Higher standards for GolfClubAtlas.com

[Gary Sato]

As new threads arise, weaker ones will be deleted. The goal is to ensure that the 50,000 topics covered within this Discussion group are of high relevance. Archiving threads that no one is going to revisit is nonsensical.
 
There is a host of reasons why threads will be deleted but primarily it will be a lack of relevance to the study of golf course architecture. New posters should stop introducing themselves; the spotlight is on golf architecture, not yourself. The thread's title needs to be clear regarding what someone can expect when they click on it; people are busy and they should not have to aimlessly click on threads to glean their content.  Off topic threads will be deleted at a quicker pace than in the past. For example, a recent thread on restaurants won't be around at year-end.
 
Those who regularly fail to meet this standard will find their accounts revoked.

I've noticed that hundreds of threads have been deleted and that GCA is under 1000 pages.   Congratulations Ran on cleaning up many of the OT topics and other threads that are wasting band width. 

[Mike_Duffy]

Is there any aspect of golf course architecture on this site that has not been discussed, forensically examined, masticated to exhaustion, repeated to the point of funereal boredom, microscopically dissected or viewed through the various prisms of admiration, anger, disgust, indignation and dismay?

[Doug Siebert]

Is there any aspect of golf course architecture on this site that has not been discussed, forensically examined, masticated to exhaustion, repeated to the point of funereal boredom, microscopically dissected or viewed through the various prisms of admiration, anger, disgust, indignation and dismay?

Maybe Ran should delete the old on-topic threads instead of the old off-topic threads, so people can't refer back to "this was discussed back in 2002".  Otherwise there's a danger GCA could become like that old joke about POWs who had been telling the same jokes so long they just assigned them numbers

[RJ_Daley]

It is so nice to have Mike Duffy back from hiatus.  And to his question, the simple answer would be obviously no, we have dissected most subject to a fair-thee-well.  And yes, we have the occasional food fight or off-topic digression.  If we are to be all purist about this and stick to the topic of all golf architecture all the time, I personally think the site will dry up.  It is the human context and texture that all of our individual interests, sensibilities and life experiences that come through in our writing as we make attempts to discuss the actual topic of this discussion board, where we can make the vital connection with writers and witnesses to various golf courses and the pursuit of playing and enjoying the game.

We all know that there are a few writers-contributors on GCA.com that can really do justice to describing golf courses and their architecture.  (Mike, how many posts you had filed on courses in the both OZ and the Pacific Asia rim that brought much enjoyment years ago)  Of course Ran has earned a high reputation for writing up course and sticking to the subject at hand.  Many of the photo threads and tours GCA contibutors generously share are the heart of the site.  But in my view, I need more to keep me coming back to GCA almost daily for all these years.  I need connection.  I need that human element of those quips, asides, off-topic comments, and even the anxt and sometimes exasperated debate on everything but GCA, to put a soul behind the words.  That is when I get the better cue about what the writer is saying when they do describe or discuss GCA topics.  Even the hot debates over dire politics to trivial matters serves to add context (as long as it doesn't become pedantic and without the writer ever actually participating for the golf course architecture primary reason to be here).  

Newbies young and old come here all the time, drawn by the golf course architecture subject.  Whilst much of this, if not damn near all of it is now old news to most of us long time members here, it is all fresh for the newcomers.  And, if we who are a bit bored by some of the regurgitated stuff stick with it, we just may get connected with a new and fascinating person.... and that is surely worth the effort and time, in my humble opinion.  

[Tony_Muldoon]

As new threads arise, weaker ones will be deleted. The goal is to ensure that the 50,000 topics covered within this Discussion group are of high relevance. Archiving threads that no one is going to revisit is nonsensical.
 
There is a host of reasons why threads will be deleted but primarily it will be a lack of relevance to the study of golf course architecture. New posters should stop introducing themselves; the spotlight is on golf architecture, not yourself. The thread's title needs to be clear regarding what someone can expect when they click on it; people are busy and they should not have to aimlessly click on threads to glean their content.  Off topic threads will be deleted at a quicker pace than in the past. For example, a recent thread on restaurants won't be around at year-end.
 
Those who regularly fail to meet this standard will find their accounts revoked.

