TalkBoard Topics - Forum Proposal: Only IB

Since IB now runs this place, and Randy does not, wouldn't it be nice if there was one forum where we could ask IB questions?

For instance, my first question would be what in the hell was the IT team thinking when it changed the way that My Flyertalk functioned.

My second question would be why wasn't anyone on FT asked prior to making the change.

Thoughts?

Since it is neither within the power nor purview of TB to decide how IB communicate, it has as much sense to ask TB to create an "IB only forum" as to ask them to create an "Obama only forum" or a "God only forum" unless the aim is just to provide a ranting space for some FTers. But if that is the aim, then perhaps it would be more honest to call it the "ranting and raving only forum".

Since it is neither within the power nor purview of TB to decide how IB communicate, it has as much sense to ask TB to create an "IB only forum" as to ask them to create an "Obama only forum" or a "God only forum" unless the aim is just to provide a ranting space for some FTers. But if that is the aim, then perhaps it would be more honest to call it the "ranting and raving only forum".

Why are you assuming IB wouldn't write back? :confused:

Since IB now runs this place, and Randy does not

I don't believe that statement is completely accurate.

Aren't there already Technical Issues and Suggestions forums in place?

I would like to see IB have a more obvious presence on FT in the manner suggested by the opening of such a forum, but then again I'm not sure what useful things it would accomplish if IB is intent upon just doing (or not doing) whatever IB is intent upon doing (or not doing) in response to member concerns.

wouldn't it be nice if there was one forum where we could ask IB questions?

I know some TalkBoard members have addressed this during the election.

Remember this question:

Question 7: What would you say to IB about tech issues?

I think RichMSN, who was not chosen, addressed it pretty well:

Someone needs to step up and be a liasion between IB and FT members. While in theory this would be Randy, I've seen too many instances lately where Randy isn't aware of issues or changes and I'm convinced it's because Randy already has a lot on his plate. I do not know if this would be someone from TalkBoard, although I think this would be a great role for one of the elected representatives.

If that person was me, I would sit down with a list of concerns brought to me by members and would ask, mainly, for one thing -- a lurker who could have his/her own forum to address questions like this directly. I would suggest as the model the very excellent William Sanders, the Starwood Lurker, who does not always have pleasant or popular news for people and is not afraid to tell people when they are being a bit unreasonable, but is pretty much universally respected.

Whether IB would be willing to do that is another question only they can answer, but it's time someone steps up and tries to get them to the table to talk directly to the customers.

And from winner lucky9876coins who supported a dedicated IB forum:

I'm not much of a tech guy, so I'd probably be the wrong person to sit down with them. Heck, the only cookies I know of are the ones in my kitchen.

Anyway, there definitely are issues, even for a technologically unsavvy guy like me, relating to the reliability and at times functionality of FlyerTalk. But I'm sure they know of those problems as well as I do, yet they seem not to care.

I like Rich's idea. While I doubt they'd be receptive to it, the best way to hold them accountable would be for them to have a dedicated forum for members to post their thoughts/comments/complaints in, and hopefully have an official lurker that would respond. It sounds nice, at least in theory...

And from winner Markie who advocated IB sitting down with the TalkBoard before making changes:

I feel that FT has been terribly let down by IB. I am not sure they understood our community when they first acquired the board. However, they do seem to 'get it' in person when they have sent reps to Moderator Meetings.

I think they need to find a way to pay back their investment, but some of that has been heavy handed.

I'd love to sit down with IT and discuss what makes FT special and possibly unique in the board they own. I'd like to be honest and accept that they have to make money from the board, and to work out ways that they can do this without having a negative impact. I'd like to encourage them to discuss things with TalkBoard in advance of making changes, so at least people can be told what's going to happen. Engagement usually generates light even if we don't agree!

Maybe the last two members I quoted here, who are TalkBoard members, can comment about how things are going between TalkBoard and Internet Brands. I don't recall seeing TalkBoard members post about any of this on the public side of the forum. Have any of you been in contact with Internet Brands about the future of FT and the concerns members have expressed?

Why are you assuming IB wouldn't write back? :confused:Well, I thought that this was the TB forum, i.e. the forumconcerned with issues pertaining with TB. What you are talking about has nothing to do with TB. The ORP forum would be rather more relevant to such a thread, imo, than TB.

Maybe the last two members I quoted here, who are TalkBoard members, can comment about how things are going between TalkBoard and Internet Brands. I don't recall seeing TalkBoard members post about any of this on the public side of the forum. Have any of you been in contact with Internet Brands about the future of FT and the concerns members have expressed?

Great research. ^

Yes, let's hear from our TB representatives who campaigned on communication with IB.

