The 'problem' with the Discussion Group

[Ran Morrissett]

Reports of the death of the world's most infuriating Discussion Group are greatly exaggerated.

IMO the 'problem' at the moment with the Discussion Group is that too many people who aren't particularly strong in architecture are making too many posts. Their drivel hides what continues to be an outstanding amount of knowledge. In turn, others grow weary and spend their time elsewhere.

When you post, say something meaningful. If you are agreeing with someone, say why. If you are disagreeing, state why and be clear.

FYI I paid our hosting company to create a report on all off-topic threads. They came back with twenty-nine pages of threads and they are preparing to delete them this month. I don't know if your post count will be effected but if it does go way down, you know you are spending your time on too many non-architecture threads. 

It is a compliment to the site that so many people elect to spend so much time here. However, just because you like Raquel Welch, that doesn't mean that you should spend all your time standing in front of her house. Unfortunately  there are laws against that sort of thing. No 'laws' apply within this Discussion Group so we have to rely on each person to show good judgment. This community feeds off the behavior and examples set by each of us on a daily basis and as with most things, it can easily slip toward the lower common denominator if we aren't careful. For instance, I just learned yesterday morning from reading the WSJ that a golfer only burns off two Krispy Kreme glazed chocolate doughnuts while walking eighteen holes. Sadly, I was munching on a doughnut at the time and needless to say,  1) I was very troubled but 2) I am not going to make a post about it though it is golf related.

Here is a recent clunker from an extremely active poster: 'I like the new bunker on 6.I believe the knock on the hole was that it played shoort and needed some teeth.Looks like they found it.What a great joy pulling off a shot fro in there.Always looved 5 when most everybody hates.Tee ball to the left second to the right and pitch to island.WHAT IS NOT TO LOVE? A very unique hole.Again GIVE ME SOMETHING.In the clughouse each hole should have some memorable to discuss and these two holes posted meet that criteria.Fun course period.And derserving of majors.' Really - the guy is so busy that is the best he can do?  What would Strunk & White say? Whatever it may be, it is a poor reflection on this Discussion Group and thus on the web site as a whole. Everyone needs to slow down and take their time - no awards are being handed out for speed posting and/or quantity of posts. After all, complete sentences and going light on misspelled words only helps your point, not harm it (and if you don't have a point, why post?).

Remember: If you are going to post on a near daily basis, the burden is squarely on you to stick to architecture and to add to the subject matter overall. This site remains about quality, not quantity.

Some suggest that we need a moderator that hawks the Discussion Group on a continual basis. Give me a break. What we need are people who can articulate their thoughts on golf course architecture in a meaningful manner. To that end, Ben and I continually add (and therefore subtract) approximately 15% of the 1,500 registered participants on an annual basis, trying to find the mix that yields the most informative Discussion Group possible. Clearly, I need to do a better job of screening people initially and/or being quicker to push the eject button for nincompoops who don't grasp what we are trying to do here. GolfClubAtlas.com is meant to be a way to give back to a fascinating subject matter within the great game of golf. Golf course architecture wins, as do we all, by sharing knowledge within this free access site. It is not and will not become the personal playground where people put their own amusement ahead of these higher goals.

This web site is read in all the corners of the world where golf is played and we have an obligation to present our best foot forward. 99% of you understand and act like that and we thank you for making this the best web site in the world, bar none.

Cheers,

[RSLivingston_III]

I look forward to the fallout from the house cleaning.

Actually, I am going to pay attention to my thread count to see if I had spent much, if any time on those OT threads.

[Phil_the_Author]

Ran,

Very well said. Unfortunately, when you stated, "This web site is read in all the corners of the world where golf is played and we have an obligation to present our best foot forward. 99% of you understand and act like that and we thank you for making this the best web site in the world, bar none..." you must not have been reading the latest round of Merion related threads.

I almost emailed you today with the intention of resigning from the site because of the absolute lack of respect that is being shown on these threads. By the vulgarity, constant 8-year old (if that) name calling, non-stop testosterone arguing rather than any semblance of a discussion, the participants are damaging both themselves and the website and, as a result, all who post here in the eyes of many. I've actually had lurkers who are not members privately email me and suggest that my participation here hurts my own reputation.

