Everyone a Rater

[Bob_Huntley]

I received this in the mail.

 Dear Friend and Fellow Golfer:

In case you haven't seen them, I thought I'd draw your attention to the LINKS 100 lists--two new and very different rankings of the best golf courses in the US and World--recently unveiled by LINKS Magazine.

Very different  because 1) They're the first living, breathing, Internet-based lists--as such they change constantly as online ballots are cast and 2) Anyone may cast a ballot.

So if you've always wanted to be a golf course rater, here's you chance. Just go to the LINKS website--www.linksmagazine.com--click on the names of the courses you've played from our ballot of over 1000 of the world's best, and then rank them as you see fit. You may also "write in" for courses that aren't on the ballot. It's easy and fun, and when you click the button that saves your personal top courses list, you simultaneously cast your ballot for the LINKS 100.

You may print out your list or return to it at any time to add courses or revise your rankings--each change will be tabulated and each tabulation will have an effect on the rankings. You can also compare your top courses list to those of hundreds of golfers from around the world who have already cast ballots. There's a Discussion Group where you can chat, argue, and generally compare notes, and we even have Hot and Cold lists showing the 10 courses that are moving up and down the rankings most dramatically.

So pour yourself a dram and have it!

George Peper
Editor
LINKS Magazine

[Pete Lavallee]

Do I sense a rush to the top of the list for Nchanga GC?

[Anthony Gray]

  Not sure how reliable the list would be. Sounds like a Fish Bar contest.

  Anthony

[Joe_Tucholski]

Golflink.com has been doing this for awhile.  Right between Pine valley and angc at number 3 on golf link top 100 in America is Jefferson Park, a Seattle muni.

[Dan Kelly]

So if you've always wanted to be a golf course rater, here's your chance.

In the old New Yorker magazine, this could have made a good "newsbreak" -- in some category like:

Letters We Never Got to the End Of

[Sven Nilsen]

A.  Go check out the lists and let us know if you have any issues with how the rankings turned out.

B.  Tom Dunne and the rest of the Links 100 team have built in a system where the anomalies are not given a ton of credence.  First, to set the baseline for the lists they asked a group of "knowledgeable" folks to submit their rankings.  Second, the system they have in place is designed to weed out the anomalies.  Its highly unlikely a muni from Seattle would be able to mount a charge. 

C.  I for one am looking forward to see what courses move up and down the lists as further rankings are submitted. 

[Mike Benham]

  Not sure how reliable the list would be.

Based on the battles between Golf Digest and Golfweek raters on GCA, is any list "reliable"?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Will this turn out to be something similar to GD's  "Places to Play? "



That is nothing more than a popularity contest.

[Richard Choi]

Second, the system they have in place is designed to weed out the anomalies.  Its highly unlikely a muni from Seattle would be able to mount a charge. 

Just wait until I hack into the system!!!

[Mike Nuzzo]

Do I sense a rush to the top of the list for Nchanga GC?

That is 3 votes so far!

[John Kavanaugh]

Lists like these eventually prove why it is vital that raters receive free golf and access.   Critical thought expressed without fear of loss often leads to revolutionary ideals.  We don't need lists outside our expected norms.

[Tim Martin]

Lists like these eventually prove why it is vital that raters receive free golf and access.   Critical thought expressed without fear of loss often leads to revolutionary ideals.  We don't need lists outside our expected norms.

 

[Jack_Marr]

It is supposed to be "courses you've played". Augusta is near the top. How many of the people who have voted for Augusta have actually played Augusta?

[Tom_Doak]

A.  Go check out the lists and let us know if you have any issues with how the rankings turned out.

B.  Tom Dunne and the rest of the Links 100 team have built in a system where the anomalies are not given a ton of credence.  First, to set the baseline for the lists they asked a group of "knowledgeable" folks to submit their rankings.  Second, the system they have in place is designed to weed out the anomalies.  Its highly unlikely a muni from Seattle would be able to mount a charge.  

C.  I for one am looking forward to see what courses move up and down the lists as further rankings are submitted.  

Sven:

The current list is based on votes from the group of chosen "knowledgeable" folks only, isn't it?  

So it doesn't yet reflect the results of the mass survey, unless the way they "weed out the anomalies" is to just throw out ballots that don't conform to the list that's already in place.  There are lots of ways to do that, but it doesn't prove much.  So, unless we hear the magic formula that weeds out the anomalies, I'll remain skeptical of the new system.

P.S.  Are architects entitled to vote on their own courses, or are those anomalies accounted for, too?

P.P.S.  I just read the methodology.  To paraphrase:  "Your ballot won't be given equal weight to those of our panelists, but it will count for something."

[David Harshbarger]

I think I read somewhere that Ran is against using GCA.com for rating, but, if there was a rating capability restricted to the members here wouldn't you think we'd come with rankings people would care to look at?  Especially, if the details were available?  Of course, there may have to be a disclaimer, for some, as in "John Kavanaugh, your rankings will not count as much as the rest of the raters, but they will count for something" ;-)

And Tom, with your name, your Doak scale and the right forum, you could be the Zagat, nay the Michelin, of golf, with 1200 raters strong spreading out to the four corners of the globe, enshrining your sensibilities forever in the greater golf firmament.  Just saying....

[Tom Dunne]

Tom Doak,

No, an update took place yesterday, so the current site now reflects data from both panelist and public ballots. (What we don't have quite yet is the index of arrows showing how many spots a course rose or fell since the last update, but I'm expecting that will be added in the next week.) Your statement in the PPS is accurate (panelist ballots receive more weight than the public), though I'm guessing that when George sent that email to friends and acquaintances he was looking for well-traveled people to add to the panelist pool. LINKS raters don't derive access or travel under the magazine's banner, so being a panelist really just means you're reasonably well-traveled, willing to put in an effort on your ballot, and (I hope) willing to participate in the overall conversation from time to time.

As for what Sven describes as "weeding out the anomalies", one of the only "rules" in place is that architects recuse themselves from voting on their own courses, and that supers/Directors of Golf should do the same in terms of voting on their current place of employment. Some guys can't help themselves and do this stuff anyway, but it's easy to spot and neutralize without discarding the rest of an otherwise usable ballot.

The "magic formula" is in place to prevent it from becoming what Joe Tucholski mentioned--a victim of ballot-box stuffing--but we haven't seen any organized efforts in that direction and it has largely been a non-issue so far. There are several ways to determine whether a user has put a modicum of effort into their ballot. I won't reveal all of them, but one common blunder is when a club employee or PR rep ranks their course #1 and then wanders away for good. We actually don't even have to throw these ballots out because they're useless--they don't provide any information as to the courses that their #1 is greater than. 

Anyway, the idea is to allow for plenty of natural movement and to register diversity of opinion without compromising the basic credibility of the list. It's true that tension can exist between these two goals, but it can also be lessened by the good-faith efforts of the people involved. I think our original group did a good job, but we're also looking for the next ~100 people to both add useful data to the system, and especially to keep the conversation going--whether that happens here or elsewhere isn't all that relevant to me. Sean Arble was not a member of the original panel, but his ballot has since been scored with that weight, in part because he had the courage to share his list and his ideas on how he created it. Is that kind of cherry picking unscientific? Sure. But Sean's thread was exactly what this is all about, and I'm hoping to see more like it in the future.

We're not screening for conformity, just misinformation. 99% of incoming ballots are entering the statistical model with one weight or the other.