Odd quirk in posting partial scores

[rogolf]

7 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

According to the new manual, the system only deals with differentials. People (myself included) loosely and somewhat erroneously refer to expected score, but it is really expected differential computed on the holes not played. This makes sense given that differentials are always referenced to course/hole difficulty whereas score is not. 

It does make sense that the system is computing only a total differential for the player, not individual hole scores that would make up that differential.

[nsxguy]

On 2/23/2024 at 1:30 PM, Curmudg3on said:

 

A course I play frequently (Atlas Valley in Grand Blanc, MI) has all four par 5 rated as #1-4 

 

 

Another course nearby has the number 1 and number 2 rated holes par 5s. 

 

Also, you have all 4 par 3s "in order (of length))

 

Once upon a time, a LOT of courses I'd seen, simply rated the handicap holes 1-18 strictly according to length with the sole exception(s) to have all odds on one 9 and all evens on the other.

 

With par 5s and par 3s often equal in number on each side, it seemed to work out OK. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

Edited February 24 by nsxguy

[bluedot]

3 hours ago, rogolf said:

It does make sense that the system is computing only a total differential for the player, not individual hole scores that would make up that differential.

That is NOT what “the system” does IF post hole-by-hole WITH STATS.  In that case, you ARE given an individual hole score for the holes not played.  If you do NOT post stats, there are NOT individual hole scores given.  AND the differentials for the exact same round are different.
 

Try it for yourself.  Double post a partial round with and without stats.  I think you’l be surprised.

[Newby]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That is what I also anticipated but no, according to what I was told.

The note below was recently sent out by our national authority. As yet I haven't seen anything that suggests it may have changed. But I'm not as closely involved these days.

 

The calculation of an expected score is automated and is used to attribute a statistical value against any hole or holes not played within an acceptable 9-hole or 18-hole round so that a 9- hole or 18-hole Score Differential can be calculated, subject to other provisions set out within the Rules of Handicapping.

The procedure for calculating a Score Differential using an expected score can be summarised as follows:

1. An expected Score Differential for the hole or holes not played is calculated, based on a given Handicap Index and a course of standard difficulty.

2. A Score Differential for the holes played is calculated using the player’s actual scores and the rating value of the holes played.

3. The Score Differential from the holes played is combined with the expected Score Differential to produce either a 9-hole or 18-hole Score Differential.

4. For 9-hole rounds - An 18-hole Score Differential is created by combining the 9-hole Score Differential for the 9 holes played with the player’s expected score over 9 holes.

Note – expected scoring is a closed calculation which is generated by computer precision software.

Edited February 24 by Newby

[ThinkingPlus]

18 minutes ago, Newby said:

The note below was recently sent out by our national authority. As yet I haven't seen anything that suggests it may have changed. But I'm not as closely involved these days.

 

The calculation of an expected score is automated and is used to attribute a statistical value against any hole or holes not played within an acceptable 9-hole or 18-hole round so that a 9- hole or 18-hole Score Differential can be calculated, subject to other provisions set out within the Rules of Handicapping.

The procedure for calculating a Score Differential using an expected score can be summarised as follows:

1. An expected Score Differential for the hole or holes not played is calculated, based on a given Handicap Index and a course of standard difficulty.

2. A Score Differential for the holes played is calculated using the player’s actual scores and the rating value of the holes played.

3. The Score Differential from the holes played is combined with the expected Score Differential to produce either a 9-hole or 18-hole Score Differential.

4. For 9-hole rounds - An 18-hole Score Differential is created by combining the 9-hole Score Differential for the 9 holes played with the player’s expected score over 9 holes.

Note – expected scoring is a closed calculation which is generated by computer precision software.

That is straight out of the 2024 Rules of Handicapping handbook.

Rule 3.2b Clarifications (3.2b/1)

[Newby]

10 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

That is straight out of the 2024 Rules of Handicapping handbook.

Rule 3.2b Clarifications (3.2b/1)

I was really pointing out to Mr Bean the actual wording.