Well, I thought that this was the TB forum, i.e. the forumconcerned with issues pertaining with TB. What you are talking about has nothing to do with TB. The ORP forum would be rather more relevant to such a thread, imo, than TB.

What are you talking about? TB recommends new forums be created. Why would I ask Randy to create a forum when that is (the only thing?) TB does?

What are you talking about? TB recommends new forums be created. Why would I ask Randy to create a forum when that is (the only thing?) TB does?You may want to look again at what you posted and what I was replying to.
If you go back to asking TB to create a forum, I point you back to my original reply: there would be just as much point in TB voting to create an "IB only" forum as there is in TB voting to create an "Obama only" forum: TB is not IB and has no power to determine how IB want to communicate. Even if TB created such a forum, this would not in itself result in IB staff using it in pretty much the same way as if TB decided to create an 'Obama only' forum, this would not automatically result in Obama participating in FT and deciding to answer posts in that putative forum. The net result would be, as I suggested in my original answer, that the forum, if TB were unwise enough to create it in such circumstances, would be little more than a rant and rave forum.

Before there is any point whatsoever in TB discussing the creation of such a post, there would have to be a desire on the part of IB to use such a device. The point about posting the issue in ORP is that RP is better placed than TB to communicate with IB on this. Until it is established that IB would be interested in such a move, it is a pure waste of time and energy.

You may want to look again at what you posted and what I was replying to.
If you go back to asking TB to create a forum, I point you back to my original reply: there would be just as much point in TB voting to create an "IB only" forum as there is in TB voting to create an "Obama only" forum: TB is not IB and has no power to determine how IB want to communicate. Even if TB created such a forum, this would not in itself result in IB staff using it in pretty much the same way as if TB decided to create an 'Obama only' forum, this would not automatically result in Obama participating in FT and deciding to answer posts in that putative forum. The net result would be, as I suggested in my original answer, that the forum, if TB were unwise enough to create it in such circumstances, would be little more than a rant and rave forum.

Before there is any point whatsoever in TB discussing the creation of such a post, there would have to be a desire on the part of IB to use such a device. The point about posting the issue in ORP is that RP is better placed than TB to communicate with IB on this. Until it is established that IB would be interested in such a move, it is a pure waste of time and energy.

Surely you read the transcripts of the various chats and whatnot Randy and IB had with us while Randy was selling this place to IB, yes? They expressed a distinct desire to have an active communication channel open between FT and IB. Based on my review of TB's actions, there has been little except campaign rhetoric regarding this issue. IB is on record as having requested such a channel. Read the chats; you can start here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/only-randy-petersen/670321-livechat-transcripts-w-randy-johnmcg-internet-brands.html?highlight=chat+internet+brands

Surely you read the transcripts of the various chats and whatnot Randy and IB had with us while Randy was selling this place to IB, yes? They expressed a distinct desire to have an active communication channel open between FT and IB. Based on my review of TB's actions, there has been little except campaign rhetoric regarding this issue. IB is on record as having requested such a channel. Read the chats; you can start here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/only-randy-petersen/670321-livechat-transcripts-w-randy-johnmcg-internet-brands.html?highlight=chat+internet+brands
Yeah, sure. I spend every hour that god gives me reviewing 3 year old threads ;).

But since you provided the link (thxs), I did skim through and you will have to tell me where it says that IB wanted an IB only forum in those chats as I just can't find it. I did, however, see that JohnMcG state that, should an FTer find that IB comms were not good, they could email JohnMcG.

Presumably you have done that very recently and John has told you that IB really wants an IB only forum to be created? Because, yes, at that stage, it would make sense to have TB involved. Before that, however, it is rather pointless.

magician:
it may or may not make any difference to your discussion, but there really is a fairly active dialogue between the Moderators and IB with regard to the technical issues on FlyerTalk. While it may be handled differently than in the past, there really is not much if anything missing.

For instance, in additional to the normal active dialogues for things such as this issue, in the Moderator forum, there are two ongoing threads for general tech issues and whether you accept it or not, the Mods have done an outstanding job of letting IB know exactly what doesn't work.

For instance, in the two active thread launched since IB took over tech for FlyerTalk, there are currently 965 posts back and forth between the Mods and IB regarding tech issues. These posts have been read 9,812 times by both sides, so there is plenty of interest and while you may not want to hear this, a balance of the 80+ Moderators does make for a pretty well-balanced view of tech things and really is not any different than a reflection of our general membership base.

