[ian]

I have seen many well crafted threads on architecture die a quick death due to the greater interest in "Martha Burk" threads and other general interest topics.

The only thing that sucks is sometimes it has taken somebody a while to craft a thread together (my bunker alternatives took about 6 hours - but it did not generate the discussion I had hoped).

People will respond to what interests them. My favourite recent thread was the 16th at Garden City,but I doubt more than a few followed beyond the first page.

Its like the whole question of all types of architecture being welcome, all types of threads make an interesting discussion group.

Could we keep our focus a little better, yes, but frankly so what.

[TEPaul]

Tim Weiman:

How would you like to see another section of Golfclubatlas.com where one would have to pass muster to register in it--whoever you are would have to be known by the site administrator? And where one would have to continue to pass muster to say in it? There'd be no anonymous posting or anonymous viewing access allowed, no personal insults would be allowed, content would be tightened up to hone it to pertinent opinion, questions and response.

The idea would be to encourage frank opinion, frank questions from the likes of green chairmen, golf chairmen, presidents and concerned golfers and members, clients, architects, superintendents etc. and other contributors who heretofore, for numerous reasons (most of which are pretty obvious), do not come on this discussion section or have left it.

It definitely would not be exactly in the spirit of the open and unmonitored discussion of this section as we've always known it but this section could remain as is. The other section would be only to serve a purpose this section has tried to serve but obviously never will, again, for all those fairly obvious reasons. Basically to get into that other section you'd have to earn your way in and earn your stay in---perhaps not dissimilar to some kind of clubs.

Of course that other section will need a dedicated "administrator" who all would understand possessed the right to monitor, delete, and edit both content and contributors.

How would you like that addition? Clearly most of us would probably have to understand that we wouldn't be allowed into that other section if we act the way we do here and say some of the things we do here.

But at least it might encourage some of those valuable people at courses to come on here. But perhaps even that wouldn't encourage them or perhaps they just don't care!

[Jeff Fortson]

TEPaul,

"Bifurcating" GCA would do no good (like the way I use that term for GCA.com?!).  People would make their "serious" posts on the serious side and then come over to the current side and blast away at those they disagree with.  It would have a "classroom and schoolyard effect" where people might pretend to behave in class while ridiculing or picking on others in the schoolyard.  All of which would end up discrediting people in the classroom by using the schoolyard to diminish their character or position.  

Did that make sense?  Just an opinion, anyway.


Jeff F.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Tom Paul, I know you framed your question to Tim, but I'd have to say that I'm all in favor of your proposal. A multi-layered structure, be it flat (e.g. have different forums for on-topic and off-topic postings) or hierarchical (like the one you propose) would make an awful lot of sense to me. I'd like to add that my concept of "borderline fascistic" moderation, as mentioned previously, was meant in the same spirit you describe: such moderation would NOT stifle thought, indeed far from it. By simply keeping people focused and on-topic and by weeding out the off-topic and the mean-spirited, you generate a far healthier climate for true intellectualism. And as Ian said, in a post I wholeheartedly agree with, the real problem with the general off-topic stuff (be it golf or non-golf related) is that they can often crowd out the truly interesting, architecture-related threads which do crop up and which people like Ian and Paul Turner and others put a lot of effort into in the first place. I'm not against off-topic material per se - I'm against the effects such material inevitably has upon the on-topic stuff.

Whether or not such a restricted/moderated zone would encourage participation from industry insiders and professionals remains to be seen, of course. However, such a zone would inevitably yield its own rewards regardless - don't you think?

Cheers,
Darren

(EDIT: Jeff F., I see our posts crossed. Do you really think that people would behave as you describe if GolfClubAtlas possessed a two-tiered structure? I can't see that at all, myself...)

[THuckaby2]

JakaB:

Sage counsel.  I'll take that latter one down. I have the naive thought that this site is so far down the food chain that it would be immune from harm... but better safe than sorry.

TEP:

That idea for a separate site has been floated several times also.  It is a good one, but the key is these words:  "

"Of course that other section will need a dedicated "administrator" who all would understand possessed the right to monitor, delete, and edit both content and contributors."

Find such a person and this could work very well.  But of course the risk also is that such a site would have all chiefs and no indians... that is, you'd have very little input from golf consumers if you were too strict about this being insiders only.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

The elevation of the substance of the discussions via a limited access discussion group is a good idea.  It would eliminate frivolous threads and posts.