 

".... based on a given Handicap Index and a course of standard difficulty."

 

PS. Haven't some countries already introduced the 2024 changes whilst other are waiting until 1 April

Edited February 25 by Newby

[ThinkingPlus]

5 hours ago, Newby said:

I was really pointing out to Mr Bean the actual wording.

 

".... based on a given Handicap Index and a course of standard difficulty."

 

PS. Haven't some countries already introduced the 2024 changes whilst other are waiting until 1 April

Yes. Here in the US the changes rolled out mid-January. I believe other locales may update in the spring.

[Mr. Bean]

16 hours ago, Newby said:

The note below was recently sent out by our national authority. As yet I haven't seen anything that suggests it may have changed. But I'm not as closely involved these days.

 

The calculation of an expected score is automated and is used to attribute a statistical value against any hole or holes not played within an acceptable 9-hole or 18-hole round so that a 9- hole or 18-hole Score Differential can be calculated, subject to other provisions set out within the Rules of Handicapping.

The procedure for calculating a Score Differential using an expected score can be summarised as follows:

1. An expected Score Differential for the hole or holes not played is calculated, based on a given Handicap Index and a course of standard difficulty.

2. A Score Differential for the holes played is calculated using the player’s actual scores and the rating value of the holes played.

3. The Score Differential from the holes played is combined with the expected Score Differential to produce either a 9-hole or 18-hole Score Differential.

4. For 9-hole rounds - An 18-hole Score Differential is created by combining the 9-hole Score Differential for the 9 holes played with the player’s expected score over 9 holes.

Note – expected scoring is a closed calculation which is generated by computer precision software.

 

I have not read the text in our WHS, I was merely transmitting what the person most involved with WHS in our National Association wrote to me when I asked a related question. Thus I cannot take a stand to any of the text you quoted.  Then again, I have no means nor interest to calculate my handicap as there is this "system" doing it for me.

 

Things were FAR easier in the old days...

[Mr. Bean]

5 hours ago, Newby said:

PS. Haven't some countries already introduced the 2024 changes whilst other are waiting until 1 April

 

That is certainly the best day to publish all the changes. 😁

[DaveLeeNC]

This comes from the Rules of Handicapping FAQ 

 

Q. I did not play a hole. What score to do I post?

 

A. For a score to be acceptable for handicap purposes, at least 9 holes that have a 9-hole Course Rating™ and Slope Rating™ must be played. If between 10-17 holes are played (typically due to darkness, inclement weather, or match play), hole-by-hole score entry is required for the holes played.

Once a score is posted for the holes played – for example, holes 1-16 – a Score Differential™ will be created based on the 16 holes played, and the expected Score Differential™ for two holes not played will be added to that value to produce an 18-hole Score Differential.

For a player who has yet to establish a Handicap Index (working toward posting scores from 54 holes played), only the 9- and 18-hole score posting option will be available.

Net par is available for limited use where practical, and at the discretion of the Handicap or Competition Committee. However, expected score is used as the default position for holes not played. (Rule 3.2, Rules of Handicapping)

 

 

This basically says that the GHIN system has the scratch and bogey rating for every hole, for every tee, for every course in the system.  Is this correct? I just had no idea and had always assumed that the system only retained CR and Slope info. I guess that I had no reason to make that assumption...

 

dave

[iacas]

5 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

This basically says that the GHIN system has the scratch and bogey rating for every hole, for every tee, for every course in the system.  Is this correct?

 

That info is all retained, yes.

[bluedot]

Ok, my head pro finally got an answer, which came from the tech guy at our state association.

 

If you post hole-by-hole WITHOUT stats, GHIN calculates the differential based on expected score for the holes not played.

 

However, if you opt to post hole-by-hole WITH stats, the app shows a series of possible scores at the top of the screen, with par for that hole already highlighted.  There is an option to enter a dash instead of a score, but that option is NOT visible unless you scroll across on the line with possible scores.  If you don’t select that dash, and simply hit “next hole”, GHIN automatically gives you the preselected score of par for that hole, which for most golfers would result in a lower differential.  We had all simply been hitting “next hole” without realizing that GHIN wouldn’t then skip the hole.