So, to your point, there is plenty of dialogue already existing and it has helped tremendously, though as you point out, there is certainly some distance to go. As well, in the particular issue you have in front of you, I think IB has been active on the thread devoted to the topic. so it's not that they have hidden away. As to how they go about making their tech decisions differently than what the House of Miles did, you can ask those questions in the existing forums Tech issues and Suggestions and likely to get some sort of replies. I really don't remember that you thought there needed to be a direct forum for you to talk to or dialogue with the House of Miles staff when we handled tech, so I'm not understanding the newer need. Granted, I have some but not all of the same anguish re: tech issues as you and hope that they've now understood the importance of a good search solution and as well the uptime of FlyerTalk, and they are well aware of those topics in my personal exchange with them.

I do believe that there are currently enough of a channel for dialogue to IB and that a different approach will not lead to different results. Again, look at the above numbers, your voice and concerns about certain tech issues is well-represented by your volunteer Moderators and there are any number of them who have not been shy at all with their opinions and comments toward IB.

Your better contact for these messages direct is with Brent Conver who is a registered member. He has taken the place some time ago of JohnMcG for the overall general management of the travel sector for IB which includes FlyerTalk.

Surely you read the transcripts of the various chats and whatnot Randy and IB had with us while Randy was selling this place to IB, yes? They expressed a distinct desire to have an active communication channel open between FT and IB. Based on my review of TB's actions, there has been little except campaign rhetoric regarding this issue. IB is on record as having requested such a channel. Read the chats; you can start here: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/only-randy-petersen/670321-livechat-transcripts-w-randy-johnmcg-internet-brands.html?highlight=chat+internet+brands

magician:
it may or may not make any difference to your discussion, but there really is a fairly active dialogue between the Moderators and IB with regard to the technical issues on FlyerTalk. While it may be handled differently than in the past, there really is not much if anything missing.

For instance, in additional to the normal active dialogues for things such as this issue, in the Moderator forum, there are two ongoing threads for general tech issues and whether you accept it or not, the Mods have done an outstanding job of letting IB know exactly what doesn't work.

For instance, in the two active thread launched since IB took over tech for FlyerTalk, there are currently 965 posts back and forth between the Mods and IB regarding tech issues. These posts have been read 9,812 times by both sides, so there is plenty of interest and while you may not want to hear this, a balance of the 80+ Moderators does make for a pretty well-balanced view of tech things and really is not any different than a reflection of our general membership base.

So, to your point, there is plenty of dialogue already existing and it has helped tremendously, though as you point out, there is certainly some distance to go. As well, in the particular issue you have in front of you, I think IB has been active on the thread devoted to the topic. so it's not that they have hidden away. As to how they go about making their tech decisions differently than what the House of Miles did, you can ask those questions in the existing forums Tech issues and Suggestions and likely to get some sort of replies. I really don't remember that you thought there needed to be a direct forum for you to talk to or dialogue with the House of Miles staff when we handled tech, so I'm not understanding the newer need. Granted, I have some but not all of the same anguish re: tech issues as you and hope that they've now understood the importance of a good search solution and as well the uptime of FlyerTalk, and they are well aware of those topics in my personal exchange with them.

I do believe that there are currently enough of a channel for dialogue to IB and that a different approach will not lead to different results. Again, look at the above numbers, your voice and concerns about certain tech issues is well-represented by your volunteer Moderators and there are any number of them who have not been shy at all with their opinions and comments toward IB.

It's not just tech issues. Where can we go to discuss other issues with IB? If I want to ask a question about the general direction of FT or what their vision is for the next year, for instance, where would I go for that discussion?

Further, your analysis suggests that the moderators have lots of interaction with IB. That's nice. But what about the non-moderators? Do they not count?

TBers have campaigned on trying to get an open channel for communication with IB; hopefully they'll see this proposal as exactly that opportunity. ^

Your better contact for these messages direct is with Brent Conver who is a registered member. He has taken the place some time ago of JohnMcG for the overall general management of the travel sector for IB which includes FlyerTalk.

Amazing that we need a forum proposal in TB for this information to come out. Kind of makes my point, doesn't it Randy?

What is Brent Conver's username?

Not really. A point might be made that no matter how much time you spend on FlyerTalk you really never read it all. For instance, here's a post by Brent all the way back from 2007 where he asks members to let him know if he can be of any assistance. You'll note that he has Internet Brands in his profile:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/8892124-post111.html

If you were interested in how to contact someone or who to contact, a note to me or a volunteer moderator would have garnered this same reply. No real need to start a thread. We're really here for many reasons, learn to use us for these types of things.

And as you'll note in the above link, his user name is bconver
Amazing that we need a forum proposal in TB for this information to come out. Kind of makes my point, doesn't it Randy?

What is Brent Conver's username?

