan

[THuckaby2]

Cool.  Thanks, Andy.  But again, we're assuming in my case that GD changes the rule, and says absolutely no freebies no matter what for raters.  My question then is does this include the friendly rounds I am describing, or is it just rounds where I am there for the purpose of doing a rating?

That is, is the system absolute?

TH

[Lou_Duran]

Tom H-

We are probably talking about the same thing, though perhaps you misunderstood what I said.  Believe me, the DoG was not trying to cozy up to me.  He too was puzzled about the rating process (his course had dropped in the ratings despite numerous improvements), and was concerned that perhaps raters didn't possess the requisite playing skills which would enable then to evaluate the course properly (e.g. how can someone opine on certain shot values if they can't execute the shots?).  I've had this thrown in my face in another sport in high school after I called a fifth foul on my coach during an alumni game I was refereeing.  This authority figure didn't take kindly to leaving the stage and refused to do so for awhile.  When I  wouldn't restart the game until he sat down (to the applause of the student body and visitors), he remarked something to the effect that those who can't play can't ref (amazing how sometimes little insignificant incidences leave a indelible mark).  Personally, just as some very fine teachers are not good players, I have no reason to believe that one has to be scratch to be an effective rater.

Tom, you don't need to apologize for having been selected as a rater and receiving the few courtesies that come along with it.  It is nice that you patronize the pro shop, something that I have seen repeatedly by numerous raters.  Personally, I have enough hats, shirts, vests, etc. and I must say that I feel uncomfortable when I have more than a couple of logos on.  Anyways that's my excuse for being cheap and I am sticking to it.


 

[THuckaby2]

Dan K:

1. I'm not going to list them again, you're gonna have to read the thread.  I have grown very weary.

2. Same answer - read the thread.

3. Absolutely.  But the initial post in this was very much directed at me personally, tying to the "Canyon Golf" thread.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Lou:

Understood.  Re the course in question, it was more funny to me and a curiosity that the very nice DoG would tell us both the same thing!

Re buying stuff, well... usually I want to... but there are times where I just feel I should - if they've been very nice to me, could use the business, you know.  But I too try to stick to the one logo at a time mode, and it is tough given all the stuff I have!

TH

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Cool.  Thanks, Andy.  But again, we're assuming in my case that GD changes the rule, and says absolutely no freebies no matter what for raters.  My question then is does this include the friendly rounds I am describing, or is it just rounds where I am there for the purpose of doing a rating?

That is, is the system absolute?

TH

Don't have an answer on that. Stumped for the time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

Patrick:

I understand that, and I don't doubt your experiences.

My question is then, what exactly would you change?  Just make all gratis rounds absolutely prohibited?  You obviously know how problematic that would be, logistically, in terms of etiquette, and otherwise..  

I guess my point is this is really much ado about nothing.

Perhaps,

But, perhaps it might not be a bad idea to get feedback from the club with respect to the rater, a quality control element.

And, perhaps the magazines could re-evaluate their raters from time to time.

I'm suggesting fine tuning, not overhauling

[Andy_Lipschultz]

How many raters must play a course for the course to get a rating in GD?

[THuckaby2]

Patrick:

Fair enough.  Reading all this, it seems to me that would be a hell of an idea... My naive experiences are isolated to the fine gentlemen participating on hear who are also raters, so it's harder for me to see the problem.  But the more I hear about all the bad apples out there, well... Your thoughts seem to make great sense to me.

TH

[THuckaby2]

How many raters must play a course for the course to get a rating in GD?

Andy - I don't know - I've heard different numbers from time to time.  Sorry!

TH

[ex_gd_rater]

As a former rater, I can no longer restrain myself from participating in this discussion. In my three years as a GD rater, I did not inform the club that I was a rater, except for a handful of instances. I always sent a thank you note to my host or to the professional. I always bought something in the pro shop and almost always paid my own green fees. I took the view that I wanted to be like the NY times restaurant reviewer. Stealth had to be better for the process.

The best way to remove conflict of interest is for the panelists to be paid some small stipend for expenses by the magazine, and to be forbidden from revealing themselves in any way to the host club.

[Jeff Fortson]

ex_gd_rater,

I couldn't agree more!


Another idead I just thought of is that if a "rater" pays to play a course then he/she can submit their rating form of the course in private.  If they are comped they should have to fill it out in front of the host professional and have it signed by the pro.  