I've noticed that hundreds of threads have been deleted and that GCA is under 1000 pages.   Congratulations Ran on cleaning up many of the OT topics and other threads that are wasting band width. 

Well it's your website Ran.

Did anyone read those threads before pressing delete?  Just because a topic doesn't seem to be relevant or has been discusssed before doesn't mean there wasn't gold in the thread. Discussins wander all over the place and then bang, someone drops in some gold.

e.g. Have the threads discussing the faked drawings been deleted? I could make a case for deleting them but on one of them after 12 or so pages David Moriarty posted a picture that showed the orginal Redan green was sleepered both sides. That picture changes our understanding of the North Berwick course.   It's that kind of snippet that might get lost.


Ran GCA is an ambitous project but either it needs to be properly monitored or a free for all. 


A competant search engine on the other hand...

[Tim_Weiman]

Is there any aspect of golf course architecture on this site that has not been discussed, forensically examined, masticated to exhaustion, repeated to the point of funereal boredom, microscopically dissected or viewed through the various prisms of admiration, anger, disgust, indignation and dismay?

Mike,

That is certainly a fair question, especially for those of us who go back to the pre GCA, traditionalgolf.com days.

My short answer is maybe, but I'm not sure. My guess is that producing original material and interesting threads probably depends more on focusing on courses and/or specific holes that haven't been discussed rather than general aspects of golf architecture.

For example, we have discussed Augusta many times from many different angles, but not too long ago I decided to start a thread about how the 15 Handicap plays the 15th hole. I think the thread turned out fairly well with a pretty good diversity of opinions expressed.

Not saying coming up with new material is easy, but maybe, just maybe, the gang can actually do so.

[Steve Okula]

As new threads arise, weaker ones will be deleted. The goal is to ensure that the 50,000 topics covered within this Discussion group are of high relevance. Archiving threads that no one is going to revisit is nonsensical.
 
There is a host of reasons why threads will be deleted but primarily it will be a lack of relevance to the study of golf course architecture. New posters should stop introducing themselves; the spotlight is on golf architecture, not yourself. The thread's title needs to be clear regarding what someone can expect when they click on it; people are busy and they should not have to aimlessly click on threads to glean their content.  Off topic threads will be deleted at a quicker pace than in the past. For example, a recent thread on restaurants won't be around at year-end.
 
Those who regularly fail to meet this standard will find their accounts revoked.

I've noticed that hundreds of threads have been deleted and that GCA is under 1000 pages.   Congratulations Ran on cleaning up many of the OT topics and other threads that are wasting band width. 

Well it's your website Ran.

Did anyone read those threads before pressing delete?  Just because a topic doesn't seem to be relevant or has been discusssed before doesn't mean there wasn't gold in the thread. Discussins wander all over the place and then bang, someone drops in some gold.

e.g. Have the threads discussing the faked drawings been deleted? I could make a case for deleting them but on one of them after 12 or so pages David Moriarty posted a picture that showed the orginal Redan green was sleepered both sides. That picture changes our understanding of the North Berwick course.   It's that kind of snippet that might get lost.


Ran GCA is an ambitous project but either it needs to be properly monitored or a free for all. 


A competant search engine on the other hand...

It is Ran's site, and I'll wager that Ran has other ways to spend the rest of his life rather than wading through hundreds of old threads. It would be asking too much of him. If the rare, single, post of value in 12 pages of rubbish is deleted in the process then so be it.

[Tony_Muldoon]

As new threads arise, weaker ones will be deleted. The goal is to ensure that the 50,000 topics covered within this Discussion group are of high relevance. Archiving threads that no one is going to revisit is nonsensical.
 
There is a host of reasons why threads will be deleted but primarily it will be a lack of relevance to the study of golf course architecture. New posters should stop introducing themselves; the spotlight is on golf architecture, not yourself. The thread's title needs to be clear regarding what someone can expect when they click on it; people are busy and they should not have to aimlessly click on threads to glean their content.  Off topic threads will be deleted at a quicker pace than in the past. For example, a recent thread on restaurants won't be around at year-end.
 
Those who regularly fail to meet this standard will find their accounts revoked.

