Did Social Media kill GCA.com?

[Tony_Muldoon]

We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself].  Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.

Robin Hiseman, Adrian Stiff and Clyde are too British to count?

Ben Stephens is a Golf Architect too. 

[Will Thrasher]

Are we not in danger of taking the back-catalogue for granted ? If the site fails to remain current, then it is in danger of going and with that the back-catalogue.


Also, while it is true that there probably aren't many subjects left that haven't been discussed on here, I think it is worth encouraging the new-blood to reprise a topic or discuss it anew, rather than constantly referring them back to old threads. A different take on something can be refreshing.


Niall

I certainly hope not, as someone who flips through the back catalogue almost daily in some form or fashion. I've taken to posting more recently, in the hopes that this place doesn't get too quiet. I appreciate your thoughts here very much Niall, but want to reinforce the other side of this as well, which is that some of us in the younger crowd are even more eager to listen/learn/ask questions of the more seasoned on this board as we are to share our own thoughts and opinions. I appreciate Vaughn's point that this board has gotten quieter, but for these reasons I hope it doesn't get too quiet.

[Simon Barrington]

Quote from: Andy Johnson on Yesterday at 11:03:01 AM

I saw in a thread about if GCA is dead (it isn't, a wonderful place that has inspired a lot of innovation, creativity and thinking from others), a long time poster, Jeff Brauer suggest (multiple times) that Fried Egg has done nothing original.

Agree with Andy from The Fried Egg, GC Atlas is far from Dead.
As a relative newbie on here, there is more patience, depth, knowledge and openness than elsewhere.
I feel glad to be on here.

The Fried Egg - Yolk w. Doak on Sedge I just listened to was really great, but it is an amuse bouche (sp?) to what we can discuss here, if we want to in longer form.

For example, there was a great exchange relating to a conversation Tom had wth Padraig Harrington about the 1st drive at Renaissance.

It immediately struck me that it could have been the same discussion between J.H. Taylor and John L. Low about fairness and scientific penal design versus strategic principles.

Discussions/Debates I was aware of due to Robert (Bob) Crosby and his contributions on here (and elsewhere).

I'll possibly start another thread on that, which may die...but this is the place it might not, and that is what I love it for...
Cheers

[Matt Schoolfield]

LOL...complete B.S.

This is the only thing that greets you:

A Discussion Group limited to 1,500 individuals. If interested in participating, please contact us.

You have to email Ran, himself, to get access to a site with 1,500 open spaces. Reddit has 1.3 million people on the golf subreddit. I don't know whether he lets everyone in, but it certainly seems implausible on it's face.

Tough.

You and 3 others...
...good to see you finally grew some balls, obviously nothing was preventing you from having "access".

Oh what it would be like if GCA had a lightly moderated competitor. 

I see now that what appears to be a walled garden might just be the result of running 1999 software in 2024, but I just don't see how anyone can look at a website with no place to sign up, with a single line of text on the entire site, which is limited to 1,500 and then directing you to Ran's business email, and think that it's open to everyone. If you are right and I'm wrong, I have little doubt that many share my misconception.

You don't seem to like this site, at all...
...why not log out and head over to "reddit" full time?

Chris, if your goal is to repeatedly bait and make me angry, congratulations, you've again made me feel unwelcome. Needless to say, I have since learned that, no, not everyone is admitted that reaches out to the site. This site is, in fact, a walled garden, there are intellegent folks out there who would like to participate, but can't, which is unfortunate. Off topic comments like yours here are routinely common on the site, such that the site has a reputation for a mean-spiritedness to go along with the architectural passion. I do think this not-so-infrequent lack of decorum could be one of the reasons GCA has quieted down, its much easier to ignore a bully, and eventually leave the room altogether. Perhaps I will at some point.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,


I’m not sure complaining about GCA being a “walled garden” helps. A better approach, IMO, would be to message Ran if you know someone who you believe would be a good contributor to golf architecture discussion.


Tim

[Matt Schoolfield]

I’m not sure complaining about GCA being a “walled garden” helps. A better approach, IMO, would be to message Ran if you know someone who you believe would be a good contributor to golf architecture discussion.