 

So not exactly a glitch after all, but maybe not as intuitive as it might be.

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, bluedot said:

So not exactly a glitch after all, but maybe not as intuitive as it might be.

There are "typo's" (improper typing), and "thinko's" (improper analysis). This one sounds like a UI "design-o". Thanks for figuring this out. 

 

dave

[davep043]

3 hours ago, bluedot said:

 If you don’t select that dash, and simply hit “next hole”, GHIN automatically gives you the preselected score of par for that hole, which for most golfers would result in a lower differential.  We had all simply been hitting “next hole” without realizing that GHIN wouldn’t then skip the hole.

You go through 9 (or more) holes, on each hole selecting the correct hole score by sliding the top row away from the default (par) when appropriate.  In many cases you were simply entering your stats and pressing Next Hole when accepting par.  It seems kind of obvious that pressing Next Hole when Par is the highlighted score actually results in entering a score of Par for that hole, and that you would need to do something different to indicate No Score.  It seems like more user error than a programming or user interface issue.  

[bluedot]

5 hours ago, davep043 said:

You go through 9 (or more) holes, on each hole selecting the correct hole score by sliding the top row away from the default (par) when appropriate.  In many cases you were simply entering your stats and pressing Next Hole when accepting par.  It seems kind of obvious that pressing Next Hole when Par is the highlighted score actually results in entering a score of Par for that hole, and that you would need to do something different to indicate No Score.  It seems like more user error than a programming or user interface issue.  

This was for holes not played, and so with no stats entered.  
 

Again, the dash indicating that the hole was not played is NOT visible without intentionally scrolling left, and there are no directions to do so, but the “next hole” tab is visible the entire time.  Since you’ve already indicated that you played between 10 and 17 holes, and since you did not enter stats for the skipped hole, scrolling to find the dash (which, btw, is just that, rather than any sort of “did not play” indicator) it is at best very counter intuitive.

 

You are 100% welcome to consider it to be “operator error” if you like, and YOU might have solved it instantly.  But nobody was able to figure it out, including our PGA staff and the first couple of people our Director of Golf spoke to at the Carolinas Golf Association.  The CGA tech guy finally DID figure it out and called us back with the “solution”.  
 

This was actually a pretty big deal at our club because we’ve had either one or two holes closed each day since mid-November for capillary concrete bunker renovation.  Since the old “net par” method went away in January, it’s impacted every player at the club who posts with stats, and they ALL got it wrong.  If everyone gets something wrong, maybe that is a “programming or interface issue”.

[iacas]

I'm with @davep043 on this one: each hole defaults to "par" and hitting "next hole" just enters par for the holes. You don't have to do anything to enter par for the hole.

 

It was operator error, and the people you mentioned who also didn't get it likely didn't watch you enter it. Had they, I imagine they might have said "but you didn't change the score from par for that hole."

 

It's a small thing, and it's not like anyone is really judging you for it. I think most are just grateful you shared the reasoning so they can avoid it themselves.

[Imp]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

I'm with @davep043 on this one: each hole defaults to "par" and hitting "next hole" just enters par for the holes. You don't have to do anything to enter par for the hole.

 

It was operator error, and the people you mentioned who also didn't get it likely didn't watch you enter it. Had they, I imagine they might have said "but you didn't change the score from par for that hole."

 

It's a small thing, and it's not like anyone is really judging you for it. I think most are just grateful you shared the reasoning so they can avoid it themselves.

I'm going to pepperturbo here for a sec, forgive me...

 

I work in software development now and have 25 years in corporate training and before that tech writing. (I feel dirty, ugh)

 

The process appears to have been written by a developer/programmer/ maybe logistician and "sold" to the USGA committee that approves this stuff with evidently zero thought, and even less communication in how the majority of their customer base actually use the software.  They sold intent. They failed on communication and implementation. 
 

