But there is still a bit too much of "pre-selection " going on, where the editors or fellow panelists make sure at least ten panelists see certain new candidates, which is kind of like winking at them that they ought to vote favorably.
Tom, your statement about "pre-selection" is an interesting one. I can recall being urged by multiple people to go see the likes of Ballyneal, Sebonack, Dismal Red, and Streamsong Blue, with the latter two for an eventual ratings vote. Apparently "winking" is not in the eye of the beholder?
Steve:
It happens with three or four "strong candidates" every year, some of which have been my courses. [Paul Rudovsky has tried to systematize it in a thread here.] It really shouldn't happen, within the official ranking process at least. Surely, every architect will be out there promoting their own work, but the select few should not have an inside track over the others -- myself included.
I don't believe that you heard from me trying to get you to go vote on any of those courses. One reason my courses do get attention is because I have always resisted over-selling them; so people believe me if I tell them St. Patrick's is worth seeing, and I don't have to tell them whether they ought to rate it highly. 
Tom:
As you well understand qualitative review is difficult, if not impossible, to systematize. If it was easy, it would be purely quantitative...and thus far more attractive to the likes and tastes of a Rudovsky. Remember, I view course-rating much like trying to measure much of the displayed artwork at the MOMA....an impossibly personal task that defies pure objectivity. What can I say...I prefer Stella over Koons.
What isn't being addressed is the statistical fact that most new courses or major work to an existing candidate closest to the US belong to a relatively narrow set of architects, yourself included. Whether by taste or raw math, that means any new work by those architects are the ones most likely to see fresh rater traffic. When I identify which new courses, or new work to old courses, to get to, I pick them on the excitement or interest of others whose eyes I respect. Sometimes that tails with architects who are anxious for the opinions or visits of others, yet that's never served as a primary reason for a visit from me. "Selling" or "promoting" courses...to any degree, is the most frequently basis for NOT putting it on any "must see" list.
As you say, I've never heard from you to get out and vote on any of your courses. Didn't need to. The excitement generated by club owners, new members and various architecture aficionados is more than enough. If that's the "inside track" you reference, then I'm guilty of using that as a factor, but only occasionally.
I usually prefer to go left when others go right. For example, a fellow GM panelist mentioned how much he liked Wayne Stiles' Prouts Neck CC. It's now highest on my list to see, and has me more excited to go to than the latest, greatest renovation in Michigan.
For the record, your courses get some good part of their attention not from your "resistance (sic) to over-selling them," but from your fan club's exhuberance. Only in the last two decades has that phenomena emerged. It doesn't happen on its own.
