The problem isn't this treatment, but rather whether or not it affects the process.
In my estimation - from my experiences - knowing my voting pattern - AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE - the magazine and its people have taken measures to protect this from happening. Are they failsafe? I doubt it.
If you've done every thing you can to improve something and it is still imperfect - think BCS, these magazine lists, NBA officiating - perhaps there's nothing more that can be done.
I ask you, what can be done to improve the process?
John, I dont doubt that you, Mike Cirba, and even my friend Shivas would ever knowingly be swayed by perks. Same goes for most the other raters I've met from all the panels.
But contrary to your post, that is not the real issue. The real issue is two-fold:
1) As you said above, there is no way of knowing whether a rater intentionally or unintentionally allows themselves to be swayed by perks. So, as long as raters get perks, the process will remain under a cloud of suspicion.
2) Because of number 1) above, it is the
conflict of interest and not any
actual impropriety which must be scrutinized. This is true in almost any conflict situation. In other words, it doesnt matter whether I believe you or not or whether you intentionally were swayed, the conflict of interest still exists when raters accept perks.
Like it or not there appear to be a number of conflicts of interest in GW's system, both at the rater level, and higher up. And I dont see any safeguards set up to make sure they are not a problem.
What can be done to improve the process?
1) Do not let raters take freebies, whether it be green fees, free equipment, free lunch, free caddies, free hotels and trips, or free anything else. Get rid of raters who cannot abide by this. I am sure there are plenty of potential raters who would still be willing to rate.
2) Insulate the rating process from those with ties to golf courses. In other words, let Brad Klein decide whether he is a golf course consultant or head golf course rater, but dont allow him to try to be both (Yes, I'd take it further than Geoff. I cant see how I or anyone else can respect the integrity of a rating system when its head honcho is competing for business with those he is rating. And this is true whether or not his courses are eligible.)
3) Make raters rate anonomously. Why does a course have to about a rater is coming, unless it is to give the course an opportunity to provide special treatment to the rater? Prohibit raters from using their status as raters to gain access to courses. If raters from both GW and GD were creative enough to see Friar's Head, then I am sure they can manage to get access almost anywhere, without flashing their credentials.
4) Quit holding raters gatherings at courses which have much to gain from the ratings process. I havent gone back through the lists, but I am guessing that courses which have hosted raters' meetings have done pretty will in the ratings-- especially those courses which were trying to break into the ratings.
Or, at the very least, if a meeting is necessary. Try to hold the meetings in locations which dont get much rater play. I find it hard to imagine that not enough raters get to Monterey Penninsula or the Big Island.
These are just some of what could and should be done.
Before you all line up again to vouch for your own integrity, please notice that I am attacking the system, not you. Any system which puts you in a position where you have to vouch for your own integrity is suspect in my eyes.
___________
Shivas, no need to defend yourself. Because you are familiar with these situations, you know that it often the existence of an appearance of
potential conflict which matters, and not the actual conflict itself. That was my point in noting Brad recently made you a rater.
Surely you recognize the apparent conflicts.
And by the way, if perks didnt work to sway views, why do courses think it economically rational to keep doling them out? Sort of like asking why do lobbyists exist if no politicians are for sale . . . .