[JakaB]

Everybody on this site either is a rater, wants to be a rater, was a rater, turned down a chance to be a rater, is hurt they were never asked to be a rater or don't even want to be a rater.   If they don't fit one of the above they know they could never be a rater or think ratings are stupid and are tired of hearing about raters.   Raterphobia is amuck on GCA and if we don't find a cure or set some limits we can kiss GCA goodbye.   I should just sit back and let it happen but it has been such an ugly scourge of posts in the last couple of days the BBGE asked me to do something for the good of the game.

Question...What site rules need to be established to get off this raterphobia kick and get back to the good stuff...

examples...

Publish the names of all the raters...yes or no
Not allow discussion of ratings...yes or no
Not allow lobbying as in the case of Kingsley by raters...yes or no
Not allow lobbying for ratings by members....yes or no
etc....etc...what do you think..

[THuckaby2]

Aw hell JakaB, this too shall pass.  This same crap happens every time one of the magazines publishes its new ratings.  Then it goes away, until the next magazine comes out with theirs.  So Golfweek is under the microscope now... hell Golf Digest got blistered as bad or worse last time theirs came out... round and round we go.  Best bet is to just listen and laugh.  None of this has killed the site before, and it won't now.

TH

[JakaB]

Tom,

I have always admired Kelly Blake Moran for his candid approach to this site....I hope we have not lost him.  Do you think this site would be more interesting if the word rate and all its forms were banned from this site.

Don't forget the ugly mess at Black Mesa....That was not the raters fault...that was the fault of the raterphobes..

[James Edwards]

Jaka, I know what you mean about the ratings..

Tom, I agree it hasn't killed the site but it would be a good thing if there were just a few small rules to avoid certain threads.

I am one of those, who has posted a couple of times about certain topics (in the early days) and I was kindly, mailed by yourself and others explaining the do's and dont's of the site and the courtesies, so they do exist and should be explained by some of the senior members of the site..  

[THuckaby2]

I too admire KBM's candid approach.

I didn't see any ugly mess at Black Mesa - I just had fun playing golf.  I did arrive a little late though...

And I'm not in favor of censoring anything really.  The more one tries to do that, the more idiots will test the censor, and so no gain will come.

This too shall pass.  If we lose Kelly over this - which I don't think we will - than that is sad... but can't be helped, really.

Let's talk again next month... I think this whole rater thing will continue to have some legs, longer than usual, because a bunch of us will be playing Rustic Canyon in a few weeks... hot button course, you know?... but after that, it will return to just sporadic complaint, until GD comes out with Best New in August/September, at which time the whole thing will start up again....


TH

ps to James - yes, courtesies do exist.. but wholesale banning of topics and words, well... that's never going to fly.  Not that I like any of this - far from it - wait till they start bagging on GD again... but I just feel it does go round and round, can't be stopped, so best to just live with it.

[James Edwards]

Tom, Yes, I take your point...

With almost 7000 large ones, your more than qualified to have seen the revolving wheel of opinions...

How about no rules then, just a polite introduction to the sight and it's courtesies on the front page?

[JakaB]

Tom,

How about an honest answer to the question...Why do you think more Golf Digest raters don't post on this site...

[THuckaby2]

James - well, Ran has that already!

And I break the "stick to architecture" rule all the time myself, so I am hardly one to talk.  I just do believe that no amount of regulation is ever going to work here - Ran doesn't have the time to police the site, nor should he have to  - and those who want to be troublemakers will always be so.  So sure, we can have a set of courtesies, and even list them, but in the end, those who don't want to follow them won't, anyway...

And I'm not sure if banning rater talk is worth the trouble anyway.  Some of it is fun.... and necessary... if it doesn't get discussed in here, where will it be?  Given that for better or worse, these ratings are followed and taken seriously (far more than they should be) well... in the end this is as good a forum as any for them to be dissected.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Tom,

How about an honest answer to the question...Why do you think more Golf Digest raters don't post on this site...

Honest answer:  I have no idea.  Perhaps they don't know about it?  I really don't know.  And come on, do you really WANT more of us on here?

 

[JakaB]

Tom,

I asked you what you thought...you have to know what you think...get past the smile and the happy little jig you do and give us a little something...we might learn from it.

[THuckaby2]

That is what I think, JakaB.  I honestly have no idea why more GD raters don't post here.  Also very honestly, I only know two others and they both do post here from time to time.

