The Rater Game?

[David Camponi]

This is a question for all the Raters out there; what is the best treatment you have ever received while rating a golf course?

Ever been given a free caddie?
Ever been comped food?
Ever been escorted around by the pro?

[Jim Franklin]

I just did a google on a hot carl and it was defined on a site called Urban Myth. Are you seriously posting this on this site? If the urban myth site is true I don't think Ran is going to like this. He has bigger problems right now.

What did his original post say?

[Bill_McBride]

.

[Bill_McBride]

.

[Adam Clayman]

I've been given a free caddie twice, but, I paid them anyway, also. As a former caddie, you can't have a big enough day. It makes up for all the stiffs that play this game.

I've been fed, but only as part of an organized retreat, which I pay to attend.

I've played with the pro on a couple of occasions.

If this post is in somehow meant to impugn anyone's character, implying that their vote can be bought for any of these things, it's pretty weak.

My favorite story about quid pro quo involves the Donald. A rater is at one of his courses. On the 5th hole, he and the caddy are on the tee when who should come zipping up in a cart? Yup, The Donald. He says to the rater, "I need a good rating, what can I do for you?" The rater says "Excuse me?" He repeats " I need a good rating, what can I do for you?" The rater thinks for a moment and says,"How about a picture?" The Donald thinks for a second and says Ok and begins to fix his hair. The rater hands him the camera. 

[Richard Choi]

If this post is in somehow meant to impugn anyone's character, implying that their vote can be bought for any of these things, it's pretty weak.

Doesn't the fact that a course like Rich Harvest being ranked so high and the fact that the raters are personally treated by the owner pretty much clearly states that votes can be bought (and if you don't like the term "vote" at least they can be "influenced")?

Isn't it just a question of how expensive it is to buy that vote?

I mean, there is a reason why Consumer Reports does not take advertisements or freebies from manufacturers and restaurant critics go incognito to rate a restaurant.

[Terry Lavin]

I don't think that the occasional financial break is the type of issue that is most capable of wreaking havoc with the credibility of a rater's individual rating.  Rather, I think it's the effect of "groupthink" on an individual rater.  The experiences that I've heard about rater retreats and rater outings lead me to the conclusion that there's a fair amount of accommodating to the group view that goes on.  I think that would have much more effect than a free greens fee or a lunch in the card room.  To me, it's pretty difficult to evaluate the difference between the GD and GW lists unless that factor is taken into account.  There are, to be sure, some differences in the ratings process (difficulty, conditioning, walk in the park, etc.), but my guess is that the subtle or not so subtle pressure to fit in within the group affects the overall rating process in a most pernicious way.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm a fairly opinionated guy but even I would not submit a low rating for Old Mac to Golfweek no matter what I thought of the course.  It reminds me of the time my boss asked me to coach the Little League team that his son played for.  That boy played whatever position he felt suited his mood.  He may have been the first kid to bat 400 without ever reaching first.

Thank God Old Mac really is that great.  Some things you just know.

[Mark Saltzman]

John,

That's an interesting point.  Matt Ward has pointed out several times that there are courses that remain on the top 100 list that shouldn't be there and several that should be there that aren't.  Would you argue that the reason these courses remain in the top 100 is that some raters are afraid to give a lower rating and thus become raters that are a clear outlier from the mean.  Or maybe it is just that these raters (and they must be bad raters) are simply unsure of what rating to give a course (let's they think its between a 6 and an 8 ) and as a result defer to the posted score on the GD list (which is fairly high if it makes the list).  This would mean that courses that are a part of the top 100 would have a much easier time remaining there.

Mark

[mike_beene]

if men were angels.....

[C. Squier]

I'm a fairly opinionated guy but even I would not submit a low rating for Old Mac to Golfweek no matter what I thought of the course.  It reminds me of the time my boss asked me to coach the Little League team that his son played for.  That boy played whatever position he felt suited his mood.  He may have been the first kid to bat 400 without ever reaching first.

Thank God Old Mac really is that great.  Some things you just know.

I'm fairly certain Brad's self esteem doesn't/wouldn't hang in the balance of what you or I think about Old Mac. 

[Mac Plumart]

John K...

Good thing your not a rater. 

I've always been taught to say what you mean and mean what you say.  Perhaps that is a dying credo.

[Lou_Duran]

If this post is in somehow meant to impugn anyone's character, implying that their vote can be bought for any of these things, it's pretty weak.

Doesn't the fact that a course like Rich Harvest being ranked so high and the fact that the raters are personally treated by the owner pretty much clearly states that votes can be bought (and if you don't like the term "vote" at least they can be "influenced")?

Isn't it just a question of how expensive it is to buy that vote?

Richard,

And I thought your were all about facts and not opinions.   

I played Rich Harvest.  I met Mr. Rich for a few minutes.  I even had a peek at his car collection.  Not a thing was offered other than the privilege to play the course.  He asked nothing of me, and, through my ballot, I gave him the same honest evaluation of his course as I did all others.  Except for an inelegant routing and a small, weird square of synthetic turf tucked between some trees serving as a back tee for an already tight par 4, I thought the course was very good.  There are a number of top 100 courses that I think are inferior.  And that's my opinion.   

BTW, what do you think of #16 at Pacific Dunes?
   

[Richard Choi]

Lou, I do like facts. It is fairly well known from many studies that human beings are compelled to return favors when they are given one. Human minds are very well in tune with building harmonious society, and this is just one of those traits that we have evolved over millenia.

I am sure Mr. Rich did not ask for any pro-quid-pro, but he didn't have to. He knew that by bestowing such attention and generosity, those favors would come back to him. He may not even be conscientiously doing it, it may be just something he learned over many years of business dealings. Marketers are well aware of this phenomena, which is why you see those free samples at Costco and loss leader pricing for special items.

Do you believe Rich Harvest is a top 50 course?

And you should know that I have a very strong love/hate relationship with that hole I am THRILLED that I actually parred that hole for once. But I came right back with an X, which is more of my norm.

[David Camponi]

Very well said Richard; every rater claims to be totally unaffected by the "treatment" but the fact of the matter is that every course that treats the people the best is rated higher than most say it should be.  Human nature doesn't exclude golf course raters.

Having played the Golf Digest top 100 and not being a rater I was literally stunned after playing certain courses that were ranked highly.  Having discussed with some raters I at least figured out why that might be the case.

[Tom_Doak]

Very well said Richard; every rater claims to be totally unaffected by the "treatment" but the fact of the matter is that every course that treats the people the best is rated higher than most say it should be.  Human nature doesn't exclude golf course raters.

Having played the Golf Digest top 100 and not being a rater I was literally stunned after playing certain courses that were ranked highly.  Having discussed with some raters I at least figured out why that might be the case.

David:

There is little question that you are right about this.  However, I don't think it has much to do with free caddies, comped food, or being escorted around by the pro.  The biggest perk of all is simply ACCESS to otherwise very exclusive clubs, and the raters feeling like they were privileged to get the chance to play the course.  Shadow Creek and Rich Harvest Links and [apparently] The Alotian Club have milked this for all it's worth in recent years -- in fact, so has Sand Hills -- but they still have a long way to go to match Seminole and Cypress Point and Augusta National, which are able to use the same strategy without even doing it themselves.

[John Kavanaugh]

People don't even need to be a rater to access these courses.  They need to be a rater have the power.  You can only exercise your power by moving the rankings.

This partially explains why so many raters end up unemployed.  They bring their new power into the workplace and flash it in front of their superiors.  It is really annoying.  The course soon becomes the only place they can wield their sword.  If you can't promote your own fiefdom what can you promote.  Yes, the courses that bow down go up.

This has nothing to do with money.