This doesn't mean that there can't be serious differences of opinion between contributors, but it would eliminate all of the anonymous posts and sniping.

More importantly, it could serve as a resource to those seeking information, experience and expertise from superintendents, green chairman, architects, and other related professionals and amateurs.

I'd rather avoid discussions on John Daly's personal life and many of the non-architectural topics that are posted.
If you look at the "discussion group" category that Ran has created, it says that non-architectural topics will be deleted.
The problem is that Ran has a life to live, a family, a business and his own pursuits that take precedence over monitoring this site, but, a limited access feature, confined to those serious about architecture, who have proven themselves in the general discussion group, is a great idea.

The general "discussion group" category could continue exactly as it has, and could be the recruiting ground for those interested in GCA, and those who would like to participate in elevated discussions.

It's an idea thats time has come.

Jeff Fortson,

That problem can be solved.

Tom Huckaby,

No it won't.

If a poster exceeds acceptable behavior, after one warning, their access is removed.  I think you'll find that self discipline will work well.

Darren,

The general "Discussion Group" will continue exactly as it has in the past and will be the "pool" from which future posters are selected to participate in the "elevated discussion group"

[JakaB]

Tom,

I think you have a great idea...just make sure only those who are allowed in your little club are also the same ones only allowed to read your dribble....The damage that could be done to golf by the most diatribite of this site could be monumental if it they be lefted unchecked.   Use email, letters, the phone or the halls of your private clubs if you want a secret society out to protect the game as you love it.

[TEPaul]

"Did that make sense?  Just an opinion, anyway."

Jeff F:

Yes, indeed, that makes a lot of sense. I'm simply offering an alternative, only to see what others might say about it---the pros and cons of it. The entire point would be to encourage people on here who aren't going to come on to our discussion group---by this time that's pretty obvious.

And to your school, classroom and schoolyard analogy---ever heard about kids getting demerits, detention or just plain expelled from school? I have. I've even heard of schools closing their doors entirely. The world wide Internet is free but the individual sites on it aren't necessarily. Ran Morrissett both owns and controls GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and if he wants to change it or even shut it down temporarily or totally there's not a lot any of us can do about it.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul,

I would very much support what you are suggesting and have felt that way for some time.

In fairness, lots of credit needs to be given to Ran for developing GCA and taking the site as far as it has gone thus far. Any criticism I may have is based, in part, on a feeling that GCA has come so far that it DESERVES to be taken further.

My understanding is that a great many people in the golf industry follow our discussion, far more than ever care (or are authorized) to post. One knowledgable industry insider once told me he had gone to an industry get together and all anyone was talking about was the Merion issue and how Golfclubatlas had served to bring it to everyone's attention.

But, my real interest is not to criticize. How does it help me to say to someone like your friend Bill Greenwood (Merion, Green Chairman) " Bill, you guys really screwed up"?

It doesn't.

I'd much rather GCA evolve into a resource where the Bill Greenwoods of the world can get candid feedback that may be very critical, but is also recognized to be in the spirit of only wanting to help his club make the best possible golf architecture decision.

I hope something like you suggest becomes part of GCA's future.

Tim

[Mike Hendren]

When Robert Louis Stevenson was asked what the most dangerous word in the English language is, he replied "exclusive."

Just put me down as someone who will remain content to feast at the "Children's Table" in the kitchen.  Perhaps you guru's can throw us a chicken leg every now and then

Mike

[Jeff Fortson]

Darren,

The only way it wouldn't deter people from posting is if they never set foot outside the proposed "classroom".  Even still, those that do venture to the "schoolyard" would be privy to any stripping down or diminishing remarks of the people that choose to not go there.  All in all reputations and characters will continue to be put down or ripped apart by those with no lives.

I guess what I am getting at is creating a two-tiered or two-system website won't stop people from trying to tear people down or character assissinate.  Idiots will be idiots and there is nothing you can do about it if you want an "open forum".  

I also don't like the suggestion that you or anyone outside of Ran trying to set forth what they feel the agenda should be for this website, unless they have contributed significant resources to the website's survival.  Even still, it is ultimately Ran's call.  Just because you or some others don't like the tone, threads, or general direction of topics on here doesn't mean it should all change because it goes against what you envision this site to be.  

It is what it is.  Deal with it and continue to post on topics you care about and ignore those that bore or disgust you.  The "Seven Cities of Gold" er.. "Golf CLub Atlas" don't exist.  In all, I hope you continue to participate as your opinions are welcome and informative.

Thanks.


Jeff F.

