Answer the (bleeping) question!

[Darren_Kilfara]

One of my pet peeves with GolfClubAtlas is the way many of its most intelligent members seem unable to answer the questions that are asked of them. I see this manifest itself in two particular ways:

1) When asked to name *one* hole or course or archtectural feature that they like or dislike, they can't help themselves and name two, three, four, six, 10, 12, dozens, etc. of examples which fit the criteria. The point of being asked to name just a single candidate is that it forces you to make difficult decisions and justify your answers, encouraging greater use of your critical faculties. Instead, they take the easy way out and rattle off a lengthy list - possibly to demonstrate their knowledge or exposure to many different courses, but usually because they can't or don't want to tax their brains and make the tough subjective decision.

2) When asked a question by someone looking for a specific piece of advice, they reject the premise of the question and ramble on in an unhelpful direction. I'm not talking about the Patrick Mucci sort of thread-starting question, which is often used to great effect in stimulating discussion. Rather, I'm thinking about threads like the "Don't play this Scottish links!!" one on the main board at present, where a relatively new poster asked for some advice in narrowing down the field of potential candidates in his first trip to Scotland, and was instead met with a bunch of answers about how every Scottish links is wonderful and worth seeing. I see it also in every thread where someone asks about public courses in an area and receives answers to the effect of "You should try to get on [super-private course X]", even though many golfers have no elite private-course connections or lack the wherewithal and/or inclination to seek them out.

The second category is more problematic, even when you ignore that such answers seem to ignore logistical questions and assume that every golfer can spend as long as they want to play as many courses as they want. I hear a lot of talk about how GolfClubAtlas can reach out beyond its walls and connect with a wider audience, but it's precisely this sort of insular attitude - where responses reflect the poster's attitudes rather than trying to consider the questioner's viewpoint and give advice which is helpful vis-a-vis that viewpoint - which makes it seem impossible that the attitudes stated on this site will ever become mainstream. Tom Paul's "wide world" theory should apply here - that golf is a wide world full of many different tastes and perspectives - but not in the slightly condescending way that many people use the term. Seems to me that first you have to meet someone where he is - accepting that viewpoints which are different from your own can be equally valid - and only then try to change his attitudes through reason and demonstration, rather than the other way around...

Cheers,
Darren

[Bill Weber]

Good, thought provoking points. I wonder how many responses will follow? Seems many times valid questions go unanswered and posts are ignored in totality.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Darren,

If you are serious in your quest for bettering GCA.com, perhaps you can recruit my old seventh grade teacher Sister Mary Alice to be our moderator, as this type of stuff used to drive her crazy too.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The second category is more problematic, even when you ignore that such answers seem to ignore logistical questions and assume that every golfer can spend as long as they want to play as many courses as they want. I hear a lot of talk about how GolfClubAtlas can reach out beyond its walls and connect with a wider audience, but it's precisely this sort of insular attitude - where responses reflect the poster's attitudes rather than trying to consider the questioner's viewpoint and give advice which is helpful vis-a-vis that viewpoint - which makes it seem impossible that the attitudes stated on this site will ever become mainstream. Tom Paul's "wide world" theory should apply here - that golf is a wide world full of many different tastes and perspectives - but not in the slightly condescending way that many people use the term.

Seems to me that first you have to meet someone where he is - accepting that viewpoints which are different from your own can be equally valid - and only then try to change his attitudes through reason and demonstration, rather than the other way around...


Darren,

That can be a labor intensive project and I don't know that many have the inclination or the time to devote to such a pursuit.

I think you have to understand different viewpoints, but, I don't think you have to accept them.

Many don't respond to a question because they don't know the answer or more likely, because the answer disrupts or destroys their premise.

One of the difficult things about a site like GCA.com is the revolving nature of the participants and their interest and knowledge with respect to GCA.

Getting participants like Gib Papazian, Kelly Blake Moran and yourself to remain interested and post is difficult, especially if you have to begin the educational process all over again every three to five months.

