Paul,
Wouldn't we first have to have a 463 post thread debating the merits of various writers ranking systems?
I prefer th Doak Scale:
1. A very basic writer, with poor architectural understanding and poor spelling. Avoid even if you’re desperate.
2. A mediocre poster with little or no architectural interest, but nothing really horrible.
3. About the level of the poster on the internet. (Since I don’t go out of my way to read bombsquadgolf my scale is deliberately skewed to split hairs among the good, the better and the best.)
4. A modestly interesting poster, with a couple of distinctive points made every now and again, or at least posts nice pictures. Also reserved for some very good posters who's knowledge is too narrow to provide sufficient interest for well travelled readers.
5. Well above the average poster, but the middle of my scale. A good poster to read if you are already reading the thread but don’t bother opening a thread to see what they have written.
6. A very good writer, definitely worth a read if you’re in the can, but not necessarily worth a special time to read. It shouldn’t disappoint you.
7. An excellent writer, worth checking out if you are on the internet. You can expect to find soundly though out, interesting ideas, good writing style and the occasional picture, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of architecture.
8. One of the very best writers on GolfClubAtlas and worth logging on to the internet to read. Could have some drawbacks, but these will clearly be spelled out, and it will make up for them with something really special in addition to the generally excellent writing.
9. An outstanding writer—certainly one of the best in the world—with no weaknesses in regard to style, length or poor sentences. You should read his posts once in your life.
10. Nearly perfect; if you skipped even one of his posts, you would miss something worth reading. If you haven’t read all of his posts you don’t know how good golf architecture can get. use the search function—immediately.