[Jackson C]

Jackson,

Do you know that pigs sleep exclusively on their left sides?  Would you buy sausage from a factory that advertised they only use right ears because they are more tender due to the cool night air? 

note:  I love Cornell more than any other American University and this is not meant as a slam against the finest agriculture school known to man.

Thank you John.  Got a good laugh out of that!
You are close to this, so I take it is not readily fixable.

You are right, we have the best agriculture school by far, along with the best hotel, labor, architecture school ... 
And soon to be the best applied engineering school in NYC!

[Chris Johnston]

Phenominal AG School!  Law School too!  Nice town and area.  Too hilly for us fat guys tho.

My son almost went there.

John - I'm disappointed...

[Jud_T]

Nothing against Cornell, great neck of the woods, but according to those in the know, currently it's school of Architecture doesn't crack the top 6...

[Jackson C]

Nothing against Cornell, great neck of the woods, but according to those in the know, currently it's school of Architecture doesn't crack the top 6...

We better get our esteemed architecture school alums on that right away!

[Doug Ralston]

I have had on GKL [John] a lot of 'pooh pooh, I would never be influenced by being comped, but would always give an honest rating. And I believe that they think they would.

But: a. We naturally like people who treat us well; b. anytime your friends have issues you naturally want to help; c. you will find 'reasons/rationalizations' to support the desired position against those opposed; d. this is called loyalty and it is NOT entirely a negative thing; e. the real point being you will not really be aware of the influence because that is cognitive dissonance for you.

I believe them when they say they are being honest, but doubt them when they say there is no influence and they are 'objective'. I simply think that lobbyists already KNOW their influence is real, and do not pitch money away for nothing. Neither do compers of raters. Not entirely an evil thing, as I have said, but a hard one to fight, even to recognize, very often.

Thanks for all the insights. I have no way to 'convince them', and little desire to do it. If they think for themselves about this, 'my work here is done'. A fun topic for me.


Doug

[Tom_Doak]

complaints from courses would be kept confidential by the publication
the publication would void the rating but not tell the rater; the rater would not know his vote was not counted
the publication is not required to dismiss the rater, but in its judgment and based on the history of complaints against the rater can take action

Jackson:

You're assuming that each of the magazines wants to pay somebody to be their "rater nanny".

Maybe GOLF DIGEST is big enough to do that.  Maybe Brad Klein does it, on his own.  None of the other magazines want to take the time or the effort.  For the rest of them, the panelists provide free content for them, and that's all they want to know.

[Andy Troeger]

Doug,
The problem with your logic is that I've been treated well by EVERY course that I've ever rated. If there's ever a frustration, its that they go overboard with trying to be nice and it gets distracting with the real purpose of the visit. I truly don't remember ever having a bad experience--the "worst" was probably when my contact forgot to notify the rest of the staff of my visit and then wasn't in when I arrived. I showed them a copy of the correspondence--probably solved. So given all that...am I spoiled? Absolutely! Does that really get in the way of being objective in the long run? Not really--even if I wanted to I couldn't give every course a great rating. Plus, the rating is a secret one--that eliminates a lot of need for false positives that could arise if the rater felt their host/friend/contact would know what they submitted.

If there are courses that have perhaps gotten a bump based on cognitive dissonance, I would guess its been based on the quality of my playing partners, whether they be old friends or new ones. I recall playing with an assistant pro who was a huge Notre Dame fan once--that probably made the day a little more enjoyable. I didn't purposely give that course bonus points, but as you say its possible that I saw the course in a more positive light than I would have otherwise. I've had some fun rounds with other folks including many GCAers and some good caddies over the years that made rounds more enjoyable as well.

[Ken Moum]

I'm inclined to think that Henry Longhurst had the ultimate word on this matter.

"By all means screw their women and drink their booze but never write one word about their bloody awful golf course." -- Henry Longhurst

[Tom_Doak]

Nothing against Cornell, great neck of the woods, but according to those in the know, currently it's school of Architecture doesn't crack the top 6...

We better get our esteemed architecture school alums on that right away!

Jackson:

I am actually a graduate of the Ag school at Cornell.  Landscape architecture is in the ag school, not in Architecture.

And my dad got his Ph.D. in ag economics there, too, about sixty years ago now.

[Mark Chaplin]

A rater whose never been to Scotland, how can they have credibility? 

[Jason Topp]

On the original question - I am sure it has an impact of some sort. 

For me personally, I struggle much more with what to say on this site.  I think the value of this site is that it provides honest opinions on the quality of golf course architecture generally and courses in particular.  I try to contribute on that front but it can be  delicate task in a public forum. 

[Jim Colton]

I'm sure comping has something to do with it, but for many maybe it's just the experience of playing a course that you'd  have no chance of playing otherwise. Getting in for free is icing on the cake, as I'm sure many of these clubs have unaccompanied rates 250 and above.