We'll see how many guys could be honest about a course to the pro's face after that pro just comped him.

Jeff F.

[Rater#1]

Shivas,
Forgive me, I haven't read this entire thread. Are you a rater for any of the magazines?

[Dan Kelly]

Jeff, maybe it's just me, but I can't imagine that someone would not be candid to the pro's face.  

I think it's just you.

B.  Philosophically, even if I were inclined to come down from Mt. Siani with a new proclamation dictating new law from Heaven that would right all of the things that I perceive to be wrong with any given system, I would not be so presumptuous or condescending as to ty to force-feed my new rules on people that are perfectly capable of figuring out for themselves what they want -- and don't want -- to do.  

Who's trying to force-feed anything to anybody? I see various people offering criticisms of the current system and proposals to improve it -- but I don't see any force-feeding going on.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Raters shouldn't get comped. Period. They should pay the green fees and be reimbursed by their employer

Dan K, raters are not employed by the magazines, they don't get any payments whatsoever.  It is the magazines that get the so-called 'valuable' service of the raters' immense time, money, and efforts to provide ratings for them to sell magazines.


Jeff F,

My stereotype of PGA pros was intended to show how portraying some as all blemishes everyone, as I know you are not one of those stereotypes based on your posts.

You ask whether the raters' contributions are worthy of special treatment.  The service they provide is read and followed (for better or worse) by millions of golfers who use them as a guide as where they choose to play - creating desire to play more places and hence pariticipate/spend more in the game.  I know I used GD's various lists as gospel (mostly - until I found this site) and as a guide on where I chose to play.  I once made an entire northeast trip based solely on the Top 75 Affordable Public list when it was a regular feature.  That doesn't mean special treatment, necessarily, but there is a service provided that I used religiously for many years, while I've never once used a PGA professional's service for lessons in the past 30 years (although I know now that I need it!  )

[Mike Benham]

Mike B:

I've been reviewing this thread but you're last post about simply "looking" at the course alone is absurd.

Do you review food by simply looking at it on the plate?

Do you simply review a movie by only viewing the trailer?

In both cases -- the answer is no.

Matt -

Yep, I agree with you, it is absurd ... however, based on the variety of items that a rater is rating, playing the course is not required for all those items.  As in a restaurant, do you need to eat the food to rate the service? No ... and do you need to eat the entire plate ... no again ...

My issue is when the golfing ability of a rater clouds the ability for the rater to make a clear assessment of the course.

Here are the 8 values for GD:

1. Shot Values. How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

2. Resistance to Scoring. How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for a scratch player from the back tees?

3. Design Variety. How varied are the holes in differing lengths, configurations, hazard placements, green shapes and green contours?

4. Memorability. How well do the design features (tees, fairways, greens, hazards, vegetation and terrain) provide individuality to each hole, yet a collective continuity to the entire 18?

5. Aesthetics. How well do the scenic values of the course (including landscaping, vegetation, water features and backdrops) add to the pleasure
of a round?

6. Conditioning. How would you rate the playing quality of tees, fairways and greens when you last played the course?

7. Ambiance. How well does the overall feel and atmosphere of the course reflect or uphold the traditional values of the game?

8. Walkability. How walkable is the course in terms of terrain and distance between holes?

Which ones must you play the course to evaluate?
#1 - Shot Values, #4 - Memorability, #6 - Conditioning (and only because it says "playing quality")

And the ones you don't ... #2 - Resistance to scoring (if you aren't a scratch golfer rating from the back tees, then is an  opinion on hard the course is from the back tees valid?), #3 - Design Variety - visual is all the is required here ..., #5 - Asthetic - scenic values requiring visual rating ..., #7 - Ambiance - Is this the restuarant critic?, #8 - Walkability - by definition, you can do this one by walking - (and if you take a cart, does a rater not rate this section?) ...

So how absurd is it after all?

[Dan Kelly]

Raters shouldn't get comped. Period. They should pay the green fees and be reimbursed by their employer

Dan K, raters are not employed by the magazines, they don't get any payments whatsoever.  It is the magazines that get the so-called 'valuable' service of the raters' immense time, money, and efforts to provide ratings for them to sell magazines.

Scott --

I know they're not employees of the magazines and don't get payments. I was using "employer" broadly.

They are certainly acting as agents of the magazines, if not as their employees.

My stand remains: Raters should get no comped rounds. They should pay the full freight, get a receipt, and send it to their magazine for reimbursement.