[Mike_Young]

Mark,
IMHO golf professionals, supts and managers are comped because they are golf professionals, supts and managers.  I actually would do my best to help a sincere panelist play golf at a place where he needed to play...but if they come with an "attitude" of get me comped...I will do my best to see they do not play that course that day.....
Now understand.....I am like anyone else i encorage any owner of a course I do to buy all the ratings he can.....and that is the correct term...."buy" whether it goes to an individual rater, which it rarely does or a PR firm or ads in a magazine.....none of us will ever be able to "uncover" such work but it is the way the system is played.....most individual raters mean well.....the system is bad and the "jerk" raters are bad.  I have benn with "Jerk" raters that think anytime they play and wherever they play, even if the course does not need rating" that they should inform they are a rater and expect to be comped.  Comping a rater is no different than comping a member of one of the old dead guy societies.....IMHO...

WH,
you say...." This is an industry seeking critiques in an effort to get some marketing and in the process to benefit the industry.  An industry, I might add, that isn't very healthy."
With due respect.....yes the rating industry does need raters in order to help create the "image" that their "votes" determine a "fair" outcome......but if this was the case raters could band together and vote a complete dog into a ranking.....there is an overide in place...I would bet......I do think many individuals mae a sincere conscious effort in rating and have a high ethical standard as to these ratings....but like most things the market.....$$$$$$$ matter.  

[Sean_A]

I still find the idea that folks on this board won't admit to the possibility of reduced integrity due to kick backs is amazing.  You guys have your heads buried so far into the system that you don't know up from down.  All the excuses in the world don't change the fact that when you are given stuff and then asked to rate that free stuff you are compromised.  There are no ifs and buts about it.  Whether or not this compromised position results in a compromised rating is beside the point - you leave yourself open to the question.  Only individual raters know the truth and there is no way to test it.  Therefore, to protect the system, raters should not be compromised.  This is simple stuff folks.

Ciao

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

I understand where you are coming from and if such a system were workable and somehow enforceable then I'd support that but I don't think that's realistic.

From where I sit, I'd much rather just go and play a course and not even make it known that I'm a rater.   Who needs the attention?   I sure don't.   And, in the case of any public available courses I just show up, pay my freight, and get in line like everyone else.   Even when it's costly, such as the $175 I paid at Falcon's Fire this fall (fee plus club rental) I'd rather support public golf whenever I can.

It's the private courses where one doesn't have a connection that becomes the problem.   Often, the only way to play is to announce prior that one is a rater hoping to play there and asking if they can accommodate you at a convenient time for them.   And, just so everyone knows, the Pine Valleys and the Seminoles and the Oakmonts and the NGLA's, and most of the old-guard established clubs couldn't care less if you're a rater or not.   You either get invited thru a member or you don't play...simple as that.

I'm not sure about the other magazines, but frankly GW doesn't even wanting us approaching those clubs whose ranking is already established through years of play.  Unless some wholesale changes have taken place, we are encouraged to see only "Priority" courses, and I can tell you that those are highly weighted towards modern courses, period, or classic courses in out of the way locales, or other courses that for one reason or another get nominated but haven't had much in the way of rater visits.

The issue with comping where i think Sean misses the boat, and perhaps you don't realize as well, is simply this;  if every private course that hosts raters comps them, which a very high percentage of them do, then there is absolutely no reason at all to favor one over the other in terms of rating bias or anything else that would negatively impact the integrity of the final scores.

I have to chuckle when I consider the fact that I've been treated pretty amazingly well at some courses that have had simply awful architecture (and were thus rated as such) and been treated like the weekend maintenance staff at others where inevitably the greatness of the course made it worth the shabby treatment and was accorded commensurate acclaim.  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

WH,
you say...." This is an industry seeking critiques in an effort to get some marketing and in the process to benefit the industry.  An industry, I might add, that isn't very healthy."
With due respect.....yes the rating industry does need raters in order to help create the "image" that their "votes" determine a "fair" outcome......but if this was the case raters could band together and vote a complete dog into a ranking.....there is an overide in place...I would bet......I do think many individuals mae a sincere conscious effort in rating and have a high ethical standard as to these ratings....but like most things the market.....$$$$$$$ matter.  

Sorry for the confusion, but the industry I meant was the course and development side of things not the publishers, which is an entirely different discussion.

