[BCowan]

Tim

   I disagree, that rater would rate less courses and possibly take more time on the rating.  Also he would be playing the product as is advertised or guest experience that the rest experience.  If you pay for something you are more inclined to pay more attention in my opinion.  Ever gone to a free concert, I did once never again!  Who says more ratings is better?  More raters drowns out the better raters.  There is no reason someone can't start a blog that is reputable and offers different ratings and require raters to pay.  Should have to show credit card recipe from Golf shop (not sure all except cc).  I think it would make a big difference.

[Tom_Doak]

Companies, like individuals, always do what is in their best interest. It's a function of supply and demand and I would imagine Kavanaugh is a good enough businessman that he would have thought of the same thing had he been in charge.

Not really.  As I read yesterday:

"A corporation does not have natural ethics; it just obeys the balance sheet.

A (publicly listed) corporation does not feel shame.  We humans are restrained by some physical, natural inhibition.

A corporation does not feel pity.

A corporation does not have a sense of honor -- while, alas, marketing documents mention "pride."

A corporation does not have generosity.  Only self-serving actions are acceptable."

[Peter Pallotta]

TD - read that quote and I thought: like golf courses, corporations aren't "fair", they simply "are". I wonder if the lessons golfers learn (or should learn) once they accept that fact might help us learn how to better deal/interact with corporations as well.

The sad part for me is that, ironically, it's the so-called "ethics" of the market-place, e.g. an equitable exchange, tit for tat, cost-benefit analysis, due diliegence, that have filtered down/into our sense of what ethics between human beings should be all about.   

Peter

[Michael Whitaker]

Companies, like individuals, always do what is in their best interest. It's a function of supply and demand and I would imagine Kavanaugh is a good enough businessman that he would have thought of the same thing had he been in charge.

Not really.  As I read yesterday:

"A corporation does not have natural ethics; it just obeys the balance sheet.

A (publicly listed) corporation does not feel shame.  We humans are restrained by some physical, natural inhibition.

A corporation does not feel pity.

A corporation does not have a sense of honor -- while, alas, marketing documents mention "pride."

A corporation does not have generosity.  Only self-serving actions are acceptable."

Wow! You've been spending too much time in China!

[Greg Tallman]

To me, the guys who should be kicked off the rating panels are the ones who think it all revolves around THEIR vote.  ["I'm responsible for your course being rated," i.e., you owe me.]  I've seen that several times, and it never fails that the guys who think so are the people whose opinion I value least.

Come on, throw a name or two at us... I know you wnat to. 

[Tom_Doak]

Wow! You've been spending too much time in China!

Well, yes I have, but nothing in what I printed above has much to do with China.  I guess the only thing it has to do with China is that corporations are happy to hire lower-paid Chinese workers to assemble their crap, and China is happy that our corporations keep their citizens employed, so they don't revolt against the government.

I am just on the side of individuals vs. big corporations.  They are not the same thing, for all the reasons cited above.

Don't mean to thread-jack.

[Carl Rogers]

I am not sure how such a rating of raters could be devised.  How much experience would be enough?  How much formal education (and what kind) would be enough?

Raters like critics of any field need to come clean about their own backgrounds, tastes, fetishes etc.  You should state your idealized vision of what a course should be.  I can respect, though may disagree, with the rater-critic if they are willing to do that.

A while back I started a thread with the title who is "qualified" to be a rater and quickly concluded that I was not qualified .... and that only a handful of people in the world have the inclination and means to take on such a task.

[Paul Gray]

I have long campaigned for mags to operate rating like the Michelin Guide - which is recognized as the most reputable rating system in the world.  Of course it would mean mags having to stump up more cash, but it would also mean mags woould be far more discerning about who there raters are and how many there are - both good things in my book.  So yes, raters should be rated by whoever hires them, but under the present system it doesn't really matter.

Ciao

+1. I've long thought that no rating system can be truly worthy unless attendance is anonymous, be that food, golf or whatever else.

[Steve Green]

In the world of ratings we should not lose sight of the fact that Restaurants, Hotels, Resorts, Broadway shows and yes even Golf Courses want to be rated.  These industries have PR firms and marketing departments that hustle the media to keep their show or restaurant or golf course in the news.

While ratings are a constant source of amusement or consternation on this site you cannot deny the fact that they drive business.  A good rating or review can make a season and a bad rating or review can lead to a short run.

The dilemma with rating is when we experience the show or meal or course do we agree with the rating we read.  

That is the tension here, we want to grade the raters because we do not agree with them or we think they were not discerning enough because the were bought by all the comps or they are just plain ignorant.

Rating the raters or applying some form of code of conduct or ethical guidelines might lead to fewer knucleheads calling themselves experts but it won't change the fact that I personally have a different opinion from them.  And it won't change the fact that some courses out there will do all they can to curry favor with raters.

A high rating can translate to higher greens fees and revenue.

