I think I understand Roosh's dilemma. If, in sharing this kind of info, he's simultaneously invalidating the same info, what's the net gain for anybody?
But I don't think it's so much the data that he's sharing, but the way that he's sharing it that might be the problem. What we're witnessing is a "Robert Parker" effect. Parker is a famous wine critic with a numeric rating system. Whenever he rates a wine at 90 points or above, it tends to fly off the shelves because a Parker rating of 90 or above is an easily digestible metric for the average consumer. Even someone who knows nothing about wine will see a Parker recommendation and buy it.
Contrast that with the model of extensive tasting notes that don't give a numerical score. Only a true wine aficionado (or at least people interested in wine) would be willing to put in the effort to read those notes and draw their own conclusions about which wine to buy.
It's similar when Roosh puts out of a list of the "The Best Club" for XYZ. It's too easily digestible for the media and for the masses: any guy who sees that will run out and go to that club. On the other hand, if Roosh stuck more to a "tasting notes" model, the true players would still have access to the info and it would be up to them to draw their own conclusions about any given spot. Basically, by ranking clubs with superlatives and giving a Roosh™ seal of approval, he may be doing more harm than good. But by giving breakdowns that you actually have to READ and interpret, he could be providing a service to the true connoisseur.
But I don't think it's so much the data that he's sharing, but the way that he's sharing it that might be the problem. What we're witnessing is a "Robert Parker" effect. Parker is a famous wine critic with a numeric rating system. Whenever he rates a wine at 90 points or above, it tends to fly off the shelves because a Parker rating of 90 or above is an easily digestible metric for the average consumer. Even someone who knows nothing about wine will see a Parker recommendation and buy it.
Contrast that with the model of extensive tasting notes that don't give a numerical score. Only a true wine aficionado (or at least people interested in wine) would be willing to put in the effort to read those notes and draw their own conclusions about which wine to buy.
It's similar when Roosh puts out of a list of the "The Best Club" for XYZ. It's too easily digestible for the media and for the masses: any guy who sees that will run out and go to that club. On the other hand, if Roosh stuck more to a "tasting notes" model, the true players would still have access to the info and it would be up to them to draw their own conclusions about any given spot. Basically, by ranking clubs with superlatives and giving a Roosh™ seal of approval, he may be doing more harm than good. But by giving breakdowns that you actually have to READ and interpret, he could be providing a service to the true connoisseur.