Be Careful What You Wish For!
(Written By: GolfSpy T) Filed under be careful what you wish for, as part of our MyGolfSpy Tour Staff Contest, we asked you, the reader, to “tell us why we suck”, or provide us with some clever ideas for improving the site. Much to our surprise, only one of you violated the no robot rule (DISQUALIFIED), and more surprisingly still, not a single one of you (at least as of last Friday) mentioned our complete inability to get through a single post without a misspelling, or without using “they’re” when we mean “their”, or “there” or possibly even “the hair”. I don’t know…we make a lot of mistakes – it’s hard to keep track.
Anyway, thanks for not noticing, thanks for not saying anything, or you’re all a bunch of oblivious idiots. Whichever is the reality.
We did, of course, receive an abundance of suggestions. Some are outstanding, some simply reflect a lack of understanding of what goes on behind the scenes here, and some well…for some there may not be words.
We’ve decided to use this as an opportunity to respond to a few of the more compelling, or at least repetitive responses we received, along with some of our favorites, and of course, some of the ones we couldn’t make sense out of. In the true spirit of MyGolfSpy, we didn’t bother to correct anybody’s grammar or spelling.
Reviews
:: On Wedge Reviews
Couldn’t agree more. We’ve always said that there was a lot more we’d like to do with wedge reviews. And now that we have some interesting options, we’ll see what we can come up with.
:: On Review Frequency
“You do a great job reviewing stuff but I’d really like to see more. Something closer to a review a day”.
“The biggest problem I have is the reviews are too few and far between. Y am I not seeing a new review everyday”.
Reviews…at least club reviews have been a little light lately. The biggest reasons for that are the gear up for a head to head fairway test, and the transition from aboutGolf to FlightScope launch monitors. We have to account for differences in data, find ways to incorporate the new and interesting data points that FlightScope gives us, and we have to figure out what the best way to display data collected under the new system is. It has taken more time than we thought (not to mention one of our testers is recovering from an extended hospital stay – we hope to have him back soon). We’ll be back to business as usual shortly.
All of that said, we’ll never be a club review a day type of site. Never. Our average club review involves 5-6 testers, and takes place over several days. While we believe we have the most robust and informative review system going, it doesn’t lend itself well to an assembly line approach.
:: On the Scoring System
“The Ultimate review nothing gets below a B, I feel that the perception of the testers needs to be weighted a little more, most people go off buzz not data”.
“One thing I’ve noticed is that in general, there isn’t normally a huge difference between reviews. Making a ranking where the high score is 100 and low is in the high 80s is not really a good scale, but I can see that no club is going to be truly horrible after all the time and money developing it”.
“While I love almost everything you do, the fact that the golf clubs you review never get below a B rating makes your rating system seem much less valid”.
We know that golf companies like high scores and readers like low scores. Sure…pick your favorite golf company…they’d love us to give them 100/100. I can say with almost certainty it will never happen. It’s theoretically possible, but it’s highly, I’m talking a gazillion-to-1, Steven Seagal-is-more-likely-to-win-the-best-actor-Oscar, improbable that it will ever happen.
Conversely, a 60-something, which we know some of you would love to see, will likely never happen either. Even 70-somethings are unlikely. Why? The absolute indisputable reality is that there is very little difference between one club and the next. The reason why most clubs score in the mid to high 80s is that the overwhelming majority of clubs perform very similarly – similarly well, I might add. Does this really surprise anyone?
We said from the outset that we wanted to develop a scoring system that accurately represented the true performance of golf clubs – not a system that would give low grades simply for the purpose of giving low grades. We started with the idea of what perfect would look like and worked backwards from there. With reasonable point deductions for differences in distance and accuracy, most clubs end up in the high 80s. The only way to lower scores to the level some of you want to see would be to over penalize slight differences in performance, and thereby artificially draw distinctions that don’t actually exist between clubs. We think doing it that way would be less than valid.
Scores were lower in the early revisions because we weighted subjective scoring more highly. After seeing one too many above average clubs get dinged over the subjective stuff, we decided to focus more heavily on performance, and as I said; where actual performance is concerned, there is little distinction, few standouts, and even fewer failures. Whether or not you think the scoring system should reflect that aside, that is the reality.
:: On the changes we’ve made over the last few years…
This is true…and it’s the bane of GolfSpy X’s very existence. So you’re right. And we’re likely going to tweak things again. In the original release we made a lot of guesses. Some things we got right, other things needed improving. We continue to learn with each and every review we do (and that’s without regard for changes in launch monitor tools, accessibility to fittings, etc.). Our options are to leave the system alone (and ignore what we continue to learn along the way), or to continually improve as much as our knowledge and tools allow for.
Absolutely there is something to be said for consistency, and in a perfect world we’d have done things 100% perfectly on day 1, and our tools would have been 100% perfect on day 1, but we’re not perfect.