Tim, firstly, I'm not complaining about it. I'm pointing it out.

It's perfectly understandable that this is a forum (mostly) for people in the industry. A consequence of that is that some intelligent folks not being able to post here is unfortunate, but understandable. My point initially was simply that we would do well to remember that fact in our interactions here. We should understand that discussion about this forum will naturally pop up other places, simply because any popular forum with limited access will prompt open discussion elsewhere where those folks are able to participate.

[Ira Fishman]

We generally have the same few architects participating here who have done so for 10-20 years [Jeff B, Mike Y, Ian A, and myself].  Andrew Green and Rob Collins and Kyle Franz are looking for their own lanes, somewhere else.

Robin Hiseman, Adrian Stiff and Clyde are too British to count?

Ben Stephens is a Golf Architect too.

So are Ally (as Tom already mentioned) and Forrest Richardson, Mike Nuzzo, and Mike Clayton. Jim Urbina still posts on occasion as does Richard Mandell.


But Tom Doak’s overall point remains important. It would be great if more especially younger architects frequented here. The same is true for Superintendents, shapers, and caddies.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Chris, if your goal is to repeatedly bait and make me angry, congratulations, you've again made me feel unwelcome. Needless to say, I have since learned that, no, not everyone is admitted that reaches out to the site. This site is, in fact, a walled garden, there are intellegent folks out there who would like to participate, but can't, which is unfortunate. Off topic comments like yours here are routinely common on the site, such that the site has a reputation for a mean-spiritedness to go along with the architectural passion. I do think this not-so-infrequent lack of decorum could be one of the reasons GCA has quieted down, its much easier to ignore a bully, and eventually leave the room altogether. Perhaps I will at some point.

YUP, to all of it.

I’m not sure complaining about GCA being a “walled garden” helps. A better approach, IMO, would be to message Ran if you know someone who you believe would be a good contributor to golf architecture discussion.

He's pointing out a reality, not complaining. It's neither obvious, nor is it guaranteed, that people can participate here.

[Ian_L]

Matt, thank you for all your contributions to this forum. I don't always agree, but you bring a different perspective than most, which is refreshing. And you clearly give a lot of thought to topics before posting.

[Tim_Weiman]

Chris, if your goal is to repeatedly bait and make me angry, congratulations, you've again made me feel unwelcome. Needless to say, I have since learned that, no, not everyone is admitted that reaches out to the site. This site is, in fact, a walled garden, there are intellegent folks out there who would like to participate, but can't, which is unfortunate. Off topic comments like yours here are routinely common on the site, such that the site has a reputation for a mean-spiritedness to go along with the architectural passion. I do think this not-so-infrequent lack of decorum could be one of the reasons GCA has quieted down, its much easier to ignore a bully, and eventually leave the room altogether. Perhaps I will at some point.

YUP, to all of it.

I’m not sure complaining about GCA being a “walled garden” helps. A better approach, IMO, would be to message Ran if you know someone who you believe would be a good contributor to golf architecture discussion.

He's pointing out a reality, not complaining. It's neither obvious, nor is it guaranteed, that people can participate here.

Erik,


To me it does come across as complaining, especially since Matt made the same point in more than one post. Again, I think a better approach would be to privately recommend anyone Matt feels would be a contributor. The criteria might include the person is:


Well traveled
Well read
Has strong writing skills
Is familiar with courses we don’t often discuss


Tim

[Kalen Braley]

I would think a well reasoned note to Ran would suffice.


A quick perusal of the member list shows dozens who have been around for years yet only posted a handful of times where a slot could be renewed.  (Im guessing Ran can probably see when they last logged in as well)

[Erik J. Barzeski]

To me it does come across as complaining, especially since Matt made the same point in more than one post.

Well…

Tim, firstly, I'm not complaining about it. I'm pointing it out.

And, I suspect there are people whose feedback or commentary might be appreciated, but they currently don't know anyone to "privately recommend" them. Doesn't help with the "walled garden" look they would get when they look for a "create account" button or something.