I've noticed that hundreds of threads have been deleted and that GCA is under 1000 pages.   Congratulations Ran on cleaning up many of the OT topics and other threads that are wasting band width.  

Well it's your website Ran.

Did anyone read those threads before pressing delete?  Just because a topic doesn't seem to be relevant or has been discusssed before doesn't mean there wasn't gold in the thread. Discussins wander all over the place and then bang, someone drops in some gold.

e.g. Have the threads discussing the faked drawings been deleted? I could make a case for deleting them but on one of them after 12 or so pages David Moriarty posted a picture that showed the orginal Redan green was sleepered both sides. That picture changes our understanding of the North Berwick course.   It's that kind of snippet that might get lost.


Ran GCA is an ambitous project but either it needs to be properly monitored or a free for all.  


A competant search engine on the other hand...

It is Ran's site, and I'll wager that Ran has other ways to spend the rest of his life rather than wading through hundreds of old threads. It would be asking too much of him. If the rare, single, post of value in 12 pages of rubbish is deleted in the process then so be it.

Thus speaks the voice of censorship.

You obviously know the value of that photo better than I do Steve.  I just hope it's someone as wise as you who's deleting all those threads  

[Sven Nilsen]

Pretty sure Ran has been combing through the crap threads by himself to see if they are worth keeping around.  I don't envy the task.

[Morgan Clawson]

Dick,
Wise thoughts beautifully penned.

It is so nice to have Mike Duffy back from hiatus.  And to his question, the simple answer would be obviously no, we have dissected most subject to a fair-thee-well.  And yes, we have the occasional food fight or off-topic digression.  If we are to be all purist about this and stick to the topic of all golf architecture all the time, I personally think the site will dry up.  It is the human context and texture that all of our individual interests, sensibilities and life experiences that come through in our writing as we make attempts to discuss the actual topic of this discussion board, where we can make the vital connection with writers and witnesses to various golf courses and the pursuit of playing and enjoying the game.

We all know that there are a few writers-contributors on GCA.com that can really do justice to describing golf courses and their architecture.  (Mike, how many posts you had filed on courses in the both OZ and the Pacific Asia rim that brought much enjoyment years ago)  Of course Ran has earned a high reputation for writing up course and sticking to the subject at hand.  Many of the photo threads and tours GCA contibutors generously share are the heart of the site.  But in my view, I need more to keep me coming back to GCA almost daily for all these years.  I need connection.  I need that human element of those quips, asides, off-topic comments, and even the anxt and sometimes exasperated debate on everything but GCA, to put a soul behind the words.  That is when I get the better cue about what the writer is saying when they do describe or discuss GCA topics.  Even the hot debates over dire politics to trivial matters serves to add context (as long as it doesn't become pedantic and without the writer ever actually participating for the golf course architecture primary reason to be here). 

Newbies young and old come here all the time, drawn by the golf course architecture subject.  Whilst much of this, if not damn near all of it is now old news to most of us long time members here, it is all fresh for the newcomers.  And, if we who are a bit bored by some of the regurgitated stuff stick with it, we just may get connected with a new and fascinating person.... and that is surely worth the effort and time, in my humble opinion. 

[Steve Okula]

It is Ran's site, and I'll wager that Ran has other ways to spend the rest of his life rather than wading through hundreds of old threads. It would be asking too much of him. If the rare, single, post of value in 12 pages of rubbish is deleted in the process then so be it.
[/quote]

Thus speaks the voice of censorship.

You obviously know the value of that photo better than I do Steve.  I just hope it's someone as wise as you who's deleting all those threads  
[/quote]

Editing is not censorship.

And you obviously know the value of Ran's time better than he does. If you're concerned about losing contributions, you could volunteer to read the threads before they're deleted. Bear in mind that time is a factor.  

[Ulrich Mayring]

The quote button must go, just look at this page! More repetition than original content! Unnecessary quoting is not just a problem in photo threads.

In general I support Rans decisions as outlined in his initial posting. However, I have one point of worry and that is keeping the number of thread pages to 1000. This sounds like a company firing the 10% worst employees every month and hiring 10% new people, thinking that over time they'll become the best company in the world. Not so, in fact they'll become a worse company and I'll leave it to the reader to figure out why.