Despite what some say, nobody who has ever seen one really likes a train wreck and that is what these latest threads have become. I have privately emailed the participants encouraging that they use common sense and courtesy, privately emailed you asking that you do something about it and now am doing so publicly.

It is time for this nonsense to end. The Merion discussion could very well be one that this website would have been greatly proud of, instead it has turned into that family in the neighborhood whose house you drive quickly by and whose children you warn yours against playing with.

Have you given any consideration to the idea that maybe the proliferation of OT subjects and comments might have a great deal more to do with not wanting to post on some threads where you think you'll be drawn into the nonsense? I do.

Ran, you really do need to do something about this, especially as within the flames of the "discussion" your name is also bandied about as parties keep threatenting each other with you...

Please act.

 

[PThomas]

thanks for your post Ran...a fine reminder of what GCA should be all about....I shall certainly try to remember your ideas when I post

[Ulrich Mayring]

Many threads are about GCA Outings, official or unofficial, or just someone saying "I am playing there on that date, anyone care to join me?" Are these threads also considered off-topic?

Ulrich

[Marty Bonnar]

Ran,
I beg of you. PLEASE create an Off-Topic area. I, with many others, asked of it at the last 're-shape' and it never appeared. I honestly believe it would settle many of our issues.

I love our subject and I love the internet for giving me my VERY FIRST IN MY LIFE opportunity to discuss it on a worldwide basis, but I also firmly believe that, like a GREAT golf club there should be a place for eedjits like me to shoot the breeze outwith the real bones of our place.

I love GCA. Let it reflect what its members wish it to be.

or am I wrong?
FBD.

[Anthony Gray]

  OK you got me.I'm the one with the clunker post.My typing sucks.I just can't see the mistakes at times even after proof reading.Sorry to all.I love GCA and find it to be a great way to get away from the daily grind.Understood it may not be the purpose of the site,but it is educational and also entertaining because of the mix of topics.

  Anthony

[Willie_Dow]

Back, some years ago, when I first met GCA, I thought it was a small group of guys trying to sort out local problems with their clubs.  Not sticks, but clubs.  We had a problem, and were looking for answers.

This was our thinking board, and unfortunately it turned into a political advertizement for discussion.

It is still the best of arguments if we can eliminate those trying to be political !

[Robert Emmons]

Ran,

thanks for the input....I hope people listen....Look forward to seeing you in Jersey...RHE

[Bill Rocco]

Ran,

I believe the other problem I have seen with this discussion board are the threads/comments requesting other members of GCA to get them out on a particular top 10 golf course  I understand people want to play great courses to see great architects work but there is a time and place.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,
I beg of you. PLEASE create an Off-Topic area.

Ran,  Don't do it.
It would only divert the focus away from GCA and diminish the quality of the threads/posts made, resulting in the dilution of the intent and appeal of the site

I, with many others, asked of it at the last 're-shape' and it never appeared. I honestly believe it would settle many of our issues.
If you have OFF TOPIC issues, go somewhere else to discuss them

I love our subject and I love the internet for giving me my VERY FIRST IN MY LIFE opportunity to discuss it on a worldwide basis, but I also firmly believe that, like a GREAT golf club there should be a place for eedjits like me to shoot the breeze outwith the real bones of our place.


Go shoot the breeze on another site devoted to the topic you wish to discuss.


I love GCA. Let it reflect what its members wish it to be.

You want the inmates to run the Asylum, I don't.
This site isn't about what the "guests" wish it to be, it's about what RAN wishes it to be and he doesn't wish to have off topic threads.
If you want to go off topic, go to another site that discusses that topic, rather than ruin a great GCA site.

or am I wrong?

You are dead wrong
FBD.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO one of the main reasons that many think the site has drifted is simple.  There are no new courses being built to bring about discussion...people are not out checking on new construction sites and bringing that discussion back to the discussion group therefore it is easier to go OT....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I'd disagree.

This site doesn't need 12 new stellar courses a year in order to remain relevant and interesting.

The propensity toward inane OT threads has diluted the quality of the discussions and discouraged serious posters from contributing.

Just go back and reread Donnie Beck's post on the "jumping" thread, he makes an excellent point.

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young,

I'd disagree.

This site doesn't need 12 new stellar courses a year in order to remain relevant and interesting.

The propensity toward inane OT threads has diluted the quality of the discussions and discouraged serious posters from contributing.