Edited March 1 by Imp

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Imp said:

I work in software development now and have 25 years in corporate training and before that tech writing. (I feel dirty, ugh)

 

Same. Your (self-) appeal to authority doesn't really sway me. 😀

 

Spoiler

• Created software while in college (late 90s).
• Won an Apple Design Award.
• Tech edited for O'Reilly/created and sold my own tech e-zine/wrote articles and reviews for MacAddict.
• Still actively develop and maintain software.
• Created golf scoring/statistics software a long time ago.

 

Pre-setting "par" is a time-saving, good feature. The stats software I sold and wrote pre-set the field to par and you could just "tab" to the next hole, or hit the up/down arrows to move that number. I think for higher handicappers we may have pre-set it at bogey.

 

I think they gave it quite a bit of thought, and I think the majority of their customer base likes the defaulting to par as it speeds entry.

 

I also think the majority of their users play 18 holes (or 9), they don't skip holes 3 and 17 or whatever.

 

Edited March 1 by iacas
put other stuff in spoiler because it's not important :D

[Imp]

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Same. Your (self-) appeal to authority doesn't really sway me. 😀

 

  Reveal hidden contents

• Created software while in college (late 90s).
• Won an Apple Design Award.
• Tech edited for O'Reilly/created and sold my own tech e-zine/wrote articles and reviews for MacAddict.
• Still actively develop and maintain software.
• Created golf scoring/statistics software a long time ago.

 

Pre-setting "par" is a time-saving, good feature. The stats software I sold and wrote pre-set the field to par and you could just "tab" to the next hole, or hit the up/down arrows to move that number. I think for higher handicappers we may have pre-set it at bogey.

 

I think they gave it quite a bit of thought, and I think the majority of their customer base likes the defaulting to par as it speeds entry.

 

I also think the majority of their users play 18 holes (or 9), they don't skip holes 3 and 17 or whatever.

 

😉

Can you preset holes 11-18 as triples? And what happens when you do and submit? "Just following the rules, so it's a valid handicap!" - someone, probably. What are the checks and balances to prevent abuse? I mean, it will even satisfy peer review, because... they didn't play the holes... and conversely, what's to stop someone putting in birdies?

I get the score entry ease of use, but the issue is "these aren't holes played" and not a fan of them allowing MORE holes than in the past put in what was "most likely score" for holes not played. 

Edited March 1 by Imp

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, Imp said:

They failed on communication and implementation.

 

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

 

Pre-setting "par" is a time-saving, good feature. The stats software I sold and wrote pre-set the field to par and you could just "tab" to the next hole, or hit the up/down arrows to move that number. I think for higher handicappers we may have pre-set it at bogey.

 

I think they gave it quite a bit of thought, and I think the majority of their customer base likes the defaulting to par as it speeds entry.

 

I also think the majority of their users play 18 holes (or 9), they don't skip holes 3 and 17 or whatever.

 

 

I'll see your 25 and raise you 10.

 

Bluedot (below) is correct, though kind. As described it doesn't sound intuitive AT ALL.

 

Imp appears to be correct also. They (appear to have) failed on "communication and implementation".

 

Sorry if I'm confused here but the stats software you "sold and wrote pre-set the field to par and you could just "tab" to the next hole" is not the GHIN "missing holes" process we're discussing here, correct ?

 

If so, pre-setting fields with the most likely value definitely IS a good way to go, PROVIDED the USER a) "knows what he's doing", b) has easy access to "instructions", or c) has used the process regularly and has gotten used to any quirks,,,,, no doubt after messing it up goodness knows how many times.

 

As you yourself pointed out, it's a process that isn't likely to be used very often; at least not for "full-time" golfers. And part-timers aren't likely to even use GHIN.

 

"Users", as a group, presented with an application they're unfamiliar with, need their hands held pretty much for everything other than their name, address and email addy.

 

After that, good luck. (OK, I'm exaggerating here - a little bit ).