TH

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Whoa, I don't want to use this rater thing as some excuse to leave the site or show I have been wronged.  Nothing personal has happened to me, and as mad as some exchanges make you I have never been one to threaten to leave because I know this site is about architecture not about an individual, and there is no one here that can't be replaced.  I did say I was little worried about ramifications on my career based upon participating here, which came out of the raters threads, but that is probably a little crazy.  I have no sympathy for anyone who moans about being insulted, or says some architect no longer comes here because of criticism, tough.  So please don't associate me with some whiny little candy-ass like Davis Love! ;DHow's that are being candid!

[Mike Nuzzo]

Barney,

When you said "Black Mesa mess", I assume you're referring to the raterphobes that accused some raters of lining up for their "free stuff".  Which I clarified in those threads.

If you were referring to the awsome times we had away from the golf courses....dinners at The Pink Adobe, at The Shed, and with the Claymans, well thats another matter entirely.  There were a lot of margaritas being served.  You could have been there.

Cheers

[A_Clay_Man]

As wrong as the recent rater bash was, I believe the astute observer can seperate the wheat from the chaff and see any hidden agendas or vendettas.

As for GD panelists, who the hell knows. Maybe they are not interested in learning what they dont know. 700 raters? Can you imagine if they all showed up at the same course one weekend?

[Mike_Cirba]

The Golf Digest raters I know who love, appreciate, and understand architecture are on this site.  

Then there's the other 698.  

[JakaB]

Kelly,

I got from your recent posts that you were not aware of the ratercentric nature of this site when in the past you contributed some of the most honest and interesting posts I have ever read.   If you can continue in the future to speak from your heart...I commend you.   I am not sure if an architect can say anything on this site to lose a job...but I can promise you they can say things to get a job....now if that won't make your trigger finger shaky in the future..I don't know what will.

Can you tell me that what you learned in the last week will not make you tread lightly on certain topics...when will it become more prudent to just stay away like most other industry insiders..

[George Pazin]

I am not sure if an architect can say anything on this site to lose a job...but I can promise you they can say things to get a job....now if that won't make your trigger finger shaky in the future..I don't know what will.

Thought you felt the site didn't have any influence...

In general, I think I agree with Jax in this case. I'd love to see less focus on ratings, or at least less vitriol and distrust in those threads. Man, if someone read those threads, they'd think a get together like we had this past weekend would be impossible.

[johnk]

If you want to know why this type of discussion is
inevitable, and happens to all internet forums eventually,
read this:

"A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy"
http://shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html

BTW, before becoming fascinated with the dynamics of internet
groups, I had always thought sociology was only useful
because the classes had a very high concentration
babes when I was in college

[THuckaby2]

JohnK:  hell of an article.... and those of us who have participated in several dg's like this can speak to the examples from experience.  Just as discussed in Cirba's "jump the shark" thread, all dg's are doomed to fail eventually.  It remains astounding to me this one has remained as strong as it has for as long as it has.

And George, sure, I too would love to see less focus on raters and ratings, especially in August/September each year, and in the odd Januaries when GD ratings come out.  But can this be done by censorship?  By suggestions from anyone?  I really don't think so... And given it does tend to fade out after a while, well....

TH

[Mike Hendren]

Raterphobia is not nearly the threat that anonymous Hoosiers pose.   Tell me again when the asphalt plants open?

Mike
Charter Member of FOB

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mike,

JakaB lives in Illinois.

[JakaB]

Scott,

Are you a rater for Golfweek, Golf Digest or Golf Magazine...if not I might like to send you an application for the BBGE panel.

[Mike Hendren]

Scott,

I like him better as a Hoosier.

Mike

[Scott_Burroughs]

John,

I have no reason to believe that BBGE is serious and real - I've ignored it to this point and had to go back and re-read what it stood for, as I had dismissed it and forgotten about it.  What evidence would you give me to believe otherwise?  Didn't you once say you would attend both the Winter Gathering and KPIII?  Some of your other diatribes are amusing, so do aim at serious architectural issues, others not so much, trying to be exposes and broaching on touchy subjects.

I'm not interested in donating to a $20 book to send to RJ (I don't think it would break him and I missed your reasoning for bringing it up) nor in writing a 50-100 essay on width.  If there has been further mention of some BBGE scheme, I dismissed it.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I guess if you're serious then you'd actually send me an applicaton, right?  I'll IM you my address to find out.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()