Just go back and reread Donnie Beck's post on the "jumping" thread, he makes an excellent point.

Pat,
Let me put it another way....
Could you agree that with less new work ...it would naturally lead to less posting regarding new courses...so would it be fair to say the percentage of discussions relating to new courses would be down and which would lead to the percentage of OT threads increasing? 

[David_Elvins]

IMHO one of the main reasons that many think the site has drifted is simple.  There are no new courses being built to bring about discussion...people are not out checking on new construction sites and bringing that discussion back to the discussion group therefore it is easier to go OT....

Mike,

One other factor with people's disenchantment with the site is that there are a limited number of possible topics on the theory of golf course architecture.  Anyone who has been reading the site for ten years will have 'heard it all before'.  Of course, it is not up to the site to change to reflect their needs and I think some regular posters need to accept that the site might not fill their needs in the way it did 5-10 years ago. 

Having said that, I am a bit embarrassed to be posting on this thread.  I don't think anything that Ran says on this thread should be up for debate. 

[RJ_Daley]

I agree with Mike and Marty.  I have also been in the camp of wishing you'd create an off topic button, that is also monitored for abuse.  Just because it is off topic doesn't mean it can become a flame thrower's ball, or a place to exhibit extrovert attention getting blather.  But, it would not detract from the real GCA comments, only allow the real GCA to exist in a more pure and refined form.  

And, I'll go on the record to say that I'm not terribly offended or feel brought down by a little poor grammar or spelling.  If a person is pressed for time, and still wants to get a comment in (and I certainly don't think the above about WS is off topic) I can definitely look past typos and poor spelling and the like.  

Ran, thanks for the site, and many years of enjoyable times.  I'm a bit older, and I do enjoy the commeraderie and socialiability that the site provides along with many informative and knowlegeable posters in the actual GCA and related topics.  But, I for one don't only seek pedantic rehashes of the same old subjects over and over again, without a little opportunity to read when people digress a bit from the topic at hand.  The digressions often give a much more human touch and they provide a touchstone to participants as people, not just a 'wiki' recitation of GCA knowlege or where they've played on their bucket lists.  I seriously think that if you take the extemporaneous tendency to make off-topic asides and comments, you kill the soul of the people participating.  I like the souls who love the topic who come from all backgrounds to share their knowledge and personalities here more than the data and just the facts mam, as I can read the scads of on-topic books that abound on GCA, GCM, and construction or history of the game.  I like the people, even with our warts.

[Mike_Young]

IMHO one of the main reasons that many think the site has drifted is simple.  There are no new courses being built to bring about discussion...people are not out checking on new construction sites and bringing that discussion back to the discussion group therefore it is easier to go OT....

Mike,

One other factor with people's disenchantment with the site is that there are a limited number of possible topics on the theory of golf course architecture.  Anyone who has been reading the site for ten years will have 'heard it all before'.  Of course, it is not up to the site to change to reflect their needs and I think some regular posters need to accept that the site might not fill their needs in the way it did 5-10 years ago. 

Having said that, I am a bit embarrassed to be posting on this thread.  I don't think anything that Ran says on this thread should be up for debate. 

What?  Ran posted the thread for comments I am sure.....he began it with IMO.....no need to be embarrassed .....his comments were correct IMO and I was just adding additional....
Cheers,,,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

First, I don't believe that's the cause and effect.

Second, I think there's enough to discuss, absent new courses, to keep the site occupied for some time.

As to the decremental effect vis a vis fewer new courses, I think it's de minimus.

Certainly, "Old Macdonald" created an unusual buzz/activity, but, I attribute that to the fact that Tom Doak, George Bahto and Brad Klein were active contributors.

If a non-participating architect opened a new course, I doubt it would get as much attention.

If you examine the topics that the OT threads are about, how do you equate their creation to the absence of new courses.

How is the lack of new courses responsible for the initiation of a thread about "food on a golf course" ?

I don't see the connect.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

First, I don't believe that's the cause and effect.

Second, I think there's enough to discuss, absent new courses, to keep the site occupied for some time.

As to the decremental effect vis a vis fewer new courses, I think it's de minimus.

Certainly, "Old Macdonald" created an unusual buzz/activity, but, I attribute that to the fact that Tom Doak, George Bahto and Brad Klein were active contributors.

