Sean, what is the policy of the Michelin system towards disclosure/non-disclosure of the evaluators' names?
I think this discussion thread is confusing two different sorts of disclosure. At Golfweek, panelist are certainly free to announce themselves when they inquire about play. Just as they are free, as some have here, to announce their status as raters with a particular magazine. Many do precisely that when they make advance plans to play/rate a course, but I also know that many play private (and public) courses without announcing themselves and access the course as a guest of a member or even as fee payers. I'm not naive enough to believe this is the majority of cases. But at more clubs than most of you can imagine, where they couldn't care less about raters (Winged Foot, Cypress, Friars Head) the only way to get on is to play as a member's guest.
The other aspect of disclosure/non-disclosure is what we at the magazine do. I know Golf Magazine has published the list of their raters. At Golfweek, we guarantee anonymity on our part -- leaving it free for raters to reveal themselves if they want. The reason for this is simple. We don't want our 450 raters to get deluged with direct solicitations, phone calls, emails, offers of free shirts and rooms by courses and their p.r. agents looking for visits and votes.
We are very strict about non-disclosure. We get requests all of the time from clubs, management companies, etc. for the list. My own book publisher tried getting the list from me to promote my Donald Ross book and couldn't get it. That's also why, when sending out email blasts, we put all of the names on the "BCC" bar (not the "Send To" or "CC" bar) so raters can't get them and laterally pass them on.
I don't mean the system is perfect. Self-policing by raters is a start but it's no way enough. We have rigid rules about participation, ethics, not asking to bring a foursome, etc., and I don't hesitate to enforce them. In one legendary case, a rater whom I heared had made very liberal use of access to one course that offered it to him was terminated as soon as we heard about it. If anything, we've been accused of being over-zealous in such matters, which is fine with me. Still, the infractions are minor because the people selected are pretty sensible, the rules are clear and the enforcement as diligent as feasible. But disclosing their names up front isn't going to make the system better.
Finally, I love Mike Young's characteristic paranoia about magazines selectively including/excluding votes depending upon their whims and preferences. I can't speak for how the other magazine do things, but I have no time or inclination to even look at what a rater votes on at an individual course. And given the electronic/intranet ballot we have no choice but to accept it as is anyway.