Why would raters band together to vote in a "complete dog"?

Mike I think my point was in agreement with you.  The ridiculous accusations made against well meaning individual raters become tedious in this GCA venue.  When the integrity of the raters is combined with the minimum number of visits required by the competing rankings, the chance of some sort of collusion is a fairly remote possibility.  

[Bart Bradley]

There are no ifs and buts about it.  

Ciao

 

Well, actually there are some ifs and buts .... generally, I prefer black and white in the world, but when things are relative, and your position confuses them with absolutes, then there are a few ifs and buts:

Rater A -- only plays courses where he pays full freight.

Rater B -- only plays courses where he's comped.

Tell me again which Rater is more compromised?

Shivas,

Will you give your argument as to why Rater A is compromised?

Bart

[Dan King]

Shivas Schmidt writes:
Yet we never talk about the former scenario...which leads me to the conclusion that the real issue here is not the efficacy of the system, but rather something as petty and non-productive as envy, spite, greed or some other similar nonsense.

I for one have talked about the former scenario.

You have three potential choices. The course pays, the rater pays or the publication pays. If you let the course or the rater pay, you are at the very least going to have the appearance of conflict of interest. The ideal candidate to pay would be the publication, who gets the benefit out of an impartial -- even if just in appearance -- rankings.

Cheers,
Dan King

I can promise to be sincere, but not to be impartial.
 --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[Adam Clayman]

Dan, If the course is paying, what is it they charge themselves?

I suppose a savvy accountant would write-off the full value of the green fee, even though their actual cost to provide the round of golf is negligible.

Now, the course is benifitting twice. Isn't it? On the tax side and then, all that influence they are garnering from the poor panelists.

[Kalen Braley]

I agree with Dan, that the best case scenario would be for the magazine to pay for the green fees.  However as most magazines run on slim margins, this would likely drive them out of business.

Does anyone know how Zagats works with rating resturaunts?  Who usually foots the bill?

[Dan King]

Adam Clayman writes:
Now, the course is benifitting twice. Isn't it? On the tax side and then, all that influence they are garnering from the poor panelists.

If you guys are all perfectly happy with the appearance of the course buying your influence then there doesn't seem to be any reason for a change. If you want to continue to insist that all rankers would never be influenced by courses attempts to buy votes, then don't worry about it.  But don't take it so personally when the rest of us laugh at your naïvete.

If all rankers are such upstandings citizens that can remain uncorrupted within such a corrupting system, perhaps we should have then running our government rather than ranking courses.

Kalen Braley writes:
Does anyone know how Zagats works with rating resturaunts?  Who usually foots the bill?

I don't know for sure, but judging by their Web site is looks like they now take input from anyone, and create a rankings from that. With that model, the ranker pays, but it also leaves their rankings with little or no value. Michelin had paid reviewers, and the publication pays for the meal.

Here is their policy. I have no idea how strongly it is enforced:
Zagat Survey's Content Creation Policy mandates the completely honest and objective gathering and compiling of our surveyors' ratings and reviews. The use of deceptive or unfair practices in an attempt to manipulate these ratings and reviews is a clear violation of this policy and may result in the removal of an establishment from Zagat Survey's publications. Unacceptable practices include, but are not limited to, the distribution of surveys by anyone other than an official Zagat Survey representative, encouragement of surveyors to vote a certain way, offering incentives or rewards for surveyors to vote for an establishment, and voting by establishment owners, employees or agents with respect to their own establishments. Besides violating this Zagat Survey policy, such conduct may constitute an actionable legal claim under many states' laws, including those of the State of New York.

Cheers,
Dan King

It's a naïve domestic Burgundy without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
 --James Thurber

[Adam Clayman]

Dan, You gave three scenarios

The course pays, the rater pays or the publication pays.

 Can you splain why you choose to ignore the question of the negligible cost to the course?

One of my votes is from our day together at SFGC. We played it gratis, because of me being a caddy. Did the fact that it was a green fee free round influence my vote, or, my opinion of the golf course, years later when I joined the panel? If you can honestly answer yes to that, I will laugh at your nai'vete.

Golf doesn't fit neatly into any model, especially one so fickle like a possible apearance of impropiety. Obviously some in the industry consider the panelist part of that industry. I can't decide if the fact that people think their way is best, and the whole system should change because it doesn't jibe with their version of how panels should get their votes, is funny or sad.  