 

 

On 2/29/2024 at 7:32 AM, bluedot said:

So not exactly a glitch after all, but maybe not as intuitive as it might be.

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Imp said:

Can you preset holes 11-18 as triples? And what happens when you do and submit? "Just following the rules, so it's a valid handicap!" - someone, probably. What are the checks and balances to prevent abuse? I mean, it will even satisfy peer review, because... they didn't play the holes... and conversely, what's to stop someone putting in birdies?

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

By pre-setting par, it's faster and easier for the majority of people to enter a score than pre-setting every hole at "--" or "0" or something that would require almost every player to move it 4 or 5 places every time.

 

Moving a dial or spinner or widget on average 5 places 18 times to enter a score is FAR slower than pre-setting every hole to par and requiring a small minority of players to move that four places to "--" for holes not played.

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Bluedot (below) is correct, though kind. As described it doesn't sound intuitive AT ALL.

 

Imp appears to be correct also. They (appear to have) failed on "communication and implementation".

 

You can't be "right" or "wrong" about matters of opinion, and I disagree that they failed on "communication and implementation."

 

The screen looks like this:

 

 

@bluedot apprently didn't notice that par (the opening hole at Pine Needles here) was pre-selected. That's it.

 

This is good software design, because for the majority of users… they're going to have to move off of par much less than if the app started at "--".

 

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

If so, pre-setting fields with the most likely value definitely IS a good way to go, PROVIDED the USER a) "knows what he's doing", b) has easy access to "instructions", or c) has used the process regularly and has gotten used to any quirks,,,,, no doubt after messing it up goodness knows how many times.

 

The screenshot above is pretty self-explanatory to me. Par is pre-selected. @bluedot goofed. I don't think the GHIN app is confusing here.

 

P.S. The screen when you don't enter stats looks like this:

 

[davep043]

Just for my own education, I tried something.  In each case I selected 10-17 holes played.  I entered 12 scores Hole by Hole, hit Post Score, and received a message that essentially said "This isn't all 18 holes, are you sure you want to post it?".  There was an option to proceed with posting that partial score. Then I did the same thing, using Hole by Hole with Stats.  I didn't actually enter any stats, just kept clicking Next Hole for 12 holes, accepting the default of Par for each one.  Then I clicked Post Score, and got the identical message.  Its only if I kept clicking Next Hole for all 18 holes, and only then clicked on Post Score, that the message went away.  In fact, once I clicked Next Hole from the 18th, I got a review screen showing each and every hole with par.  Maybe this needs to be spelled out more specifically for people, but its honestly not that complicated.  Enter the scores for the holes you played, click Post Score, and proceed through the questioning prompt.  

[bluedot]

21 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Just for my own education, I tried something.  In each case I selected 10-17 holes played.  I entered 12 scores Hole by Hole, hit Post Score, and received a message that essentially said "This isn't all 18 holes, are you sure you want to post it?".  There was an option to proceed with posting that partial score. Then I did the same thing, using Hole by Hole with Stats.  I didn't actually enter any stats, just kept clicking Next Hole for 12 holes, accepting the default of Par for each one.  Then I clicked Post Score, and got the identical message.  Its only if I kept clicking Next Hole for all 18 holes, and only then clicked on Post Score, that the message went away.  In fact, once I clicked Next Hole from the 18th, I got a review screen showing each and every hole with par.  Maybe this needs to be spelled out more specifically for people, but its honestly not that complicated.  Enter the scores for the holes you played, click Post Score, and proceed through the questioning prompt.  

If you reread my OP, the question at our club was ALWAYS AND ONLY why there was a different differential for partial rounds posted with stats vs. without stats, and the method for skipping holes is NOT the same. 

 

Thanks to patience and diligence by our Director of Golf, who is a VERY smart guy, and good work by our state association, we now have an answer, which I also posted.  You uncovered nothing; I had already posted that.

 

I won't post on this thread anymore; I'm a bit weary of being told that we could/should have done better by people who have already read the answer to the problem.  I was always pretty good at math when I had a textbook that had the answers in the back of the book; less so when I actually had to solve the problem without help.