[Ira Fishman]

My only credential is that we have traveled a bit, but far less than many on here. Not a professional in any sense or category (player, teacher, architect, superintendent, shaper, developer, caddie) and not even a good player. I am glad to give up my slot for someone more qualified and then return to lurking.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Of course it’s a walled garden. It’s a really easy garden to access with a bit of effort and desire… but that does not mean that 90% of casual observers would ever consider making that effort.


Matt is not complaining. Plus he offers a whole new take on the subject, the first for a while on here.


And Ira - don’t be talking silly. You’re one of only a handful of posters on here who truly contributes regularly and meaningfully. There are literally hundreds of spots from non-contributors that would be available as a first port of call.

[Adam_Messix]

I will admit to not having the time to read this thread in detail but I appreciate Geoff Shackelford tipping me off to Traditional.Golf and gca.com over 25 years ago. 


Many years ago I was at my club early in the morning and one of my members walked in the door with the greeting, "interesting post you made on golfclubatlas last night."   Talk about a wake up call to pay attention to what I post because many nonposters frequent the discussion group.


Back in December, I was driving back from Joe Bausch's presentation with Tom Paul and it was a fun 45 minute conversation about all things architecture.  I miss the days where the likes of Ran, Tom, Pat, Tommy and others had a free wheeling conversation on this site about the subject we all love.

[Tim_Weiman]

I will admit to not having the time to read this thread in detail but I appreciate Geoff Shackelford tipping me off to Traditional.Golf and gca.com over 25 years ago. 


Many years ago I was at my club early in the morning and one of my members walked in the door with the greeting, "interesting post you made on golfclubatlas last night."   Talk about a wake up call to pay attention to what I post because many nonposters frequent the discussion group.


Back in December, I was driving back from Joe Bausch's presentation with Tom Paul and it was a fun 45 minute conversation about all things architecture.  I miss the days where the likes of Ran, Tom, Pat, Tommy and others had a free wheeling conversation on this site about the subject we all love.

Adam,


Geoff and Tommy became very good friends. If I am not mistaken, the friendship started with both hanging out at the Ralph Miller Library in Industry, CA not far from Los Angeles.


I came to know the Industry Hills golf courses 8-10 years before. The “Ike” was used for a scene in “Falling Down” with Michael Douglas. It was also a tough if not great golf course.

[Ira Fishman]

Of course it’s a walled garden. It’s a really easy garden to access with a bit of effort and desire… but that does not mean that 90% of casual observers would ever consider making that effort.


Matt is not complaining. Plus he offers a whole new take on the subject, the first for a while on here.


And Ira - don’t be talking silly. You’re one of only a handful of posters on here who truly contributes regularly and meaningfully. There are literally hundreds of spots from non-contributors that would be available as a first port of call.

Ally,


Your message is much appreciated. But I am not trying to be a martyr. If Matt knows people who would be strong contributors, it would be great to have them join even if it means I go back to lurking. I happen to think that a limit on the number of posters makes sense. You can learn whose recommendations to trust and who has interesting takes. Plus maybe pros like yourself and true afficionados/historians would be motivated to post in more detail if they knew that they were speaking more to each other.




Ira

[Mark Pearce]

And we both forgot Ally Macintosh, although by using the word "British" you threw down the gauntlet.

Ah, yes.....

[Joe Zucker]

Of course it’s a walled garden. It’s a really easy garden to access with a bit of effort and desire… but that does not mean that 90% of casual observers would ever consider making that effort.


Matt is not complaining. Plus he offers a whole new take on the subject, the first for a while on here.


And Ira - don’t be talking silly. You’re one of only a handful of posters on here who truly contributes regularly and meaningfully. There are literally hundreds of spots from non-contributors that would be available as a first port of call.

I actually think a low barrier walled garden is a good thing. 

I read an interesting article comparing Sam's Club to Walmart a few years ago and it illustrated the impact of the membership fee ($50-$100 annually) required to shop at Sam's Club.  Sam's Club and Walmart are part of the same company and similar types of people shop at both stores (lower and middle class).  However, if you've been in a Walmart recently, you know it's not always the best experience.

