How do we get them back?

[Mark_Fine]

I’m sure many of us know Golf Digest, Golf Magazine and Golfweek panelists that would consider participating on this site but feel they just don’t need the aggravation and abuse.  Let's face it, many people here hate the rankings and don't seem to think too highly of the panelists themselves.  

Obviously some still stick it out but how do we get more of them back?  Many of these panelists would be invaluable to this site.  Are they all experts, of course not.  But they are out there playing and experiencing dozens and dozens of new and old courses around the world.  They are writing reviews and giving their opinions and these views have an impact.  These people's votes are the ones that result the rankings and if we really want to influence the rankings, we need to get to the ones that are making a difference and not drive them away.  Saying negative things only drives them away and this site is poorer for it.  Moreover, the positive impact we are all trying to make on golf architecture has a far less reaching effect.

I asked on another thread why Ran no longer participates.  Maybe we need to ask why and figure out what can be done to lure guys like this back.  

Just a thought.
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

You and I are still here and look at the abuse we take!  

Or, is it that we know most of these guys well enough that we just tell them that they don't know crap, either?  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Obviously the best way to get them back would be to get in touch with them and ask them to come back.

I'd help but I don't know who any of them are or how to get in touch with them.

I'm also not too sure what the aggravation for them on here is. If they expect to come on here and offer some architectural opinion and critique and not be questioned or challenged about it then maybe they don't need to be on here for us or for them.

By the way, Mark, I was once a Golfweek rater or ranker or panelist or whatever they call it but they basically fired me for inveterate inactivity.  

[Mark_Fine]

I don't have the answer (wish I did).  I just feel it would be good for this site to have more of these guys participating.  

[Tom_Doak]

Mark:

There are a lot of people who participate on one panel or another who are well versed in the golf business, and I would love for more of them to post here -- but not because they are panelists!  And at the same time I've met a few panelists who don't know their top from their bottom and we don't need to hear from them.

Why do you think having more panelists would be a good thing?

I honestly don't want to understand the "panelist" viewpoint of golf courses -- of other courses OR of my own.  I do not want to practice architecture the way most politicians practice politics nowadays, by pandering to what the pollsters think the people want.  And I don't want to see anybody else work that way, either.  The last thing the golf architecture business needs is more architects trying to impress the raters.

[George Pazin]

Well said, Tom D.

There are a handful of people I miss posting, but most of the good ones remain. There isn't much correlation between whether either of those groups are panelists or not.

As for Ran, I think he indicated he would try to participate more in the future.

Some folks have better things to do with their time!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Are you suggesting to let those who are rating courses do what they do and not worry about them or what they think?  I think you would agree that their ratings can influence golf architecture for better of for worse.  I am sure you are not beyond the point of caring and furthermore, no one said anything here about pandering to the panelists.  

The reason I cited that particular group is that they are often the ones out there actively playing lots of different courses.  Right or wrong, their perspective is valuable to hear and would be healthy for discussions on this site.  

And by the way, a lot of "people in the golf business" don't play a lot of golf.  I'm sure you know that as well.
 

[Adam Clayman]

One of this websites great ironies is that without the rankings, Ran and his brother, may never have had anything to argue over, which may have squelched the families interest in GCA.

[Powell Arms]

The primary thing that drew me to this site and to become a new participant is the differnce between the discussions on this site as contrasted to others that are predicable discussions of "top", or perhaps better stated "popular" courses.

I think the home page states it better than I could.  "Many courses are featured that are lesser known and that don't overtly promote themselves, but are inspiring places to play. Courses that have been written to death (Augusta National, Pebble Beach, etc.) are included for sake of completeness only, but are the shortest profiles.


The courses included are ones from which the author believes there is much to be learned. Many of the courses are not 'championship' courses (whatever that means) or necessarily the best conditioned courses, but they share a single important characteristic: they are inspiring to play, be it by yourself, with your dog, family or friends."

There are clearly numerous participants on this site that have played many courses.  It is not relevant to me if they are a rater or not, only that one has something contsructive to add.

[Mark_Fine]

Powell,
Well stated post!  

George,
Yes there are many good ones that remain, but there are many others that could contribute but shy away.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Who says every panelist has to tell us they are on a panel in no less than three posts (the current record).  

[JESII]

Why drag someone in here that doesn't want to be?  

Looking for a consensus on the acceptable utilization of the term "hazard"...