You just have to look at the rankings to know that the experience matters. How about the ultraexclusive club on the Golf Digest list that includes lunch with the owner and a tour of his car collection? And aren't there one or two head scratchers on an otherwise strong Golf Magazine list, including one perhaps driven by a infamous boondoggle where they really rolled out the red carpet for panelists. So I guess you can't blame clubs for trying. Often the numbers are so slim between top 100 and never heard of ya, and nearly everybody would rather be ranked higher than lower. That's human nature too.

I asked our pro what our rater policy was and he said they charge the unaccompanied rate. I wonder how many call to inquire and never come out because the comping has become the expected norm. In our case, not comping indirectly hurts our ratings because the more recent visits will offset lower scores from when the course first opened.

[Jud_T]

You just have to look at the rankings to know that the experience matters. How about the ultraexclusive club on the Golf Digest list that includes lunch with the owner and a tour of his car collection?

Another example of favoritism.  I had to change in the men's room, got a buffet supper and never saw the owner.  The car collection, however, is infinitely more interesting than the golf course...

[Jackson C]

Nothing against Cornell, great neck of the woods, but according to those in the know, currently it's school of Architecture doesn't crack the top 6...

We better get our esteemed architecture school alums on that right away!

Jackson:

I am actually a graduate of the Ag school at Cornell.  Landscape architecture is in the ag school, not in Architecture.

And my dad got his Ph.D. in ag economics there, too, about sixty years ago now.

Hi Tom,

I am graduate of the Ag school and the Johnson school.

Don't know where Jud is getting his ranking of the architecture school not even placing in the top 6?
How can that even be credible?
He must be taking it off architecture's equivalent of the Golf Digest list?  
Jud, we have to go with architecture's equivalent of the GCA's rankings here.  

Jackson

[Jud_T]

Jackson,

Sample size is small.  But one leading architect/educator I spoke to listed the top 6 currently as:

1.  Yale
2.  Harvard
3.  Columbia
4.  Princeton
5.  Cooper Union
6.  MIT

Of course he gets comped at each school...

[Jackson C]

Jackson,

Sample size is small.  But one leading architect/educator I spoke to listed the top 6 currently as:

1.  Yale
2.  Harvard
3.  Columbia
4.  Princeton
5.  Cooper Union
6.  MIT

Of course he gets comped at each school...

Where is UMich's fine architecture school on that list?
Can't be right!
Clearly huge east coast old school prejudice

[Lloyd_Cole]

Re - credibility, knowing that autospell can sabotage most anyone...

who's |hoōz|
contraction of
• who is : who's that?
• who has : who's done the reading?
USAGE A common written mistake is to confuse who's with whose. The form who's represents a contraction of ‘who is’ or ‘who has’: : who's going to feed the dog?;: I wonder who's left the light on again? The word whose is a possessive pronoun or adjective: : whose is this?;: whose turn is it?

[Tommy Williamsen]

complaints from courses would be kept confidential by the publication
the publication would void the rating but not tell the rater; the rater would not know his vote was not counted
the publication is not required to dismiss the rater, but in its judgment and based on the history of complaints against the rater can take action

Jackson:

You're assuming that each of the magazines wants to pay somebody to be their "rater nanny".
 

I am the captain for the Maryland GD panelists. I am not a "nanny" but generally do know when their have been problems with a panelist. In fact
one of my panelists was removed this year.  GD wants to know when a panelist breaks our code of behavior. We realize that we represent more than ourselves. At least we should.  I encourage courses to report lousy behavior..

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't believe there is a single course in this country that a Golfweek rater can access that either I or any other member of this board could not.  Digest, not so much with the Alotian and a few others.  But its still close enough not to matter. That being said, wouldn't it be great for the game if all panelists accessed courses in this same way remaining anonymous.  Courses would then allow more individuals who loved the game enough to write letters and play as singles on off times.  Courses would treat everyone like they treat raters because they would not know who is a rater or not.  It is a win/win with no downside what-so-ever.  Any rounds missed by raters whose economic situation may require that they stay home would be made up by courses who need the extra revenue to stay open.

One other note:

Ron Whitten is a hall of fame writer who has set the standard for ethics in the rating game.  He not allowing Erin Hills to be a part of the process has cost him work in a field he loves.  I admire the man and wish his legacy to be remembered for the greatness it deserves.  Top 100, no doubt.

Ron has already taken the important step of removing his raters from the now ridiculous best new voting.  That is a first step.  What he could do now is remove his raters completely in name only.  Have his corps, have the ratings that sell magazines, but remove all suspicion of unethical behavior by going dark.  Anonymous raters creating the illusion that every golfer crossing a counter could be one.  More access and better treatment for all golfers.  Less hassle for all pros and managers.  Honest ratings.  Everyone wins except for 800 guys who claim they don't do it for the comps anyway.

[Jim Franklin]

CS,

the only thing surprising here is your oversized indignation about how getting comped could possibly influence you.  Apparently my club isn't giving away enough free golf as it's still considered underrated by a vast majority here...

Where is your club?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()