Jim:
The simple solution is create a process that works well.
In terms of courses being rated overall -- if such a pub had a three-year period, using your example, if such an article appeared in 2010 -- it could easily state in such an article that courses that opened in 2009 and even 2010 would not be eligible until the next ratings -- say in 2013. That would provide sufficient time and clearly it would outline the realities so many have chimed in about.
Jim, Golfweek chooses -- that's they key word "chooses" -- to have a yearly rating process. Likely it's tied to other considerations such as developing companion revenue streams for such efforts. That's fine. When you rate each year then you should be up-to-date in real time. When a magazine promotes itself as a bastion for "serious golfers only" -- then to miss out the qualities of a Rock Creek astounds me given how other "new" courses are so quickly assessed. A magazine's basic mission is to its readers -- not to its panel because of their "issues" in making appropriate travel plans to places that have had plenty of pre-buzz in the pipeline.
By the way -- watch how fast a place like Old Macdonald is rated. If such travel plans are a burden then the situation can be rectified in having people who can handle what's needed -- believe me -- plenty of people would easily replace those who are so handicapped.
The location of Rock Creek is a smoke screen excuse. Plenty of other courses have remote locations and have been assessed in a timely manner.
Dave:
Let's be a bit more clearer OK.
I simply acknowledged the bureaucratic mechanisms in place. You didn't see me agree with such a process did you?
Nothing "rings hollow" amigo -- here's the deal when a mag decides to go with yearly ratings it should then be able to provide such info on a real time basis. The internal workings of its elite corps of people is an internal self-created item that is mechanical in nature and undercuts the idea that the mag is on top of all such matters.
End of story.
p.s. By the way -- there is no "supposed omission" -- there actually is.
One other thing -- there are scores of other courses that have been around for quite some time and still don't get rated -- see Kingsley among GD's top 100 listings. The issue is far beyond location matters.