Brent, as much as your post #19 made Mike's head hurt, I don't feel too sorry for him, because he lives in the land where they make elixer's that help you deal with those sort of brain strains. I rathe liked you comments.
Then I thought for a moment that perhaps the answer is to assign raters to only evaluate the area of expertise that they know as a well educated individual in a singular field. Thus, only turf maintenance specialists would rate only on conditioning, and well accomplished players would look at shot values, shapers/operators would evaluate construction techniques, and interior designers and building archies would look at clubhouse aesthetics, and ambiance would be Martha Stewart's role.
But, then I though, Supers evaluating supers wouldn't fly because even they have vastly different standards, like Scott Anderson VS (someone who is the ultimate on green and lush over fert and irrigated). They'd still be measuring two different criteria, healthy VS pretty. Then players would be seeing the course if only playing once, and what season, what wind condition, what game would that player have that day? And, Martha Stewart can't spread herself that thin to evaluate all that ambiance. The rating system is flawed if numerical values are assigned on one time evaluation by people with vastly diverse understandings of what quality entails in any field. Make them write extensively and describe what they are evaluating, why and put them in some sort of category where there is no #1 etc. And, forget putting them in a strictly hierarchial list of 1 to a 100.
Real golfers would then stand to gain the most by reading commentaries from categories.