[Darren_Kilfara]

That idea for a separate site has been floated several times also.  It is a good one, but the key is these words:  "

"Of course that other section will need a dedicated "administrator" who all would understand possessed the right to monitor, delete, and edit both content and contributors."

Find such a person and this could work very well.  But of course the risk also is that such a site would have all chiefs and no indians... that is, you'd have very little input from golf consumers if you were too strict about this being insiders only.

I'd nominate Mr. Paul for the role of moderator, myself. Actually, you can have multiple moderators - all you need are people who a) share a general vision of what a moderated forum should look like, b) visit the forums and read most if not all of the material on a regular basis, and c) are willing to act when necessary to admonish anyone who violates the rules and regulations set up in advance.

I'd encourage everyone to visit a site I've mentioned before, namely http://pub208.ezboard.com/bsonsofsamhorn. First of all, you'll see that this introductory page sends everyone down one of several paths (the bifurcated structure which Tom Paul has proposed) to begin with: a number of on-topic forums, a number of off-topic forums, and a number of forums for archived material. Secondly, once you start to lurk inside the forums, you'll note that there are something like 8-10 moderators (called "Dopes"), each of whom has a moderating role - if there were only one moderator, his role could be quite onerous, but as there are many, there isn't much work-sharing involved. Anyway, there are other reasons that this site and its structure has much to recommend itself; if people are serious about exploring alternatives to the current GolfClubAtlas site structure, this would be one way to start.

Cheers,
Darren

[Lou_Duran]

Jak,

What makes you think that the pretty young lady is one of Huck's kids?  Don't you know where he likes to hang-out and take pictures?

TEP,

The site could have a "private"/subscriber section by invitation only.  With a paid membership of 10, it may have a rather narrow focus, however.

BTW, many of the numerous architects and superintendents that I've met seem to have very thin skin when it comes to their work (though fairly candid about their peers off the record).  Is my perception wrong?  Do you think that in a more "protected" setting they would be more conversant and candid?  I sort of doubt it.

Fortsonator,

That is scary.  I am going to have to rethink what I wrote.  

So as not to start a trend, let me suggest that the problem with the high cost of golf and its decline in rounds played can be largely attributed to a geometric growth in government regulation (land, construction, legal, insurance), and perhaps too many people ill-equipped to deal with the playing public in the business (not you, of course).

The last comment is prompted by the treatment one of my recent guests perceived at an area course.  While he liked the lay-out a lot, he felt unwelcomed by the shop personnel, and stated that he has no intention of returning.  How many of us have run into this situation several times a year?  A negative or introverted person has no place in the shop.  Jim Ferree, the former senior tour player and once DoG at Long Cove ought to be the model to which all pro shop personnel aspire to.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

JakaB & Mike Hendren,

I think you might agree that there has been a dilution in the quality of threads and posts over the years, that more and more non-architecture related threads are being posted.

Having a seperate level for people who are serious about golf course architecture seems to be the only solution to enhance the quality of the threads and posts.

The general "discussion group" would remain open to all.

Some people have asked me why the Alpine and Baltusrol get togethers couldn't have been in the spring, so that they could play the golf courses.  My answer was, that the get togethers aren't about playing golf, they're about discussing architecture and related topics.

TEPaul makes a good point, the site is turning into a chatt room with a high percentage of non-architectural related topics.

There has to be a seperation of the wheat from the chaff if you want to continue with a quality golf course architecture site, and an elevated level of discussion seems like a prudent suggestion.  

Lacking this, the site will spiral into mediocrity.

[Darren_Kilfara]

I also don't like the suggestion that you or anyone outside of Ran trying to set forth what they feel the agenda should be for this website, unless they have contributed significant resources to the website's survival.  Even still, it is ultimately Ran's call.  Just because you or some others don't like the tone, threads, or general direction of topics on here doesn't mean it should all change because it goes against what you envision this site to be.  

It is what it is.  Deal with it and continue to post on topics you care about and ignore those that bore or disgust you.  The "Seven Cities of Gold" er.. "Golf CLub Atlas" don't exist.  

Jeff, I find this attitude to be incredibly narrow-minded - as though the current GolfClubAtlas is as good a version of the site as one could ever hope to see. If Ran should come in here and tell me that it's his site and it it what it is, I might disagree with him, but ultimately I would have to defer to his wishes. However, in the interim is it not reasonable to at least explore alternatives for how to make the site better?