Change is inevitable, and we will continue to embrace it where it makes sense. Wouldn’t you prefer it that way?
:: Other Thoughts on the Review Process…
We do provide averages with and without the shortest hitter removed. However; for scoring purposes it’s not necessarily the shortest hitter that’s removed. We actually remove the tester who most under-performs compared to his known capabilities. We drop one tester so that a guy having a bad day doesn’t skew the averages. If we reach the point where we have 10-20 testers (my dream), then we’ll keep everything. But with an admittedly limited testing pool, it’s not really fair to let one guy having a bad day drag down the overall numbers.
No promises, but we’re discussing ways to add some better context around things like launch angle and spin rates. Whether spin is good or bad certainly depends on the golfer, but knowing, for example, whether a driver produces significantly more or less spin than another would be beneficial across the board.
High Handicap Golfers
“More product reviews/testing done by mid to high handicap golfers”.
“Include more duffers and hackers in your club testing!! Include more average length and short hitters in your club testing!! Seriously gents, to read your reviews one could come away with the crazy idea that you yahoos think your average golfers! Well compared to the rest of us, who can’t stay out of the woods or hit it out of our shadows, your club reviews are not helpful because you favor players equipment. Test stuff with the intended audience in mind”.
The majority of our testers qualify as mid-handicappers (12-18). We don’t want to alienate anyone, but my god…have you ever watched a 20-something handicap try and hit balls with any consistency? It’s like trying to commit suicide with a stick pin. It’s slow and painful, and ultimately you don’t accomplish anything. We actually tried it (high handicap testing…not the suicide by seamstress thing)…it didn’t work. ZERO usable data (fat shots, shanks, worm burners). 20 minutes in I snapped my 9-iron and tried to stab myself with the jagged shaft. That didn’t work either.
I know the industry promises clubs that anybody can hit, but if that was real, everyone would be a single-digit handicap golfer.
After a tough day at work, some of us will go home and have a beer. After an hour of watching a 24 handicap hit everything but the meaty part of the golf ball, I wanted to go home and drink a gallon of bleach.
We’re not going to abandon you guys…we absolutely will be doing features on Game-Improvement and Super Game-Improvement clubs, and we are going to do a better job testing with the intended audience in mind, but man…getting meaningful data from high-handicap golfers works about as well as I.K Kim’s putter from inside 2 feet.
Video
“Give us more videos, not just pictures of the equipment in review”.
“One word…VIDEO…The graphs of club performance during reviews are nice but lets see these people actually hit the clubs”.
and about 10 others just like those…
One word for you: YOUTUBE… Have you bastards never heard it? Seriously? Aren’t there enough bad golf equipment videos out there already?
Actually seriously…video is something we’ve been talking about for a while, but like everything else, we want to do it our way. There’s a certain way golf equipment videos are being done…and there’s nothing wrong with that, but at the same time, we’re not going to contribute to the status quo. We’re on it, but it might take a little while still.
Components and OEMs
:: On the lack of reviews of certain OEMs…
“A driver comparison without a taylormade driver”?
“Maybe review some Cleveland products once in a while that would be nice”.
A Cleveland review would be nice, wouldn’t it? You want reviews of Cleveland equipment, take it up with Cleveland. They’ve repeatedly turned us down (which is also why you won’t see any Srixon ball reviews here either). For the most part we can only work with companies who choose to work with us. Cleveland has a very cozy relationship with a couple of other media outlets, and they milk those for all they’re worth. As long as they are able to maintain those relationships, while continuing to use the publication of spy pics as justification for not sending us equipment, then they don’t have to worry about facing any actual scrutiny from our review process.
As for TaylorMade…there is a certain way they like to operate, and honestly, we’ve made some outstanding progress, and have found them more willing to work with us on some things than they have been in the past, but sending us drivers for testing isn’t something they’ve done yet. We’ll keep asking.
:: On Component Reviews…
“What’s to improve? Actually, I wish you’d test more component clubs (Dynacraft, Inazone), but really your website ROCKS”!”I’d also like to see more brands: Tricept by GolfWorks, KZG, Swing Science, et al, tested as well. Don’t just test the buzzy brands- allow for a complete testing, so people that may have trouble running purchases through the Family CFO have some alternatives”.
“I wish you had more or any information and reviews of component equipment”.
“My only “complaint” is that you do not test component brands. I’d love to see some Wishon, Maltby, Acer, and so on, put up against the top brands”.
