Congratulation, Catman!

http://interactive.wsj.com/public/current/articles/BusinessFareMain.htm

Dan.

Hey Dan, which article are you talking about? I did not see the name of our world famous Catman!

That's a URL that chenges daily. He was there yesterday...

did anyone save that article, does anyone still have access to that article, can anyone please copy it here?

[This message has been edited by Rudi (edited 06-16-1999).]

I did not see the article yesterday either, but if you can remind me of the article I will post it here. Thanks.

I want to see this famous article!!! http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

What did I talk about?? What did I say??? WHY WAS I QUOTED???

I don't want to be quoted without prior knowledge!!!

Plus I want to show off to the people I have my name in print!!!



------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

Oops! Looks like the article which was on airline websites' design is not there anymore. I don't have full access to WSJ interactive. Is there anyone who has full access can look up for the artcle?

Dan.

Continental Scores With Site Revamp,
But the Airline Needs a History Lesson
By JANE COSTELLO
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL INTERACTIVE EDITION


Now that Continental Airlines has redesigned its Web site www.continental.com (http://www.continental.com) , passengers can finally find the seat maps.


That's just one of the advantages cited by visitors to the airline's new perky yellow- and blue-hued home page. Timely topics such as flight information, e-tickets and frequent-flier miles have been moved to more prominent positions, along with the link to seat maps.

The buzz in cyberspace from those who have visited the new site has been mostly positive. "Continental has improved on what I thought was a fine and workable Web page," writes "Catman," a frequent contributor to WebFlyer's www.webflyer.com (http://www.webflyer.com) FlyerTalk bulletin board.

Unlike United Airlines, which is revamping its poorly laid out Web site www.ual.com (http://www.ual.com) in a series of installments, Continental chose to tinker with success by overhauling an award-winning design: The old site recently finished first in a consumer survey conducted by marketing research firm NPD.

But the Continental.com makeover does contain a few wrinkles. The seat maps are easier to locate, but users must download Adobe Acrobat to view them.

And while the re-launch of the site helps position Continental for the future, its creators could use a lesson in the past. The site's "Instant Enrollment" section forces international residents to choose their homeland from countries that no longer exist: The U.S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia remain firmly in the OnePass block of nations, as does a unified Yugoslavia.

The new site is definitely more of a good thing for the next millennium, but it's time for Continental to acknowledge events of the past decade. It's not too late to work hard, fly right and read a newspaper.

I believe anyone with a WSJ subscription can get a 30 day free trial- if they haven't changed it. Otherwise I think it's only $29./yr for WSJ subscribers!

I find it interesting that the Wall St. article needed to mention the problems with the country selection part in the "instant enrollment" section of the Continental site. It is such a minor, minor problem.

Given the fact that Continental doesn't fly to any of those countries that are affected (the former USSR, the former Yugoslavia, etc), how many people from those parts of the world be signing up for One-Pass anyways? Sure, there might be a couple here and there, but nothing to warrant the WSJ saying, "but it's time for Continental to acknowledge events of the past decade". I am not saying that they shouldn't fix it, just why give it so much attention?

If that is the only problem that they could find, then the Continental site is truly the most amazing site out there.

(If we wanted to play tit for tat, tell me why the www.wsj.com (http://www.wsj.com) site doesn't even have a country selection choice on their order form... and their contact number is an 800#, which you can't dial from many foreign countries... Maybe it is time for the WSJ to realize that other countries exist besides the USA.. (Just as a test, I got to this subscription page below from the European edition of the WSJ))
see: https://interactive.wsj.com/print-registration/docs/wsjie.html

This is very interesting. Thanks for posting the article mijne.

But I say INTERESTING because I don't remember telling this Ms. Jane that she can quote me.

Maybe I did... I don't know.

Just strange that I am now quoted in print and don't remember saying OK.

------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

Catman, I guess the question is do they need your permission to quote you since you've already "published" it by posting it publicly here, and they did properly attribute it to you.

I'm sure some of our lawyer friends here may be able to comment on this more intelligibly than me though ...

To not be quoted don't you have to first clarify that it is "off the record!" I thoght that if you didn't it's all fair game!