[Mike_Young]

Last night I received an IM from an owner of one of the Outback Nebraska courses ...His question to be added to this was:  Do raters rate to the ratings?   I say of course they do....no doubt about it...

But anyway back to MW question of the clubs controlling the comping.  Most clubs would rather err on the side of comping vs. not comping just in case it matters.  The really good clubs most wish to play don't need the ratings anyway.  It's the up and coming new places that sell RE or rooms that are seeking such.   They budget a specific amount for such activity.  That's fine but they should expect the mags to send  qualified people to rate their places.  They know when the knuckleheads come thru and they just listen to them and go to the next task at hand.  MY GRIPE REMAINS THE SCUMBAGS..the good guys MW will never know it exist and will feel as though raters are being attacked.  No.  I'm attacking the magazines that allow the jerks, scumbags or whatever we call them to rate or even write for their publications.  All of this could be controlled by the publications.  They know when they have a bad apple....it's the clubs that have to tip toe around such and make sure they don't tick the guy off.  

If I'm going to comp someone I want it to be a guy that plays the course often and enjoys it...not some guy that shows up and thinks I should be elated when I see his rater card....

[Michael Whitaker]

Wow! You've been spending too much time in China!

Well, yes I have, but nothing in what I printed above has much to do with China.  I guess the only thing it has to do with China is that corporations are happy to hire lower-paid Chinese workers to assemble their crap, and China is happy that our corporations keep their citizens employed, so they don't revolt against the government.

I am just on the side of individuals vs. big corporations.  They are not the same thing, for all the reasons cited above.

Don't mean to thread-jack.

OK, let's not hammer this out here... but, companies (like countries) are made up of individuals. And, just like individuals, some act in an ethical and responsible manner and some do not. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all humans could feel shame, were restrained by natural inhibitions, felt pity, had a sense of honor, or exhibited generosity... as your quote implies they do. But, they don't. As we have all observed too often, "only self-serving actions are acceptable" to many individuals. In the real world it works both ways.

[Mike_Young]

In the world of ratings we should not lose sight of the fact that Restaurants, Hotels, Resorts, Broadway shows and yes even Golf Courses want to be rated.  These industries have PR firms and marketing departments that hustle the media to keep their show or restaurant or golf course in the news.

While ratings are a constant source of amusement or consternation on this site you cannot deny the fact that they drive business.  A good rating or review can make a season and a bad rating or review can lead to a short run.

The dilemma with rating is when we experience the show or meal or course do we agree with the rating we read.  

That is the tension here, we want to grade the raters because we do not agree with them or we think they were not discerning enough because the were bought by all the comps or they are just plain ignorant.

Rating the raters or applying some form of code of conduct or ethical guidelines might lead to fewer knucleheads calling themselves experts but it won't change the fact that I personally have a different opinion from them.  And it won't change the fact that some courses out there will do all they can to curry favor with raters.

A high rating can translate to higher greens fees and revenue.

Steve,
Some good points and maybe "rating the raters" should be changed to "certifying the raters".   I could care less if they have a different opinion from me.  

[Paul Gray]

.....And it won't change the fact that some courses out there will do all they can to curry favor with raters.......

No, but it's very difficult to curry favour with someone that you don't even know is about. Sign the guest book as A N Other (but hopefully not literally) and away you go.

[Michael Whitaker]

Last night I received an IM from an owner of one of the Outback Nebraska courses ...His question to be added to this was:  Do raters rate to the ratings?   I say of course they do....no doubt about it...

But anyway back to MW question of the clubs controlling the comping.  Most clubs would rather err on the side of comping vs. not comping just in case it matters.  The really good clubs most wish to play don't need the ratings anyway.  It's the up and coming new places that sell RE or rooms that are seeking such.   They budget a specific amount for such activity.  That's fine but they should expect the mags to send  qualified people to rate their places.  They know when the knuckleheads come thru and they just listen to them and go to the next task at hand.  MY GRIPE REMAINS THE SCUMBAGS..the good guys MW will never know it exist and will feel as though raters are being attacked.  No.  I'm attacking the magazines that allow the jerks, scumbags or whatever we call them to rate or even write for their publications.  All of this could be controlled by the publications.  They know when they have a bad apple....it's the clubs that have to tip toe around such and make sure they don't tick the guy off.  

If I'm going to comp someone I want it to be a guy that plays the course often and enjoys it...not some guy that shows up and thinks I should be elated when I see his rater card....

Mike,

I guess I'm just naive, but it astounds me that someone would act like a jerk or asshole when they are visiting a golf club as a representative of magazine. The potential for abuse is obvious with unattached freelancers, but I don't get why someone would take the chance of having something come back on them in some form of repercussion. There is nothing to gain and way too much to lose. I'm trying to put myself in your position and accept the fact that a course would rather err on the safe side, but I don't see how it is not in the club's best interest to call a spade a spade and report someone who has acted inappropriately.

[Bob_Huntley]

I know of one Head Pro who told anyone wishing to rate his course, that they could do so only if he could see their previously written work.

The number of requests dropped quite a bit.