[Schulzmc]

It can be frustrating. We had an app custom developed for our organization. Hundreds of people tripped over the same part of the interface. But the developer kept telling us it was fine and did not need to be changed. Sure - once someone talked you through it you got it. But that’s the whole point, right?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, bluedot said:

If you reread my OP, the question at our club was ALWAYS AND ONLY why there was a different differential for partial rounds posted with stats vs. without stats, and the method for skipping holes is NOT the same.

 

The method for entering scores isn't the same, either.

 

1 hour ago, bluedot said:

I was always pretty good at math when I had a textbook that had the answers in the back of the book; less so when I actually had to solve the problem without help.

 

Yeah, but that's not what this is. It's user error — you didn't notice that you were entering par for the holes you skipped/didn't play. The system didn't assign par to you; you did.

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

 

You can't be "right" or "wrong" about matters of opinion, and I disagree that they failed on "communication and implementation."

 

The screen looks like this:

 

 

@bluedot apprently didn't notice that par (the opening hole at Pine Needles here) was pre-selected. That's it.

 

This is good software design, because for the majority of users… they're going to have to move off of par much less than if the app started at "--".

 

 

The screenshot above is pretty self-explanatory to me. Par is pre-selected. @bluedot goofed. I don't think the GHIN app is confusing here.

 

P.S. The screen when you don't enter stats looks like this:

 

 

Are you happy you think you "won" that point ?

 

Agreeing with somebody else's opinions is MY opinion. MY opinion on their description and opinions of same, in the posts those 2 gentlemen made was they were likely correct. So your point is ?

 

Secondly, I was under the impression the OP was referring to the process of entering H-B-H scores for 10-17 holes and why the resultant differential was different based on whether or not "stats" were entered. After all, the title is "Odd Quirk in Posting Partial Scores".

 

So the confusing process was SKIPPING one or more holes/entering between 10-17, NOT the entering of each hole's score.

 

What you seem to be showing is how to enter scores hole-by-hole, not 10-17 holes played and how the missing holes are handled. So perhaps we're not discussing the same thing ?

 

But in YOUR case (H-B-H scoring), I would agree that par should be "suggested" IF the player's (playing ?) handicap was 9 or less.

 

My first thought would be, the "default" value for each hole would be based on the player's 'cap. 9 would default to PAR, but 10-27 would default to BOGEY. 27 or higher to DOUBLE BOGEY - you know, most likely/common single hole score. <-- now THAT would be good design,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, IMO of course.

 

Those are just my initial thoughts about a hole's default - since I don't have any design/specs/processes/expectations regarding the software.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2 by nsxguy

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Are you happy you think you "won" that point ?

 

Just as there's no "right" or "wrong" on opinions, there's no "winning." There's just whatever side or opinion everyone has individually.

 

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Agreeing with somebody else's opinions is MY opinion.

 

Facts can be right or wrong, not opinions. You didn't say you "agreed"; you said "he is right." (paraphrased) He's not "right" nor am I because this stuff is mostly opinions about how software should be designed at this point. And @bluedot not noticing that par was pre-selected, it wasn't "assigned" to him:

 

On 2/23/2024 at 9:14 AM, bluedot said:

So yesterday, with the approval of my head pro, I double entered my score.  I posted both rounds hole-by-hole, but one with and one without stats.  We played 16 holes, with the 2nd and 3rd holes closed; 3 is a par 5 and the #1 handicap hole, so a stroke hole for me.  Here's what happened:

 

Without stats:  GHIN posted "69 (16) 6.8", denoting the actual strokes taken on 16 hole, and a projected 18 hole differential

 

With stats:  GHIN posted "77"  with a differential of 6.2.  When I selected "View Scorecard", GHIN had given me par on both #2 and #3, despite #3 being the #1 handicap hole on the golf course. 

 

FWIW, we deleted the higher of the two, so only the 6.2 goes into calculating my index.