If a non-participating architect opened a new course, I doubt it would get as much attention.

If you examine the topics that the OT threads are about, how do you equate their creation to the absence of new courses.

How is the lack of new courses responsible for the initiation of a thread about "food on a golf course" ?

I don't see the connect.

Pat,
I am not saying that the absence of new courses equates to the creation of OT threads or that the lack of new courses is responsible for the content of OT threads....just saying it makes the percentage of OT threads increase...

[Anthony Gray]

  David Elkins makes a good point,after 5-10 years what do you talk about.Sometimes the DG turns into the 19th hole.Maybe someone should start a DG called the 19th Hole.Or does that sound too much like a lounge?

  Anthony

[RSLivingston_III]

I am not in favor of the OT-forum.Those discussions seem better served on sites devoted to the related topics.

[Michael Whitaker]

Ran - This site needs more participation by you. You set the tone. You set the example. You present thoughtful questions that lead to interesting discussions. Not many of us have that gift.

As Mike Young said, with fewer new courses there is less fresh subject matter. As a result, it gets harder and harder to find new takes on existing subjects. Not everyone is a great conversationalist... just look around at your next cocktail party. You are the best GCA conversationalist on this site, but you participate the least. We need your leadership and conversational talent. Please... just one good post per week would do the trick.

Unfortunately, some of the folks on this site with the greatest architecture knowledge are not very good conversationalists. Also, their breadth of courses is so narrow that they keep rehashing the same topics on the same courses, over and over. This gets a bit boring. I wish they would get out, see some different courses, and expand their repertoire as their insights are usually very enlightening.

As for the Off Topic section... absolutely! Those that think it is a bad idea can just stay away from that section. Give it try. What have you got to lose? If it doesn't work and proves to be a mistake just delete the damn thing. No problem.

[Melvyn Morrow]

This all sound well and good, but in all honesty are we going to get designers and architects talking to us. Will they come out and discuss various topics ranging from some location are just not suitable for the game; that many courses are no longer set up for the general public but more to attract tours  etc.

Design has moved away from its core, the idea seem to build a course for specific golfers in mind, and not generalise as per the pre war second golden age. Then we have the added distraction of cart tracks and island greens. Will all these be openly discussed freely and openly?

Subjects that intrigue me are those that relate to challenges or hazards, not a decorative bed of bunkers all around the green or shadowing the fairway. The cursed lack of technical control over equipment that allows our courses to be butchered, sorry the R&A might call them lengthened. Yet the subject most dear to my heart are those often heard of words ‘Oh the designer would not get away with that today’. Sorry but these holes are among the most talked about and challenging holes on the courses (just look at my recent list of my preferred courses with video clips links, I posted last week). If they are that much fun why are the designers ignoring such holes.,  of course they can be designed and built today, but yes it might take guts to push hem through.


Then we have courses like Askernish, built on land fit for purpose for just under $100,000,. Does that embarrass the designers, after all most designers who have visited the island have said it’s a great course. Are we learning from Askernish or are we trying to do the usual, bring it down to that of our comfort zone. I firmly believe with the climate and financial problems we are facing Askernish has something to tell us, but will our architects and designers listen and  learn so that they can produce more enjoyable and challenging course throughout the world.

To have the gift to design is special, yet there are times that the design takes an age to shape itself in one’s mind yet on other occasions it materialises in as the survey is being completed.

There is much to be discussed and questions to be asked, but the discussion will greatly depend upon the input or replies from the designers on GCA.com. 

In closing let’s not forget the old saying “all work and no play makes GCA.com a dull site”

Just some food for thought

Melvyn

[Bob_Huntley]

Pat Mucci,

Probably the most interesting thing that I've read on this site in recent years was an O/T  posted by your good self on "remembrance of things past." It was the history of Mucci pere and Patrick and the whole golfing scene over a fifty year period. I enjoyed reading it much more than the bad tempered post on the Merion genesis.

Pat, I am not sure, as in old age my memory fails from time to time, but was their one reference to golf architecture in your wonderful reminiscence?


Bob

[Anthony Gray]

  One reason why there are not more architects on the site is because people are over critical.When you're out designing courses and putting your heart into it who wants to hear your work is crap.Trust me, it is not the OT stuff that is keeping these guys away.Look how Pete Dye is getting smacked this week.

  Anthony