Bob

[Michael Whitaker]

I know of one Head Pro who told anyone wishing to rate his course, that they could do so only if he could see their previously written work.

The number of requests dropped quite a bit.

Bob

Bob,

That is the kind of due diligence I was talking about earlier... but, as it relates to writers. I don't know how a "rater" would meet this requirement as they don't write about the courses. If I owned a course, or was the GM/Pro of a top flight club, there is no way I would give a writer the run of my place without some knowledge of the person's work and where an article might appear.

[Terry Lavin]

Raters are overrated.

[Tom_Doak]

I know of one Head Pro who told anyone wishing to rate his course, that they could do so only if he could see their previously written work.

I hope he did not torture himself by actually reading any of it!

[John Kavanaugh]

I know raters who have been reported by courses for bad behavior. Sometimes they get kicked off, sometimes they don't. What they do every time is tell their rater friends how the management of the course are a bunch of assholes and paint the experience in a bad light. The course suffers for it. The rater suffers, the course suffers and the people running the panel are inconvenienced. Any decent pro with an ounce of experience understands that the best thing for him is just to let it go and not let the specific rater back.

Comps are bribes and with bribes come different standards of behavior. If you bribe a cop and don't get everything you want you don't call and tell another cop. You either stop bribing or offer the next cop more.

[Michael Whitaker]

Comps are bribes and with bribes come different standards of behavior. If you bribe a cop and don't get everything you want you don't call and tell another cop. You either stop bribing or offer the next cop more.

These words of wisdom are from personal knowledge?

[BCowan]

Jkava, great post.  Every now and then you make an epic post!  that was a good laugh

[Ulrich Mayring]

I don't think we need a seperate set of standards for raters, it's all written down here:

http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amateur-Status.aspx

If raters are paid for their work or are self-employed (like a book author), then they're considered professionals and all professional standards apply including not taking any comps and remaining anonymous if at all possible.

If raters are amateurs, then they are entitled to be reimbursed for the costs they incur up to a certain amount. Even then they'll most likely end up paying on top of that for travel, food and of course the time it takes to do the unpaid work.

For players: it's only a bribe, if you let the money influence your performance. It's not a bribe, if you let the money influence at which event you tee it up.

For raters: it's only a bribe, if you let the money influence your rating. It's not a bribe, if you let the money influence which course you visit.

Ulrich

[Don_Mahaffey]

I am not surprised if once in awhile a rater feels like he is owed special treatment. I also don't believe all of them really think they are providing some sort of special service. Access and comp rounds at nice courses is a nice benefit and it is crazy to think otherwise.
But I also believe repeated boorish behavior would soon be sniffed out and acted on.

What I do think happens is a group think mentality with the result being raters rate based on what they think others will think is beautiful vs what they find beautiful themselves. Rating to the mean seems to be encouraged and I have a feeling outliers are soon weeded out.

So instead of some originality we are left with raters who, subconsciously or not, feel the need to rate the "norm".

There are plenty of raters here who can call BS on me, but I see that same group think here and it certainly exists out there in the golf industry world. Working, or thinking, differently is not an easy road in the golf business where we have so many experts who are really nothing more then parrots.

[Mike_Young]

I am not surprised if once in awhile a rater feels like he is owed special treatment. I also don't believe all of them really think they are providing some sort of special service. Access and comp rounds at nice courses is a nice benefit and it is crazy to think otherwise.
But I also believe repeated boorish behavior would soon be sniffed out and acted on.

What I do think happens is a group think mentality with the result being raters rate based on what they think others will think is beautiful vs what they find beautiful themselves. Rating to the mean seems to be encouraged and I have a feeling outliers are soon weeded out.

So instead of some originality we are left with raters who, subconsciously or not, feel the need to rate the "norm".

There are plenty of raters here who can call BS on me, but I see that same group think here and it certainly exists out there in the golf industry world. Working, or thinking, differently is not an easy road in the golf business where we have so many experts who are really nothing more then parrots.

Don,
Agree...
What has happened unintentionally in the last few years is that sites like this and other blogs have provided unearned credibility to so many  who have no clue with raters and a few bloggers being the first to come to mind.   There are guys running around sucking up to architects and some of these archies are letting them hang on (I don't know why) do do related things.   I am often amazed at the little amount of respect some of the "enlightened" on here have for the guys that actually have payrolls in this business.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Group think is a bad word. Democracy is a good word. Both mean essentially the same thing

The point of rating a course is not to put one's own taste on a pedestal and thus elevate it above what most of the golfing public says. After all, those are the folks, who are supposed to make use of a ranking when deciding which course to visit.

As far as unearned credibility goes: those, who fail to check into someone's work and just assume they're competent because of their connections, have no credibility either. The good thing about a site like GCA is, that we are all out in the open with what we write. If someone wanted to know whether one of us is to be taken seriously, why not take a peek in here? For that matter it would, of course, be much easier if we had a way to see all postings by a specified poster on one page.

Ulrich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()