 

Obviously, the difference in the differentials is the puzzling part.  While it is unlikely that 0.6 on one score will matter, and in a couple of weeks the bunker project will be complete and we'll go back to playing 18 holes.  But it's odd, to say the least, and when my head pro called the state association, they couldn't explain it either.  So perhaps just a glitch?

 

It's not a glitch: he assigned himself a par, and the app gave him a 77 and a 6.2 differential for playing all 18 holes. He entered 18 scores.

 

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Secondly, I was under the impression the OP was referring to the process of entering H-B-H scores for 10-17 holes and why the resultant differential was different based on whether or not "stats" were entered.

 

It's based on whether or not he chooses to enter stats or just the hole-by-hole scores. The app presents two different looks, shown above.

 

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

So the confusing process was SKIPPING one or more holes/entering between 10-17, NOT the entering of each hole's score.

 

If par is pre-selected, the app does not know he's "skipping" the hole. To the app, he played it and got a par.

 

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

What you seem to be showing is how to enter scores hole-by-hole, not 10-17 holes played and how the missing holes are handled. So perhaps we're not discussing the same thing ?

 

No, it just seems like you're just not understanding it.

• When you enter hole-by-hole without stats, you get the second screenshot I posted. No scores are filled for any holes because you get a number pad at the bottom to quickly enter scores.
• When you enter hole-by-hole with stats, each hole gets its own "screen" like the first screenshot I posted, and par is pre-selected for every hole. The stats take up the room that would otherwise have the number pad, so to make entry faster for the vast majority of players on the vast majority of holes, par is pre-selected.

He entered the same round using both methods, but because the second screenshot (hole by hole but no stats) has a number pad, he didn't put in scores for holes 2 and 3. Using the first screenshot method (hole by hole with stats), he thought he "skipped" the entry for the holes he didn't play, but failed to notice that "par" was pre-selected and the only thing he actually skipped was entering statistics.

 

GHIN works properly if you scroll over to choose the "--" on hole-by-hole with stats:

 

On 2/29/2024 at 7:32 AM, bluedot said:

However, if you opt to post hole-by-hole WITH stats, the app shows a series of possible scores at the top of the screen, with par for that hole already highlighted. There is an option to enter a dash instead of a score, but that option is NOT visible unless you scroll across on the line with possible scores.  If you don’t select that dash, and simply hit “next hole”, GHIN automatically gives you the preselected score of par for that hole, which for most golfers would result in a lower differential.  We had all simply been hitting “next hole” without realizing that GHIN wouldn’t then skip the hole.

 

The app didn't "skip" the hole because he'd assigned a par to the score.

 

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

But in YOUR case (H-B-H scoring), I would agree that par should be "suggested" IF the player's (playing ?) handicap was 9 or less.

 

Nope. You're supposed to enter it as a dash, because you didn't play the hole. You don't post a score for a hole you didn't play.

[Imp]

 

[bluedot]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

 

The method for entering scores isn't the same, either.

 

 

Yeah, but that's not what this is. It's user error — you didn't notice that you were entering par for the holes you skipped/didn't play. The system didn't assign par to you; you did.

Okay.  

[bluedot]

I started this thread on 2/23 by pointing out an issue we were having at our club in posing partial scores while a bunker renovation project went on.  The issue couldn’t be solved by any of us, nor by our PGA staff, nor in our first two calls to our state association.

 

And guess what? Not one of the people who NOW use terms like “operator error” revealed the solution, either; not one!  If you don’t believe me, read back over the thread.  
 

Then on 2/29, almost a week later, our Director of Golf got a call from the tech guy at our state association with an explanation, which I posted later that same day.

 

And now guess what?  There are at least three guys who are pontificating about “operator error” and implying, if not stating outright, that our entire club and professional staff and at least some of our state association staff just couldn’t see the obvious and should have known better.  That’s AFTER I had told them the answer, not in an actual answer they had been able to provide.

 

How tiresome and how sad to see this sort of thing in a forum that SHOULD be about answers, rather than after the fact sermons.