While I understand and share your concern and frustration, off topic threads seem to dilute the quality of the site even more.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Darren:

Good points. However, I'm afraid the general modus operandi of GOLFLCUBATLAS.com and many of its contributors has never exactly been to have formally structured discussions or debates on various subjects. There is some of that but mostly it is just a series of repartees and the offering of all kinds of opinions on thread subjects that are started, even if the initial thread post is presented in the form of a question(s).

There is that and then there is the over-riding and probably over-arching problem that various thread starters and thread participants will argue the validity of their points with little to no chance of concession until the proverbial cows come home.  

Frankly, the latter I don't mind at all as it leaves threads in our archives which are essentially a form of "point/counterpoint" and for those reading those threads in the future that's probably good food for their own thoughts. Unfortunately, there's a lot of "static" in some of those massive "point/counter point" threads.

Regarding all that annoying "static" I'm probably as guilty as anyone on here. I'll try to do better in the future.  

[TEPaul]

Darren:

I must say there's probably another bugaboo on this site to do with too many participants and that is the failure to read or read carefully enough what others say.

Frankly, I was just guilty of that with your initial post on this thread. I logged in a response without even reading your entire post first.

And so I see you mentioned my "Big World" theory. On that note I came up with that for two separate and probably unconnected reasons;

1/ I believe (as apparently Bill Coore does) that the ultimate strength and interest of golf course architecture and consequently probably golf too, is that its playing fields both can be and should be a vast spectrum of different offerings of all kinds----the theory being that there are all kinds of golfers out there who really do have differing tastes and opinions and why shouldn't they all be given something they enjoy? The fact that too many on here tend to treat other golfers who don't like what they like as some kind of pariah is pretty bad and could be considered just another form of arrogance and elitism in golf and golf architecture.

2/ There has undeniably been an over-riding inclination, particularly in the United States, to treat most all golf courses the same way, particularly in the sense of homogenized maintenance practices. This fact alone, so prevalent in the last half decade just may've been the most detrimental factor to many or most of the old classic courses. The fact is there are so many different types and styles of courses and architecture out there at this point in golf architecture's evolution and they need to be maintained in such a way that the inherent "intent" of their architecture is maximized. There are modern age aerial courses and classic primarily ground game courses and they need to be maintained sometimes very differently. This was one other component of my "Big World" theory that inspired my "Ideal Maintenance Meld" theory----eg which is not just only firm and fast but that any course's architecture should be analyzed carefully to determine how to maintain it to maximize what it was designed to play like (for instance some modern aerial courses have greens designed for a legitimate "suck back" option that can be a most interesting option or strategy for them. Consequently they NEED to be maintained with softer and more receptive greens compared to some of the old classic courses)---and that can often be vastly different from course to course as we are surely seeing this week.  

[Darren_Kilfara]

Patrick, when you say "I think you have to understand different viewpoints, but, I don't think you have to accept them," I think that's true when trying to argue a point, but not necessarily when answering a question. Suppose someone comes here and says he loves lush, well-manicured golf courses and asks for advice about resorts which have a lavish clubhouse and friendly, attentive staff in addition to great golf courses. To be helpful to this person, shouldn't I answer the question on its merits (even if my outlook on golf seems 180 degrees from this person) and only then maybe asking why the guy likes this type of golf and resort, rather than ridiculing the question from the outset?

Tom, I agree with your first post completely, but I'm not sure it addresses anything in my initial post. [I now see that you followed up with a second post - well done you for at least noticing!] Many very good discussions wander and ramble all over the place, which is great and to be encouraged. However, some threads ask questions which are not rhetorical, but rather seek specific advice or encourage didactic reasoning - e.g. the "Name Your Top Five..." sort of threads. I think by answering the questions that are asked, rather than twisting them to one's own viewpoint, we can be far more helpful to a wider group of posters, and thereby make the site more useful to a wider audience. (Talk about private clubs *in the context* of a question seeking information about public/resort courses probably bugs me the most - you want to perpetuate an elitist image for this website, that's the way to go...)

Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

Darren:

I certainly agree that this website can be more helpful to those asking specific questions if the participants on here simply stick to the question and the point of it.

However, I'm pretty much convinced, at this point, that the failure to do so on here probably isn't unique to GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com and is probably just some modern phenomenon related to the rapid action communication of the INTERNET.

If, we, on here, were writing responses that took a day or two to reach the questioner etc, I'm sure most of us would probably stick a whole lot closer to the point or to the question.

[Michael Moore]

Darren -

Interesting thread.

I have to say that I am drawn to the many excellent and well-argued golf architecture threads, but also that I am drawn to the incessant legalistic pissing matches that crop up here. They are both delightful.

Some of the "arguments" put forth on this site are a gross insult to our collective intelligence, with blatant underhanded devices such as errors of fact, contradiction, exaggaration, distortion, omission, failure to specify, speculation, non sequitur, ad hominem, failure to assert, argument by analogy and scenario, affirming the consequent, false cause, innuendo and gibberish.

It would be nice if these types would be willing to answer follow-up questions.

Some of the most prolific cross-examiners on this site are also the most likely to not take the stand in their own defense.

[Mike Benham]

Good, thought provoking points. I wonder how many responses will follow? Seems many times valid questions go unanswered and posts are ignored in totality.

Bill -

Per Darren's rant, there shouldn't be any responses as he is not asking a question that solicits a response ...

Oh wait, Pat and TEPaul are online ...

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren,

I think you have to differentiate between seeking advice and seeking opinions.

I recall an incident related to someone asking about golf courses in Las Vegas.  A respondent suggested Cascata, and immediately the Rees Jones bashing commenced.

If someone inquires about where they can play a particular style/type of golf course, he should receive a reasoned answer.

If someone postures that they prefer a particular style/type of golf course, they may encounter differing opinions.

This site isn't lush, green, eye candy oriented, so, they know what they're getting into when they hit the post button.

[SPDB]

I'm not really sure I get the point of the initial post. If its a long winded way of saying: when a thread is posted seeking advice then responses should be made with that narrow request in mind.  If so then I don't think there can be any argument.

Is that what you're saying?

But if Golfclubatlas.com existed for that narrow purpose, it would be a very useful website, but extremely boring. Most of the thought provoking threads (in my opinion) concern very "academic" type discussions on topics that some feel very strongly about. Unfortunately, these types of discussion often don't lend themselves to question and answer in the way that "What's a good course near Ho Ho Kus, NJ?" does. The argumentation is imperfect, and often aggravating, but I'd rather have it that way then not at all.

Also, I think this whole thread is misguided. The collective effort should be aimed at teaching Pat Mucci how to answer a question, or at least narrow his ratio of question-to-answer from 1000:1 to something a bit closer.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Righteous opinions/positions should be able to withstand withering cross examination.

There are a number of ways to answer a question, however, several methods may not enjoy "most favored nation" status amongst the cognoscente, and those are the one's I prefer.

[SPDB]

SPDB,

Righteous opinions/positions should be able to withstand withering cross examination.

Good advice! Now let's see you step out of your prosecutor's chair and into the witness box.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Never forget the old, " I can't recall" response.  

Or, the old, "on the advice of counsel, I choose to exercise my Fifth Amendment rights, and decline to answer the question"  

Or, I just might "tell it like it is", depending on my mood.

[Tom Huckaby]

Darren:

I understand your points in general, and share the frustration.  

However - regarding the specific example you cited (the "Don't Play this Scottish Links" thread), I'd disagree that anyone did anything wrong or unproductive - or at least that I did such!  No offense to the poster - he came in and specified things later - but as I read the question, it really did seem to me he was asking which links he ought to skip ALTOGETHER, NO MATTER IF HE HAD INFINITE TIME AND MONEY.  So I gave an honest answer, which is "none."  You took it very differently (and correctly) - prioritizing courses.  Just don't get on any of us for answering a relatively poorly-worded question to the best of our abilitities!

TH

[Tags:]

Tags: