John,
I suppose there's no correlation whatsoever between this rant and the fact that Victoria National dropped 13 spots and is now in the dreaded "Next 100"? 
I do believe my disappointment towards Golfweek is well documented from back when Victoria National was ranked in the top 20 modern. I personally wish I could release these feelings because some of my best friends are raters for Golfweek and I hate that anything I have to say about the process may hurt them.
I must love playing golf and being a member at private clubs given as much of my life has been dedicated towards each. It hurts to see a magazine make a money and membership grab towards one of the prime demographics left. I know for a fact that people have joined the ranks of Golfweek and in turn quit their own club because now they had their need to play filled through the magazine.
I believe that if I were a rater I would have never joined Dismal River at the time I did because I would not have had any reason to pay dues to a national destination club. I would like to believe that if I had not joined Dismal River at the time that I did the Doak course would not be opening this year. That would have been a harm to the game affecting thousands of golfers both now and in the future.
The sole reason I did not write The Prairie Cub a check for $15,000 when I visited before they had first opened and become a member there was because they could not tell me that they would not comp raters. That is a harm to them. I didn't care about Dismal's policy at the time because I knew the Golfweek guys hated the place so wouldn't play for free if offered.
I remember when Kingsley first opened and everyone from the rater demographic loved the place and said they would join if this or that. I can only imagine the memberships they lost because those same people had their future travels to private courses booked.
The simple indisputable fact that is that with so few courses being opened it must be questioned why the number of raters is being raised. I believe it is because each rater is a profit center for the magazine. It is my opinion that those profits should be directed towards golf courses and the people who run them.
Why given the other indisputable fact that you do not need to be a rater to access 99% of the courses in this country do raters even have to identify themselves? We all know that there are 300 lovers of golf who could rate courses anonymously and do a perfectly fine or even better job. There just isn't any money in that.
I do not have the same problem with Golf Digest because they provide worth to the courses they rank. Getting on their list sell more memberships than any cost associated with hosting their panel. Once again to bring this back to me, there is absolutely no doubt that the ranking of Victoria National in the top 100 of Golf Digest played a role in my joining the club despite living 70 miles away. Digest delivers value.