While I won’t tell you that we’ve reached out to every component brand listed here, we have reached out to several of them. We make the same requests of them as we make of the big OEMs. Our game is not to give component companies an advantage, but we will do what we can to level the playing field for them. Simply put, component companies are always welcome to participate in our review process, but we expect them to do so in exactly the same capacity as a bigger OEM. We wouldn’t alter our review process to make it more convenient for TaylorMade or Callaway, and we won’t do it for KZG or Dynacraft either. Getting equipment in for review is a two-way street. Component companies are no different than larger OEMs insomuch as they don’t always send us what we ask for.
We are currently in the early stages of discussing reviews with a couple of component products I think many of you will be very interested in. Hopefully we’ll be able to move forward with those.
Women (‘s Equipment)
“Ok, maybe I am going against the manly grain here, but what about the ladies. Can’t say I remember a whole lot on the site that is geared towards women. I think it might be time to devote a little more to the women and what golf has to offer them”.
“You need to add a section targeting the woman golfer. I know, we aren’t your major focus, but women make up the fastest growing market segment in golf and we often are the one buying the guys in our lives golf equipment, sending the kids to golf camp, and now we are getting out there to play the game ourselves”.
“Hey! How about something, no ANYTHING, for the ladies. You’ve got nada, zip, zero for the ladies. You boys think it’s hard picking out a new set of irons, or a shiny new driver… try finding any REAL reviews for ladies equipment!”
Ladies…listen up. This may be painful for you to hear, but I’m going to give it to you straight. While I’m sure the occasional exception exists, women golfers basically fall into three categories.
The first consists of women who play recreationaly in the most extreme sense of the word. Maybe they play once a week, maybe once a month…maybe even once a year. Many don’t know what’s in their bag. They call their driver “the big one” and their wedge “that lobby thing”. They wear those gloves that let their fingernails through. They weren’t fit for their clubs (their husbands probably bought them), and most importantly, they’ve never heard of MyGolfSpy.
The second consists of more serious golfers. They compete in leagues, and tournaments. They have a group of friends, all of whom are pretty damn serious about the game. These are women who will demo drivers, irons, and everything else. They’ll work hard to find the club that best fits their game. Of course, when all is said and done, they’ll almost certainly end up playing men’s clubs. A few might play senior flex, but many will end up in regular and occasionally stiff flex. Women’s clubs simply aren’t designed for them. In fact, women’s clubs aren’t really built for a lot of women. There aren’t many lady’s clubs being played by the ladies on the Symetra and LPGA Tour.
The third group is the faux serious golfer. She plays frequently. She actually might think she’s pretty good (she’s not). But really, the game is little more than an opportunity and excuse to accessorize. These lovely women look the part. They’ll wear the short skirts, and the cute little sleeveless tops. They love a good demo day as much as anybody. They’ll spend hours hitting the latest and greatest from every manufacturer. They’ll make sure the see and hit it all. They’ll have serious discussions about performance with the fitter. When it comes time to give serious consideration to what goes in the bag, these women will spend countless hours mulling it over, weighing pros and cons, distance vs. accuracy, etc. My god…I LOVE these women, but when the decision is finally made, invariably, the faux serious golfer never fails to choose the purple one.
I know…I’m a sexist pig. Whatever, I’m good with that, but there’s some real truth in what I’ve just said…at least where the equipment itself is concerned. Of course, I do think our wonderful female readers are right when they suggest we’re missing the boat by ignoring women’s gear entirely. Whether we focus entirely on apparel and accessories, or open up our coverage to the equipment side of things, we are leaning heavily towards starting up a women’s section (we’ve actually reached out to a prospective writer to fill the void). Nothing is set in stone, but we’ll almost certainly do something to better service the ladies who support MyGolfSpy…and we might even do it soon.
Site Design
“Clean up the Homepage. It looks like a website from 1980’s. There is so much going on, it looks like a Nascar racing jacket”.
“If I’m being completely honest, and this is coming from a designer, I would LOVE a more refined less cluttered layout! The colors can just bleed together, and the scheme itself with the browns is distracting to the content itself. I love the information, but I think the presentation could be polished to be even better so that the content is king, which for a website like MyGolfSpy is absolutely key! I’m probably a little bit of nerd in calling this out, but it goes a long way with website information hierarchy”!
and 700 more just like these…
Ouch… On the issue of site design, we got pounded harder than a Paris Hilton impersonator at a low light video convention. These are just two of what felt like countless examples from your feedback. Do I come to your house and make fun of your curtains? Damn, you guys are harsh.
When you’ve done things a certain way for a while it becomes comfortable, but it has been 2 years since the update. We’ve grown and evolved, and you guys are right…it’s past time we gave things a face lift. It’s definitely not priority #1, but an upgrade is on the short list.
Ads
“There are way too many ads on the site. You guys have tremendous info, and have been a great resource, but I ignore all the ads because they are so overwhelming”.