The thought has just occurred to me that people might be confusing the words "exclusive" and "elitist". My (and I think Tom Paul's) vision is for a discussion forum which would be open to anyone willing to abide by a well-defined set of rules. My core belief is that moderated discussion would create better discussion in general than we currently have. Do you have any experience with moderated discussion forums? If so, what has that experience been? (If not, I'd recommend you explore just what moderated discussion might look like - it isn't stifling in the least.)

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

Darren:

You keep mentioning Sons of Sam Horn, and that is a great site - I read it from time to time because I am a big fan of Bill Simmons - but that has as much in common with this as I do with Donald Trump.  It's really apples and oranges, because "golf course architecture" is necessarily vague, and "Boston Red Sox" is necessarily narrow.  That is, a LOT of things can be construed to fall under the former topic, but only the Sox mean the Sox.  So off-topic is VERY easy to keep out in SOSH.

It also works because there are nutcases there willing to spend 16 hours a day doing monitoring.

So while I too feel that if such an "insiders only" off-shoot of this site was created, it could work, and Tom Paul would be a wonderful candidate for monitor... BUT... I assume Tom does also have a life.  I've played golf with him walking along.. so I do know he spends SOME time away from the computer.

I do feel another danger would be that insiders-only misses the voice of the consumer, thus creating a worthless ivory tower with very narrow focus...Which is pretty much what Lou just said!

(And Lou, good call re that picture... the world will never know for sure...   )

And I also feel that Jeff Fortson is correct in every word he says.  If people want to find it and ruin it, they will, no matter what amount of monitoring one does.  MANY discussion groups have already had this occur... the history of many of us participating here now includes several of them...

So you either have a tiny group up in an ivory tower that works, but achieves little... or you just deal with things and make the best of it.

Oh well, in the end this is all just more mental masturbation.  The best point made here is that this is Ran's site and whatever he chooses to do is his decision and his alone and there sure as hell isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it one way or the other.

I kinda like the site as is, but I've made that pretty clear.  Nothing Ran has said, or hasn't said, would make me think he's dissatisfied with it.

TH

[THuckaby2]

JakaB & Mike Hendren,

I think you might agree that there has been a dilution in the quality of threads and posts over the years, that more and more non-architecture related threads are being posted.

Patrick:

I disagree completely with that.  Go read the old posts and tell me there's been a dilution in quality of threads and posts... Good lord if anything there are FAR MORE good threads and posts today, and it's not even close?  Why?  Because we have SO many more worthwhile contributors! Yes, there are more non-architecture posts today, but that comes with the territory of having more participants.  So I see no dilution at all... the good outweighs the bad, big-time.

Which is why this whole discussion remains very curious to me... people seem to be pining away for an ideal that really never was...

In any case it's a very moot point.  Who is going to monitor this new group?  Believe me, such a task is NOT easy.. we have seen it time and time again... Even requiring passwords and the like can be defeated by those who wish... It's a losing battle, as proven by golfonline's grillroom, several others...

TH

[TEPaul]

JakaB said;

"Tom,
I think you have a great idea...just make sure only those who are allowed in your little club are also the same ones only allowed to read your dribble....The damage that could be done to golf by the most diatribite of this site could be monumental if it they be lefted unchecked.  Use email, letters, the phone or the halls of your private clubs if you want a secret society out to protect the game as you love it."

Barney:

I've been amused and encouraging of your input on Golfclubatlas.com all these years but that post #113 takes the cake. If a section of this website such as the one mentioned by me for comment from others as an alternative ever did happen it would never remotely survive if you were allowed into it---and so you never should be.

Those kinds of personal remarks within your post #113 are the types of things that shouldn't even be on this section of Golfclubaltas. It's not all that infrequently when someone takes you to task for some of the off the wall things you come up with on here, you come back with the remark 'everyone knows I'm an idiot'. I suggest in the future you should affix that remark to every one of your posts.

Frankly, I doubt a section like that one on a site like this would have a deterimental influence on architecture at all. What it might do, though, is get rid of that contingent of hysterical Fazio defenders, like yourself, who have no real reason to be defending him on here or anywhere with the exception of the fact that if a section of this site somehow miraculously served to ease Fazio out of the classic course restoration/redesign business the world of classic architecture would at least be saved from a bad influence---one very ironically Tom Fazio admits.

The complete irony is, Tom Fazio, as nice a guy as he is, in his unbelievably unique and convoluted way does not even admit to being in the restoration/redesign of classic course business. I heard him say personally to 250 people that he and his uncle agree practically 30 years ago never to do that type of architectural work again (as everyone looked at each other in total amazement as he was speaking at a restoration conference).