BTW, I'm not taking any of it personally, just attempting to discuss openly.  If there's hanky panky of a nefarious nature someone should man up and illuminate us all as to the the specifics. I for one would be curious.

[Sean_A]

Adam Clayman writes:
Now, the course is benifitting twice. Isn't it? On the tax side and then, all that influence they are garnering from the poor panelists.

If you guys are all perfectly happy with the appearance of the course buying your influence then there doesn't seem to be any reason for a change. If you want to continue to insist that all rankers would never be influenced by courses attempts to buy votes, then don't worry about it.  But don't take it so personally when the rest of us laugh at your naïvete.

If all rankers are such upstandings citizens that can remain uncorrupted within such a corrupting system, perhaps we should have then running our government rather than ranking courses.


Cheers,
Dan King

It's a naïve domestic Burgundy without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
 --James Thurber

Hmmm, somebody passed Freshman Ethics and for crying out loud he wants to be a lawyer!  

Shivas, If a guy only rates courses that he is comped on don't you think this narrows the pool of courses he will rate?  I spose you will say that the pool is narrowed by the guy who will only pay up to X amount.  However, that guy may be a lousy rater, but he isn't taking back handers.  All other things being equal I know which I would trust more.  

I still don't understand why its so difficult for people to comprehend the potential conflict of interest when a guy is asked to rate something that he was given for nada.  

Ciao  

[Dan King]

Adam Clayman writes:
Can you splain why you choose to ignore the question of the negligible cost to the course?

I don't think it matters. Lobbyists can make the same explanation about buying politicians. It doesn't really cost them anything, since it is all counted as a cost of doing business. Besides, the company jet was going to Bermuda anyway, what difference does it make if a senator and entourage were also on the jet?

One of my votes is from our day together at SFGC. We played it gratis, because of me being a caddy. Did the fact that it was a green fee free round influence my vote, or, my opinion of the golf course, years later when I joined the panel?

I can't answer that question, only you can. If you are asking me to guess, I'd say no. But can you really expect the world, who generally don't know anything about you, to assume your vote can not be bought?

If you asked me to rank SFGC, that day would be a big part of how I rank the course. Part of what made that day so memorable was the lack of cost. I can not say for sure if I were to rank SFGC the fact that we didn't pay anything to play it wouldn't influence my feelings about the course.

I know for a fact there are outstanding politicians in the world. My sister, a council member from Saratoga, Calif. is proof that they exist. Even with politicians such as my sister, the system is still broken. Just because my sister hasn't been, and probably never will be, corrupted, doesn't excuse the corrupt system.

BTW, I'm not taking any of it personally, just attempting to discuss openly.  If there's hanky panky of a nefarious nature someone should man up and illuminate us all as to the the specifics. I for one would be curious.

Whenever there is a story of a jerk of a panelist, do all of you call or write your publication telling them they should get rid of the jerks? Rankers should be up in arms about their bretheren giving them a bad name. I would think you'd be demanding your publication change their methods to make sure this sort of thing stops happening.

Sean Arble writes:
Hmmm, somebody passed Freshman Ethics and for crying out loud he wants to be a lawyer!

I don't think I ever said I want to be a lawyer. I just want to go to law school.

Cheers,
Dan King

The magician and the politician have much in common: they both have to draw our attention away from what they are really doing.
 --Ben Okri

[Tommy Williamsen]

You know I hate these threads.  They generally put panelists on the defensive just  because we are playing by the rules. There are remarks that by innuendo question our ethics.  The simple fact is these threads do no good.  They won't change the rules and they certainly do not leave a good taste in my mouth.

[Brian Cenci]

Agree with the following post by Tommy completely.  Everyone who is making a big deal of everything is doing just that.  This isn't the Kennedy assination here.  People go out and play golf courses and assign a number to them based on how they think the course compares to ither courses.  I can't logically seeing someone sitting there and say well Muni Hills compled my round and I had to pay $50 at Up Scale Country Club so Muni Hills gets a 7 and Upscale C.C. a 5...come on people.

[Adam Clayman]

Dan, Your political analogy is flawed because the systems are different.
Successful PAC's influence politicians not by buying specific votes, but by contributing to politicians on both sides of the aisle, year in year out. It's a leap of faith that when legislation comes up, that adversely effects the industry, the politicians will vote accordingly, or, risk not getting his next contribution and therfore not being re-elected.  