“Can we just get rid of all the advertising, and stick to the important stuff like contests, prizes, and new equipment that will put us all on the tour after just a few rounds?!! Is it all about the money”?
and about 100 other similar sentiments…
Reality check…the ads are important. Without ads there’s no site. Period. Are there a lot of them? Yup. No doubt if we took advertising from big golf companies we’d have fewer ads, (and more restrictions). But I’m a reasonable guy. You want the ads gone? Let’s do it. Here’s a donate button (full-disclosure, it’s a $5,000 donation). For every full donation we receive, we’ll drop and ad. Let’s go guys…you can do this.
[donation-can goal_id=’get-rid-of-the-ads’ style_id=’mgs’ show_progress=false show_description=false show_donations=false show_title=false title=”]
Outings
“There have been a lot of great discussions on MGS. Some of them more heated than others. Is there a better to settle your cyber-differences? Of course! Take your stuff outside, boys! Have MGS organize annual golfing trips. Announce them 1 year ahead, so people can plan, ask for vacation and save some money. Put your money where your mouth is! Is RB7 really a club hoe? Can JBones really bomb it 400 yards? Who else agrees that Richard has issues? Is wdgolf as bad as he says he is? Throw them all together and let the clubs do the talking”!
“Organize trips. Even if the first few attempts to organize the trip fails. It’d be awesome to get some semi local MGS tournament. Plus said trips should be in Boston”.
What the hell kind of spy shows his face at some damn recreational golf outing? Do you not know what the word Spy actually means? We’d have to be the worst spies ever.
Rant aside…this is one of those things we’ve talked about, but quite frankly given the lackluster performance of our donation drive, we just aren’t sure what the real interest level is in doing something like this. There are logistical issues to sort out (like what part of the country to have it in), but obviously others have made these things work, so I suppose it can be done. Let’s see if we have a quorum on this. If enough of you want to do it…we’ll do it.
Miscellaneous
Somebody go vote for this guy.
Great idea…of course, we actually thought of it ourselves at the very beginning of this thing, but unfortunately the guy who currently owns golfspy.com thought of it first. Rat bastard.
This is best idea yet. Especially if we’re talking about those South American bikinis that don’t even have a top part. Screw it…we’re taking applications now. Interested club models should submit a photo to me (golfspyt AT mygolfspy DOT com).
“Why you guys suck in a 100 words or less? Wouldn’t it be easier to say what you guys do well instead? Just kidding! Let’s get to it:
1) Your club scoring system is asinine. What is a 91.63? Or 87.45? Drop the decimals fellas. Nothing worse than taking a complicated game and making it more complicated.
2) Can you guys get a swing machine? I like that you use the same testers and the human element in reviews but eliminate more of the variables.
3) Everyone knows the tour drives the golf world. We need PGA Tour equipment coverage.”
Swing Machine = Robot = Epic Fail. You’re disqualified.
Which is it…did you capture or kill the Yeti? I’m confused.
Here’s a tip…learn to swing right-handed. You’ll love how much more equipment is available to you. Seriously though…apart from limited equipment options, there’s nothing magical about being left handed. What’s true for right-handed golfers, where tips and whatnot are concerned, are true for lefties. The laws that govern a ball’s flight don’t change just because someone happens to be standing on the other side of it.
This must be some weird word substitution application (like when GolfWRX replaces MyGolfSpy with “Removed for Spam”, or when that other site uses “******”). Woof?
Definitely don’t vote for that guy. While I’m certainly insulted, the Blair O’Neal thing has my attention. It’s similar to how I’ve always thought that the packaging on men’s underwear was all wrong. Instead of some ripped dude with a banana stuffed in his britches, I always felt like more effective packaging would be a topless chick holding the underwear in front of her lady lumps. Just a thought.
Dan m.
12 years ago
I tried to enter and could not get through the process. My errors… I think what would help is tester profiles. Ie. Golf Spy Donkey, 2.4 handicap, is 27 years old, 6’0″ tall and 185 lbs. He is very fit and is powerfully built. He plays a Bridgestone j40 455 driver 9* with an x flex mid kick shaft which he averages 278 yards flight and 22 yards of roll, the ball flight is a draw of about 24 yards. He plays Adams a12 irons x flex kbs shafts and hits his piching wedge at 155 yards 6 yards roll. His lob wedge a Clevland cg 12 dsg with zip groves from 110 yards in and often spins it back. Golf Spy Pudge 7.1 handicap, is 51 years old, 5’10” tall and 240 lbs. He has a handicaped right leg and limited athletic ability. He plays a Rocket Balls 10.5* with a stiff specialty shaft, he averages 242 yards flight and lottle or no roll, his ball flight is a hits about an 11 yard fade. He uses Mizuno MP 59 irons and hots his 7 iron 152 yards and sticks it. He hits his pitching wedge 101 yards and can spin it or stick it. You can still be spys and we can tell who is most like us.