[Carl Rogers]

I started a thread a while back about who was qualified to be a rater concluding that I was not qualified.

There needs to be fewer raters and those that are raters need training by what might be called "super raters".
This new cadre of raters need a break in period and become apprentice raters.
One of the qualifications of a rater is a highly independent individual not interested in "group think or popularity contests".

[Adam Clayman]

David, Is that the only reason you think these courses, you feel are inferior, make the list? I've always chalked it up to differing tastes and different levels of sophistication. My long view have seen these fly by night courses, (the ones that might manipulate 'The rater game" by hand picking specific raters, that are known to be group thinkers, and are easily influenced) taking the proverbial dump, once time has past and enough of the other votes come in.

People get influenced by many things. And some raters actually resent the attempt to smooze their vote and it back fires. And then, there are some raters that actually care about the architecture. I know it's shocking, but it's true.

Why don't you tell us what specific course has your dander up? I assume it is some course you feel belongs on the list that is not, while others you think don't belong are.

Richard, To compare a product review, like a dishwasher, with a golf course rating in a magazine is yoga man. Quite the stretch.  

[Garland Bayley]

...
Richard, To compare a product review, like a dishwasher, with a golf course rating in a magazine is yoga man. Quite the stretch.  

To disavow the validity of the comparison IMO is quite the stretch.
The point was if all courses (like dishwashers) were equally accessible, and if the rating was done anonymously without influence from the owners/representative/manufacturers, then we would have a very different list.
To deny that is silly IMO.

[Dan Herrmann]

I'm not a big fan of the rating game, ever since I saw a Golfweek rater (who's never been a GCA.com poster) play my home course. 

He was by himself, playing as fast as he could in a cart so he could hit French Creek and the two Stonewall courses next door in a day.  Ended up playing through everybody and from what I was told, didn't even stop into the Pro Shop to thank the pro.

There's NO way the guy could ever tell what Gil built at our place or what Tom/Gil did over at Stonewall playing at that pace.  Plus, he kinda irked some very nice folks with his attitude.

[Jim Franklin]

David -

I am a GD panleist and have been on this site quite some time. I have posted my list of favorites and which courses I do not like so much. Please post your top 25 and then the courses you do not think belong. Please limit to courses you have played. (not implying anything but spoke to someone the other day and they were ranting about a course they never played.) Thanks.

[Jerry Kluger]

Deleted

[Richard Choi]

...
Richard, To compare a product review, like a dishwasher, with a golf course rating in a magazine is yoga man. Quite the stretch.  

To disavow the validity of the comparison IMO is quite the stretch.
The point was if all courses (like dishwashers) were equally accessible, and if the rating was done anonymously without influence from the owners/representative/manufacturers, then we would have a very different list.
To deny that is silly IMO.

It actually goes deeper than that. Consumer Reports produces probably the most objective rating lists out there. They use repeatable testing methods whenever they can. But even with that kind of objectivity, they realize that "favors" or outside factors can greatly influence their ratings and do everything they can do avoid those influences.

And if a relatively objective ratings like Consumer Report ratings can be influenced by "favors", what hope does completely objective ratings like golf course ratings have? To even suggest that it is not highly influenced by things like cost, exclusivity, and other amentities is not rational.

[Jud_T]

It's the same reason I read the Wine Advocate and not the Wine Spectator.   Tom hit the nail on the head.  In an ideal world raters would only get access the same way as the rest of us mortals, would pay full freight for doing so and would play anonymously as a common guest.  Simply the fact of showing up at some ultraexclusive club, getting otherwise unattainable access and announcing that you're a rater makes the evaluation suspect at best.  It's comparable to a food critic showing up at Alinea without a 3 month advance reservation, announcing he was a critic and getting a $500 23 course tasting menu and wine pairing prepared especially for the occasion at the chef's table gratis.  The chances of getting a truly impartial critique are next to nil.  Wonder why more moderately priced public courses aren't on anybody's top 100 list?