Panelist specific votes are not public.
If you think that anonimity doesn't matter, you are mistaken.

You can not have a democracy without factions and vice versa.

[Dan King]

Tommy Williamsen writes:
You know I hate these threads.

I love these threads.

They generally put panelists on the defensive just  because we are playing by the rules.

If the rules are flawed, why is it important that you play by the flawed rules?

Adam Clayman writes:
Dan, Your political analogy is flawed because the systems are different.

I wasn't aware that analogies could only be used with identical things. Seems to me that would defeat the purpose of using analogies.

Successful PAC's influence politicians not by buying specific votes, but by contributing to politicians on both sides of the aisle, year in year out.

this isn't nearly always true, and I don't understand your point. There are numerous special interests that give to a specific candidate, party, or cause. Does it really matter if a course gives freebies to Golf World, Golf and Golf Digest rankers?

Candidates are constantly denying special interests buy their votes. Matter of fact, their arguments sound a lot like rankers justification for being part of a corrupt system. But for some reasons lobbyists continue to try to buy politicians and courses continue to try to buy rankers.

If you think that anonimity doesn't matter, you are mistaken.

I think anonimity doesn't matter.

Cheers,
Dan King

Analogies, it is true, decide nothing, but they can make one feel more at home.
 --Sigmund Freud

[David_Madison]

Suppose panelists are required to pay green fees everywhere. We know that those fees will range widely. Isn't it possible that a new yet unintended ratings factor will be introduced, some sort of value/quality scale? If two courses are essential identical but one charges $50 while the other $200, wouldn't the green fee difference itself likely impact the rating, with the less expensive one winning out? Or conversely, would the $200 fee tinge the raters impressions, making him believe that the course was better than it otherwise really is?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy Williamsen writes:
You know I hate these threads.

I love these threads.

They generally put panelists on the defensive just  because we are playing by the rules.

If the rules are flawed, why is it important that you play by the flawed rules?

 

Because they are the rules we have!!  Do you expect us to set up our own rules?  

[Mike_Young]

I agree with Dan, that the best case scenario would be for the magazine to pay for the green fees.  However as most magazines run on slim margins, this would likely drive them out of business.

Kalen,
Do you have any idea how much the new RE developments would pay the mags for a "Best New" ranking?  Or how much do you think they spend in trying to acquire such?  Or for that matter...how many actually start the process before construction?  I also think one needs to be cleat that most of the new developments seeking such rankings are not interested in the quality of the golf but in what ever it takes to seel the lots and homes....if these mags are making so little why have so many become nothing but RE ads?
Mike

The other issues that affect rating as much as comp/non comp are issues such as aeration of greens, and grow-in conditions...for example..with no water for grow-ins in the coming year it will be interesting to see how many of the southern projects are viewed by raters that "say" these issues don't affect them.  JMO

[Rick Shefchik]

At least two things will never change, no matter how often this subject is rehashed:

1. When someone rates something he receives for free, there will be an appearance of undue influence being exerted. I'm sure Brad and the other panel chiefs do a good job of weeding out those who abuse their opportunities, but they cannot eliminate the suspicion that someone's rating might have been affected by getting a free round, a free shirt, etc. That's why newspapers have become so hard-core about their reporters and critics accepting fee stuff. I don't think there have been abundant abuses, but banning freebies eliminates all reader suspicion.

2. Any rating system that lumps public and private courses together will always be problematic. Adam is right -- there is no other model out there to equate with rating golf courses. Every other ratings list I can think of compares goods or services that can be accessed by the general public if they have the money and inclination to pay for it. Access issues in golf skew everything.

As a non-rater, I'd prefer to see the magazines have small staffs of raters whose rounds are paid for by the publication, but that appears unlikely to happen. What we've got is probably the best we can hope for.

[JESII]

What difference does panelist integrity make?

I know you guys on here roast (is it GD?) one of the lists every year but I haven't looked at them close enough to know...what difference does it really make?

Is Golfweek really trying to say that, unquestionably, the 13th Best Residential Golf Course is The Preserve? I don't think even they would suggest that their lists are anything more than an opinion...maybe a collective opinion at most...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()