[Andy Troeger]

Tim...I would think at least most of them use the straight average (as long as the minimum # of panelists do visit). I've not heard of penalizing a course that does not have as many ratings, but maybe someone else can confirm or correct me.
 

[Tommy Williamsen]

It seems in my experience that if a new course only gets the minimum numbers of players that they may get lower ratings.  In the past few years I have rated courses where the club had made a policy that only ten GD panelists would be allowed to play.  Although I suspect that others rated the course because of friends who were members, those courses did not do as well as the courses who wanted panelists.  I wondered about Friars Head a couple years ago.  Panelists could only play if they werer invited by a member.  I would have expected the course to have done better than it did.  I wonder what would have happened if they had allowed more rates to play it.  I am not sure but my suspicion is that it would have won best new.

[Brad Klein]

Tim Bert, we do straight average, though in the (rare) case of a tie we give the positional nod to the one with more votes.

Friars Head's policy on raters was the same as with any guests -- accompanied guests only. They didn't care if you were a rater or not, you were not going to get on as a rater per se.

[Glenn Spencer]

Why don't the publications simply mandate that the raters can't accept comps?  This would get rid of any perceived (or real) bias based on whether a rater paid or not, and it may also filter the list of raters down to those that are genuinely interested in rating the architecture as opposed to those just trying to play a bunch of nice courses for cheap or free.

Go ahead, tell me why I'm naive and it would never work!

How about undercover pro-shop girls to catch the raters that are accepting comps? The only way to do is to pay th people, because there is obviously something wrong as it sits now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()