What does this accomplish? It selects the lower and middle class people who can plan ahead slightly and get a membership card.  This makes a massive difference on customer base and therefore Sam's is a much better shopping experience.  Anyone can get a Sam's membership and anyone can likely get on GCA with a well thought out email to Ran. Creating a small step in between likely improves the membership here.

[Tim Martin]

Of course it’s a walled garden. It’s a really easy garden to access with a bit of effort and desire… but that does not mean that 90% of casual observers would ever consider making that effort.


Matt is not complaining. Plus he offers a whole new take on the subject, the first for a while on here.


And Ira - don’t be talking silly. You’re one of only a handful of posters on here who truly contributes regularly and meaningfully. There are literally hundreds of spots from non-contributors that would be available as a first port of call.

anyone can likely get on GCA with a well thought out email to Ran. Creating a small step in between likely improves the membership here.

The email to Ran describing one’s experience with the subject matter is an important step in the process. I’m not clear why anyone would object to this scant level of vetting. Matt is acting as if it’s far more difficult to get a sign on then it is.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I’m not clear why anyone would object to this scant level of vetting. Matt is acting as if it’s far more difficult to get a sign on then it is.

Tim, the only reason why we are even discussing this is because of this exchange:

The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.

Never forget that this site is a walled garden.

I don't think he is a member. Not allowing public assess to a popular forum implicitly incentivizes debate elsewhere. I think the kids at TFE could actually do well for themselves creating a lightly moderated competitor forum to GCA that simply allowed open discussion to all their members. The amount of folks who are passionate about architecture, but that aren't invited here, is non-trivial. Those folks just don't get to contribute. Lord knows that I lurked around here occasionally for years before a random guy in the industry suggested I actually reach out for access.

I was simply pointing out that people should expect discussion elsewhere because membership here is limited. Full disclosure, when Ben posted this I went through the member list and spotted that Garrett was not a member. In noticing that, I thought it wise to point out -- even though Ben was not directly saying this -- that we shouldn't be critical of folks talking about these threads elsewhere, rather than here, because not everyone is/can be a member.

After this exchange, Chris decided to mock me while implying that anyone can be a member, which would negate my point. It then became a discussion of whether or not anyone can be a member. I then confirmed that people have been looked over before. Whether or not I know these people, or can vouch for them to get them in, is effectively immaterial to my comment (in passing) that it is unfortunate that there are intelligent golf architecture enthusiast that may be passed over.

I really am growing weary of this section of the discussion in this thread, because it is deeply off the topic of GCA and its relationship to golf media, golf social media, and golf 'new' media (where I would categorize the good folks at TFE), which I think is a topic very worthy of further discussion. So, I would like to clarify, again, that while I have a penchant for egalitarianism, I do think it is perfectly reasonable for groups to have limited membership. That this is a limited group of folks, mostly in the industry, is one of the reasons the discussion sections are so engaging. I mention reddit as having a huge amount of people, and it's quite obvious that the quality architecture submissions there are rare and usually ignored, simply because most folks just want to post memes, course photos, and pro golf highlights. So, yes, I do think a barrier to entry can be, and in this case is, beneficial to the content of a forum. I hope I've clarified my position and we can settle this tangent.

[Tim Martin]

By having a thread from GCA discussed on another site reinforces to me that it’s alive and well and still the standard bearer of the genre. There is no other golf course architecture website that is in the same league as Golf Club Atlas.

[Tim Martin]

I’m not clear why anyone would object to this scant level of vetting. Matt is acting as if it’s far more difficult to get a sign on then it is.

Tim, the only reason why we are even discussing this is because of this exchange:

The point I was trying to make is that a social media entity was posting their own ideas about a GCA.com thread. Instead of engaging *here*, the engagement is happening elsewhere, is what I’m saying.

Never forget that this site is a walled garden.

I don't think he is a member. Not allowing public assess to a popular forum implicitly incentivizes debate elsewhere. I think the kids at TFE could actually do well for themselves creating a lightly moderated competitor forum to GCA that simply allowed open discussion to all their members. The amount of folks who are passionate about architecture, but that aren't invited here, is non-trivial. Those folks just don't get to contribute. Lord knows that I lurked around here occasionally for years before a random guy in the industry suggested I actually reach out for access.

