News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Don_Mahaffey

Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #75 on: February 17, 2014, 08:24:11 AM »
Ulrich,
Your post makes my point. You think if I like something different, I'm trying to be smarter, or more enlightened. So if I want to keep my status, keep my respect from you, I have to like what everyone else likes. In your world, when I rate something, I have to rate by considering what I THINK everyone else would like. Like democracy? If I vote libertarian or green, I still have my vote next go around, even though the GOP and Dems will say I have wasted my vote by not giving it to them. Except I think both are money grubbing, power thirsty screw ups. I'm not trying to be smarter; I just wish we had better government.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #76 on: February 17, 2014, 09:15:42 AM »
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.
IMHO the purpose would be to give an unbiased personal opinion based on a consistent set of parameters.

After all, those are the folks, who are supposed to make use of a ranking when deciding which course to visit.
Again, I don't think anyone really uses ratings for deciding where to play.  Magazines may sell such a thought to advertisers but not in the real world.

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.
Not so...
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.

Again please remember this post was not about the good guys that rate or write.  It is specifically about the bad apples that rate and write.  These places are used to gain credibility via volume and not substance.  The danger they bring to both rating and writing is in not knowing what they don't know..  cheers

Ulrich
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

BCowan

Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #77 on: February 17, 2014, 09:43:21 AM »
Ulrich,
Your post makes my point. You think if I like something different, I'm trying to be smarter, or more enlightened. So if I want to keep my status, keep my respect from you, I have to like what everyone else likes. In your world, when I rate something, I have to rate by considering what I THINK everyone else would like. Like democracy? If I vote libertarian or green, I still have my vote next go around, even though the GOP and Dems will say I have wasted my vote by not giving it to them. Except I think both are money grubbing, power thirsty screw ups. I'm not trying to be smarter; I just wish we had better government.

+1,

 democracy aka Tyranny by the Majority

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #78 on: February 17, 2014, 09:51:25 AM »
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.

I agree and disagree with the above.  And the difference comes in understanding what ranking/rating you are looking at.

For entities like Golf Digest and Golfweek, raters are NOT to put their taste on a pedestal.  Rather they are to rate according to a pre-defined set of criteria.  In fact, the Golf Digest process and criteria is much more strict and mathematical.

However, something like the Confidential Guide with its rating process is one person's taste on a pedestal.  For those ratings to be of any value to you, you need to have similar taste in golf courses as Mr. Doak does.


As I've said for awhile, for anyone to get the most out of all these rankings and lists, they need to understand how they are derived AND at the same time understand their own taste in golf courses.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #79 on: February 17, 2014, 10:34:44 AM »
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.

I agree and disagree with the above.  And the difference comes in understanding what ranking/rating you are looking at.

For entities like Golf Digest and Golfweek, raters are NOT to put their taste on a pedestal.  Rather they are to rate according to a pre-defined set of criteria.  In fact, the Golf Digest process and criteria is much more strict and mathematical.

However, something like the Confidential Guide with its rating process is one person's taste on a pedestal.  For those ratings to be of any value to you, you need to have similar taste in golf courses as Mr. Doak does.


As I've said for awhile, for anyone to get the most out of all these rankings and lists, they need to understand how they are derived AND at the same time understand their own taste in golf courses.

Mac:

I disagree with pretty much all of what you wrote there, but I'll stick to the part about my book.

The Confidential Guide does two things:  it assigns a rating to each course, and it offers a short review.  The review offers some information about the course to help you determine if you would like it.  You don't have to have similar taste to mine in order for that to be of significance.  A sample:

Mulranny GC, Co. Mayo.  Golf from 1896.                        
     The antithesis of Carne, I stumbled upon Mulranny en route to Connemara from the north, when I spied a remote patch of linksland and said to my traveling companion, “that is the kind of land people should play golf on.”  Around the next turn, there was a sign for golf, and lo and behold, Mulranny Golf Club has occupied this patch of turf from 1896.  Mowed mostly by sheep, except for the greens protected by wire fence, this was the tightest turf I’ve seen in Ireland, and with the wind blowing, quite a demanding nine holes, even though you can hit it anywhere and still play on.  If you need a change of pace, this is the place.    Some of the land at the fringes of the course begs to be used for golf, but it’s hard to see how such a location could sustain more holes.   5 - - -   [2013]

Obviously, you can tell I liked it very much, but I didn't give it an 8 or a 10 just because I liked it.  Clearly, if you don't like sheep or want something dramatic, this review tells you that you might not want to make the trip, but if you want a change of pace or to see an unspoiled little place, you might love it.

In my opinion, that's a lot more valuable than a ranking, and also allows for much more variety of tastes.  But, of course, I'm biased  ;)

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #80 on: February 17, 2014, 11:05:22 AM »
Tom

Good to see Mulranny making the grade in your next book.  When I stumbled upon the place in 2008, the outhouse-sized "clubhouse" was open and on the wall was a download of Tom Coyne's assessement of his visit in 2007.  For any of you who have not read it, please do below:

www.golf.com/courses-and-travel/protecting-pin-county-mayo

A very special place......

Rich
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 11:17:48 AM by Rich Goodale »
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #81 on: February 17, 2014, 12:20:04 PM »
Mulranny GC, Co. Mayo.  Golf from 1896.                        
     The antithesis of Carne


Why?

Do you think Mulranny would have garnered a 5 twenty years ago?  If not, why do you spose that is the case?

Ciao

« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 12:22:51 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #82 on: February 17, 2014, 12:32:16 PM »
In your world, when I rate something, I have to rate by considering what I THINK everyone else would like. Like democracy?

My comparison to democracy was a little garbled. The democratic part for the sake of my argument was to be the public at large deciding which course to visit. They vote with their feet, so to speak. In that sense it's a democratic decision and you can also call it group think.

That being said, a good rater will always consider what others are thinking. He will know when his personal taste differs from a large body of golfers and will be extra careful to elevate a "pet" course. It's not a black & white thing, you need to find a middle ground between what you like and what you know that others will like.

In some cases, like Tom Doak's example with his book, you can give the reasoning behind your rating and that will go a long way. But again, you have to consider your audience, which for most books is the golfing public.

For example, Tom's idea of the thought processes going through a reader's mind when deciding whether to visit Mulranny may be correct or not. I'm sure he is extra careful in wording his articles, as is any good writer. I find it very difficult to put out a helpful course description in a few sentences. And it's even more difficult when you have to limit yourself to a plain number.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #83 on: February 17, 2014, 12:42:54 PM »
Ulrich

I agree about the two sentence desciptions.  It almost seems as if they must be cryptic at that length.  I think if a course is to have a decent comment a few paragraphs should be the minimum.  Although, I don't really see anything wrong just a number among other courses with blurbs.  That in itself may say something or indeed, some courses may not need anything further written about them.

I know Tom uses his book as a guide and as a ranking system.  It seems more and more he has gone away from the guide and more toward the rankings.  Speaking for myself, I would much rather see the book more about a guide and less about rankings.  This allows for more personal comment which if done well provides far more insight.

Ciao  
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Should raters be rated?
« Reply #84 on: February 17, 2014, 02:42:03 PM »
Mulranny GC, Co. Mayo.  Golf from 1896.                        
     The antithesis of Carne


Why?

Do you think Mulranny would have garnered a 5 twenty years ago?  If not, why do you spose that is the case?

Ciao



I'm assuming he means the size of the dunes and possibly - and rather disappointingly if so - their suitability for golf.

In every other aspect, Mulranny is a long way from the antithesis of Carne.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back