I'd like to add that I mostly agree with the sentiments echoed by Mr. Sturges, Dougherty & Duran.
Certainly, too many threads have appeared that overlap, infringe on, or just plain repeat what has appeared in the past. "Hot" button subjects quickly deteriorate into denigration and derisive diatribe. People take themselves entirely too seriously, or even occasionally too loosely. Heck, I'd have to admit to being guilty of straddling that fence on an occasion or two
. Too many OT threads are created that just swiftly devolve into a 2+ person dialogue over something less-than-relevant and thus serve to repel or bore most readers. Some just blatantly use GCA to tout their quasi-journalistic and or semi-professional hobbies.
What has yet to be mentioned, is the issue of how so many of the truly constructive contributors of the past have had their voices dimmed or replaced by those who've arrived in the past few years determined to race to some extreme # of posts, all while contributing very little, other than the drivel of electronic text. When I meet up with many of the great past posters, they near unanimously think that these diarrhetic folks determined to comment on every thread with no attempt to add anything substantial really do detract from the site. Many have migrated elsewhere, to blogs or pms, determined to remain lurkers until they see any meaningful shift to cleaner content.
Even worse, many who post so frequently don't even bother to financially support the site at any level near commiserate with their e-ink!!
Should there be rules limiting posts or pms without contributing, or enforce some initiation period?? I don't know, but think these are viable questions. In fact, Golf's "Most Bitter
" (.... post losing
a hard fought hickory match on the 18th hole
) and myself were discussing just what might address and remedy this slippery slope?
Much of the above is probably a natural evolution of a largely open site, relatively devoid of editorial censorship, or any heavy-handed dictatorial control.
There aren't any easy answers. Self-policing is only as good as the people who put on the badges and I'd say we got plenty of "Gold Hattters" who claim to not "need no stinkin badges." These otherwise good folk seem to believe GCA is their domain to determine what passes for constructive comment or enlightened content.
Neither Ran nor Ben have the time nor inclination to turn GCA into an authoritarian state or a commercially-diluted wasteland. I can only hope everyone who reads this can see just how lucky we are to have such a benevolently-inclined set of masters. Does anyone realize how much time, money and energy it takes to oversee this treehouse? Changes can and should come in order to take GCA to the next level, but until then, perhaps every post should be require a prefacing and sobering thought with the understanding that you are fortunate enough to belong to a select group enabled to publicly discuss golf architecture and implicitly charged not to "screw it up?"
No matter what slippage GCA is experiencing, it still remains the world's single most robust and valuable website for everything related to golf-course architecture and is a virtual treasure that more than equals any of the world's golf museums. Maybe if we looked at it through this type of lens before typing, we'd all be better enlightened? I'd hope so.