Catman: maybe you were drunk too. http://talk.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
aloha!
www.hotshirts.com (http://www.hotshirts.com)

Speaking as a journalist (which Catman is as well), simple courtesy demands that the author at least attempt to contact him to obtain permission to quote him.

I believe he is being overly kind (in his nature I guess) by saying he might have forgotten. I don't think Mark is the kind of guy who forgets very much.

So I'll be offended for him. I suggest we attempt to contact WSJ for an explanation / apology.

All I'm asking for WSJ is if there was an e-mail from Jane asking "Would you like to be quoted for our article?"

You are right NJDavid... I don't forget much and I write a lot of stuff down (I still have a diary!)

If you guys wants to go after WSJ for me, go ahead. I give up the two cat tails up, and THANKS!!!

But the article bothers me for two reasons:

1. The idea I can say anything and it ends up for public consumption. (So I better watch what I say about you guys!)
2. I didn't think my Continental comment was all that earthshattering, considering there are better CO experts (NJDavid, JAWS, Boomer, et all) who are better interviews. And fly CO more than I do!




------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

Make that three things...

3. They couldn't ask me for my REAL NAME???

How can I be taken seriously as CATMAN?

I'm going to pet Eddie now and calm down.




------------------
MEOW! MEOW! MEOW!!!

Hey, Catman, I take you seriously...maybe.

------------------
aloha!
www.hotshirts.com (http://www.hotshirts.com)

Catman- Why not simply write an open letter to the Editor- You know they have the right to print that though. What do you think NJDavid?

Catman, I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you ... you said:

"The idea I can say anything and it ends up for public consumption. (So I better watch what I say about you guys!)"

That's absolutely right. By posting it here on the internet in a public forum you certainly are making it available for public consumption. If you didn't want it available for public consumption, you shouldn't have posted it publicly on the internet.

It's not like they intercepted a private e-mail or recorded a conversation without your knowledge and used it.

As I said, the article properly attributed the quote to you, and beyond that I think it would have only been a matter of courtesy to ask you if they could quote you, but even if you said no I think they could have probably quoted you, so what would be the point? I think any journalist has the right to quote publicly available sources as long as they are properly attributed, and I'd actually be more concerned if journalists didn't have that right!

I am with Beckles on that one, and in add I think quoting you with your psydonym "CatMan" is the better way to go than (without your permission) giving your real name.

I can understand your opinion. We have released it "into a public forum", so we should not be suprised by it's re-use in other public forums. However, the WSJ Interactive is a for-profit service. If the reporter chose to quote someone, he should have attempted to contact that person. Not doing so because of a public forum is merely rationalization.

It has prompted me to change my Flyertalk signature.


------------------

DJD

all rights reserved

I find this a fascinating thread because we constantly debate how to use the information found on this board. Our unwritten policy is to verify any information (bonuses, special offers, etc.) before using it in one of our publications. The line is not so clearly drawn, however, on how and when to use posts from FlyerTalkers. As far as I know, we have always asked permission before reprinting your comments (and if I'm wrong, please let me know). But how we identify FlyerTalkers is not at all defined. In the upcoming cover story on this board, we use screen names. I personally would prefer to identify FlyerTalkers by their real names (Joe Smith, or "FastFlyer") - at least on first reference. We've debated this a bit in our office, but apparently, not enough. I'd appreciate hearing how you all feel about this.

------------------

Pam, it's very funny that you posted your question.

While I was puttering around the house just now, it occured to me that I should add this post script to my last post.

P.S. By the way, every single time anyone from Flyertalk/Webflyer/Inside Flyer has ever wanted to use even a concept from one of my posts (much less quote me) they have e-mailed me for permission, which was of course granted.

Yes, in late 1998 Flyertalk did very correctly ask me. You did intend to publish some of "my" guerilla tips then, and (as I have given reference with all those tips) they were already in part under the copyright of an author, I (and you followed me) preferred not to be cited.

In general, I only want to be referred at as "Rudi", my full name (and email address etc) should only be disclosed with my consent.

Thank you for asking before acting.

It is quite interesting to debate. I understand why quoting is a delicate subject, but I don't see why simple descriptions or references to people aren't similarly delicate. If I can prove someone said something to me, not "off the record," why is it worse to use that quote without permission than it would be to simply make reference to that person without telling them? I don't see a hard and fast difference.