We do have a static limit like that in place for a long time now and that is the 1500 poster limit (or wherever the limit sits right now). I do not believe this limit has hurt us, but only because inactive people were removed. These people couldn't and wouldn't mind, because they weren't participating anyway. With old threads it's a bit more difficult, as you can't make an "activity statement" about them. No one knows who will want to read them in the future.

To be sure, there are many threads that can be deleted without harm. I applaud Ran's effort to actually comb through the site and do that. But once those obvious candidates are gone, we are going to approach the limit with relevant content. One day a good thread will have to be deleted to stay at 1000 pages.

Ulrich

[Thomas Dai]

I agree with Ulrich, the 'quote' function should be removed, and the sooner the better.

atb

[Ronald Montesano]

I agree with Ulrich, the 'quote' function should be removed, and the sooner the better.

atb

I don't understand...

[Jason Thurman]

The Quote button isn't a problem. The people using it incorrectly are a problem.

[Robert Thompson]

In fear that this may be addressed, but web storage space is a fraction of what it once cost.

Why not find a way to make this pay for itself and raise some cash so the photos can be stored to the site? If that requires a sponsorship, so be it. The notion of hosting photos off-site is silly in this day, but I recognize additional storage space comes with a price.

However, I find it really unfortunate that someone took the time to post photos as part of a discussion and they are gone when I go back to find a post. I note this happened recently when I was researching the Cornwall area of England…

I'd be fully supportive of a notion to raise some cash from outside means to pay for this.

Photographs are not stored on the GCA servers in any case... that is the whole point of having to link to an external photo hosting site.

[Ulrich Mayring]

If the quote button were removed, then no one could use it incorrectly and those, who wish to quote, could still use the tags manually. This has been done in another forum I use and, while a lot of posters (including myself) whined initially, it did have the desired effect: those who knew how to quote correctly did still do it and those who didn't didn't.

Ulrich

[Sven Nilsen]

I'd suggest folks go back and read Ran's initial post.

He's not concerned about bandwidth. 

[Steve Okula]

It is Ran's site, and I'll wager that Ran has other ways to spend the rest of his life rather than wading through hundreds of old threads. It would be asking too much of him. If the rare, single, post of value in 12 pages of rubbish is deleted in the process then so be it.

[/quote]

Thus speaks the voice of censorship.

You obviously know the value of that photo better than I do Steve.  I just hope it's someone as wise as you who's deleting all those threads  
[/quote]

Editing is not censorship.

And you obviously know the value of Ran's time better than he does. If you're concerned about losing contributions, you could volunteer to read the threads before they're deleted. Bear in mind that time is a factor.  

[Doug Siebert]

Getting rid of the quote button isn't a solution, educating people in its proper usage is.  If you trim down to what you are specifically responding to, especially the posters they quoted unless it is very important to the context of your reply, it isn't a problem.

If your replies quote previous replies to a depth where you have to change your 'ink' color from green to red to blue, then it is an indication you need to spend a bit longer trimming the quoted text

[Joe Hancock]

If you trim down to what you are specifically responding to

For example...

[Jason Thurman]

Great example.

* Note that there was no need to quote Joe's post, since it was the post immediately before mine and therefore my reply was obviously directed at him

[Brent Hutto]

Jason,

It also works well to preface your reply with the person's name, assuming you're replying to that persons only post or most recent post in the thread.

[Eric Smith]

What happens if a poster continues using the quote feature? Does he or she get hacked by N. Korea or South Carolina?

[Peter Pallotta]

Brent - that is only necessary when, as in this case, one begins a reply that is meant to follow immediately after the post in question, but then finds that 'they may want to review their reply' because in the interim one (as here, Eric) or more replies have already been posted. I have, therefore, 'personalized' my response to you -- which, in truth, I would do in any event. I am old-fashinoned enough to write emails and even gca.com posts as if I'm writing a letter, in which one never simply starts writing without addressing a specific person. 

Eric - that poster will know that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of others, looking down their noses at him with disdain. That collective 'slap down' is worse than anything N Korea (in its current state) could do to him (or her).

Peter