I was simply pointing out that people should expect discussion elsewhere because membership here is limited. Full disclosure, when Ben posted this I went through the member list and spotted that Garrett was not a member. In noticing that, I thought it wise to point out -- even though Ben was not directly saying this -- that we shouldn't be critical of folks talking about these threads elsewhere, rather than here, because not everyone is/can be a member.

After this exchange, Chris decided to mock me while implying that anyone can be a member, which would negate my point. It then became a discussion of whether or not anyone can be a member. I then confirmed that people have been looked over before. Whether or not I know these people, or can vouch for them to get them in, is effectively immaterial to my comment (in passing) that it is unfortunate that there are intelligent golf architecture enthusiast that may be passed over.

I really am growing weary of this section of the discussion in this thread, because it is deeply off the topic of GCA and its relationship to golf media, golf social media, and golf 'new' media (where I would categorize the good folks at TFE), which I think is a topic very worthy of further discussion. So, I would like to clarify, again, that while I have a penchant for egalitarianism, I do think it is perfectly reasonable for groups to have limited membership. That this is a limited group of folks, mostly in the industry, is one of the reasons the discussion sections are so engaging. I mention reddit as having a huge amount of people, and it's quite obvious that the quality of architecture submissions there are rare and usually ignored, simply because most folks just want to post memes, course photos, and pro golf highlights. So, yes, I do think a barrier to entry can be, and in this case is, beneficial to the content of a forum. I hope I've clarified my position and we can settle this tangent.

Matt-You lament that this part of the discussion is “deeply off topic” and yet you previously beat to death the specifics of the Pine Valley discrimination lawsuit that was also deeply off topic. If that had something to do with golf course architecture please inform me as to how?! You need to follow your own advice.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt-You lament that this part of the discussion is “deeply off topic” and yet you previously beat to death the specifics of the Pine Valley discrimination lawsuit that was also deeply off topic.

Tim, with respect, I can lament one thread for being deeply off topic, because I see it as an unhelpful thread that is repeatedly clarifying a confusion. I can enjoy a thread for being deeply off topic because it's taken an interesting tangent. Again, my main concern is that I clarify that I do not have a problem with the site having limited membership, only that we remember that it does have a limited membership, and there are probably folks with different perspectives who aren't here, exactly because folks with different perspectives don't fit the demographics of people who are invited here.

If you don't like my input in some of these threads, I can accept that. I welcome it. I can assure you I'm not trying to be antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. We all come from different places, and we are all should be respectfully, and passionately arguing for our different perspectives in order that we might each learn something from each other. I don't want my comments to be seen as mean-spirited even if I can be strident to the point of being irritating (I certainly know that my personality can be, at best, an acquired taste). I just have different views and values in what I think benefits golf and golf culture. I just really don't want you to think I'm coming after you or Chris maliciously.

[Tim Martin]

Matt-You lament that this part of the discussion is “deeply off topic” and yet you previously beat to death the specifics of the Pine Valley discrimination lawsuit that was also deeply off topic.

Tim, with respect, I can lament one thread for being deeply off topic, because I see it as an unhelpful thread that is repeatedly clarifying a confusion. I can enjoy a thread for being deeply off topic because it's taken an interesting tangent. Again, my main concern is that I clarify that I do not have a problem with the site having limited membership, only that we remember that it does have a limited membership, and there are probably folks with different perspectives that are here, exactly because folks with different perspectives don't fit the demographics of people who are invited here.

If you don't like my input in some of these threads, I can accept that. I welcome it. I can assure you I'm not trying to be antagonistic for the sake of being antagonistic. We all come from different places, and we are all should be respectfully, and passionately arguing for our different perspectives in order that we might each learn something from each other. I don't want my comments to be seen as mean-spirited even if I can be strident to the point of being irritating (I certainly know that I can be, at best, an acquired taste). I just have different views and values in what I think benefits golf and golf culture. I just really don't want you to think I'm coming after you or Chris maliciously.

Matt-I appreciate your reply and haven’t taken anything you have said as malicious.