Don't bother to say you're just an idiot this time or even apologize---I don't want it.

Furthermore, if this site ever did create this kind of section I doubt they'd want me in it anyway. I might have more to offer than you do but probably not very much more!  

[Darren_Kilfara]

Tom H., I strongly disagree with your basic premise that people are waiting in the blinds, looking to ruin GolfClubAtlas at every chance they get. Instead, I believe that people will hang themselves with as much rope as you give them - in other words, you only get off-topic/mean-spirited/anonymous posts at GCA because GCA allows them. There may be exceptions to that, but in general, I believe that the harder an internet discussion forum makes it for people to misbehave, the less misbehavior you'll see.

And if this is all pointless mental masturbation, and nothing is ever likely to change...well, I guess you might be right, but you can't blame a girl for trying.

Cheers,
Darren

[Lou_Duran]

Jak,

I didn't mean to trivialize this.  Knowing you a bit, I now certainly understand why this is a serious matter to you, and, of course, you are quite right.  Sorry about that.

[THuckaby2]

Tom H., I strongly disagree with your basic premise that people are waiting in the blinds, looking to ruin GolfClubAtlas at every chance they get. Instead, I believe that people will hang themselves with as much rope as you give them - in other words, you only get off-topic/mean-spirited/anonymous posts at GCA because GCA allows them. There may be exceptions to that, but in general, I believe that the harder an internet discussion forum makes it for people to misbehave, the less misbehavior you'll see.

And if this is all pointless mental masturbation, and nothing is ever likely to change...well, I guess you might be right, but you can't blame a girl for trying.

Cheers,
Darren

Darren:

History speaks loudly.  Many of us have seen several discussion groups come and go, and no amount of monitoring can prevent this.  It's an noble thought to think this one is immune to detractors, but people call me a pollyanna?

I have no doubt that the thought behind this is a good one:  high-level discussion of serious GCA issues, changing the golf world.  

I just question the reality and practicality of it, especially given what exists here is really pretty damn good as it is.

TH

[T_MacWood]

It is my understanding that Ran wants to increase participation not limit it. His goal as far as I can tell is to create a (literally) world wide forum where architecture can be discussed and debated by a diverse group that share a common love for architecture and grand designs. More participation from GB&I, the Continent, Canada, Japan, Africa, ANZ, etc., more participation from architects and industry types, more participation from club represenatatives...not only participation in discussions, but more importantly expressing themselves in My Opinion essays and My Home course profiles.

Unfortunately there seems to be factors that limit that participation. Clowns that are more interested in drawing attention to themselves than discussing architecture. Too many non-architectural topics, too many golf course collectors that lack architectural interest, too many personal attacks (often coming from a pseudo), too many pissing contests and courtroom tactics.

Differing opinions and disagreement are essential. Asking people to support and articulate their opinions is a positive (espcially if it is acompanied by a thoughtful opposing opinion and not just you are wrong, unqualified, biased...). The site became much more interesting, analytical and articulate after a few notable contrarians came aboard. Unfortunately there were some negative features that were introduced at the same time.

Is the answer is to limit participation so as to increase future participation and expansion?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Tom MacWood,

Retention of the existing "discussion group" would be the vehicle for expansion.

A "discussion group" with limited access would be the vehicle for focus and quality.

Tom Huckaby,

With limited, identifiable participation, there would be no need for a moderator, the group would be self disciplined, and transgressors deprived of access.

[THuckaby2]

JakaB:

I saw your post.  I don't believe in jinxes, nope.  But as you see, I did delete the post with the pictures in question.  Yes, better safe than sorry.

Patrick:

You can't possibly be that naive.  There is literally no way to protect such a site from intrusion from those who would want to do so, absent a moderator.  It has been tried again and again, and has failed again and again - even WITH moderators.  Don't believe me?  Ask any of the real old-timers in this game about golfonline's grillroom.

TH

[Darren_Kilfara]

Is the answer is to limit participation so as to increase future participation and expansion?

Yes, Tom M., it is. (Damn, we have a lot of people named Tom on this website...) But the limiting of participation should be self-selective, i.e. as soon as you create an appropriate set of guidelines to which posters must abide, some people will choose not to participate, and others will flout the rules and thereafter be banned. One might choose to call that taking a step back, but I'm quite certain that following that would come three or four steps forward...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()