Not really. A point might be made that no matter how much time you spend on FlyerTalk you really never read it all. For instance, here's a post by Brent all the way back from 2007 where he asks members to let him know if he can be of any assistance. You'll note that he has Internet Brands in his profile:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/8892124-post111.html

If you were interested in how to contact someone or who to contact, a note to me or a volunteer moderator would have garnered this same reply. No real need to start a thread. We're really here for many reasons, learn to use us for these types of things.

And as you'll note in the above link, his user name is bconver

So why don't we just do the same with you? Why do we bother having an Only RP forum? If we should just PM you with concerns, why bother with the forum?

The answer, it seems to me, is that there is value in having an open and community channel of communication with IB. Private messages are fine, but they're pretty inefficient when it comes to a community conveying information. Don't you agree?

Obviously at the risk of repeating myself, you seem to want me to disappear or just enjoy pretending I'm not here. It's been pointed out, many times to you and others that while IB is solely responsible for the tech and advertising of FlyerTalk, that I still run the day-to-day operations and unless you got an email I didn't, I haven't been fired from that role as of a few minutes ago. So, if your question is about general direction of tech, then there are forums for that. If its about FT in the bigger picture, come visit me in ORP. But it just may disappoint you when I say that there is no specific vision. I enjoy FlyerTalk as a community of like-minded travelers. I don't feel the need to have some spreadsheet that say our vision is so many posts next years by X number of members and sell so many ads. Sorry, that's not the nature of FlyerTalk to date on my side of things. How about this vision which I'll borrow -- "Do No Evil." Seriously, on a training chat with a number of volunteer moderators (and we'll get to your seemingly distrust of them later) last night, someone asked me what my current goals were for FT and while i outlines broadly some things for our volunteers, I told them that in the near side of things, I really wanted to go back to the idea of Ambassadors. We've had a lot of growth on FlyerTalk -- new member enrollments are up 67% so far for the year and as a result, so is the number of posts by members. I'm fairly comfortable with the overall direction and program of volunteers (and while you'll have your opinion, among the industry, our program is regarded as world-class) but am bothered by doing a much better job of managing two things: 1) a welcome environment from moment one on FlyerTalk and 2) easy access to answers to a newbies questions. As for #1, members do a fairly positive job of welcoming members but in the busiest and the least visited, i think it's either being overwhelmed or underwhelmed and as such for new members. We've really got some excellent general members and I'd like to find a useful and rewarding manner in which to take advantage of their generosity of time and positive contributions for FlyerTalk. Fact is we have a large number of volunteers to become Moderators but I really don't want to grow that group for the sake of growing it. As a result, maybe there is a way to create other types of opportunities for these kinds of volunteers. FlyerTalk when you step outside, is very, very intimidating. And #2 and it's not new but balancing the need for "Experts Only" and a "Beginners Slope" for members of FlyerTalk.

Anyway, you get the idea I hope.

As for non-mods, maybe civics is a good answer for you. In most large communities, there are appointed or elected groups of the general population to serve as funnels for being heard. You will never convince me that you have something to say that isn't already being heard. Is it best to have a forum where it is 200,000 trying to be heard against a handful, or the current system of 80+ that are very represented of the general membership to funnel the dialogue so that is is heard and not just managed.

Question: Just why is it that you never seem to feel that you are heard? Is this just a FlyerTalk thing or does it reveb in other parts of your life. Just wondering because you seem to always stand out on things like this and certainly continue to think that Mods have reptile skins. I've just never noticed any difference between a volunteer and our other members.

It's not just tech issues. Where can we go to discuss other issues with IB? If I want to ask a question about the general direction of FT or what their vision is for the next year, for instance, where would I go for that discussion?

Further, your analysis suggests that the moderators have lots of interaction with IB. That's nice. But what about the non-moderators? Do they not count?

TBers have campaigned on trying to get an open channel for communication with IB; hopefully they'll see this proposal as exactly that opportunity. ^

I don't believe that statement is completely accurate.

My second question would be why wasn't anyone on FT asked prior to making the change.
Neither is this one.

But making bold claims out of ignorance isn't something that should be punished so we all move on in life.

Obviously at the risk of repeating myself, you seem to want me to disappear or just enjoy pretending I'm not here. It's been pointed out, many times to you and others that while IB is solely responsible for the tech and advertising of FlyerTalk, that I still run the day-to-day operations and unless you got an email I didn't, I haven't been fired from that role as of a few minutes ago. So, if your question is about general direction of tech, then there are forums for that. If its about FT in the bigger picture, come visit me in ORP. But it just may disappoint you when I say that there is no specific vision. I enjoy FlyerTalk as a community of like-minded travelers. I don't feel the need to have some spreadsheet that say our vision is so many posts next years by X number of members and sell so many ads. Sorry, that's not the nature of FlyerTalk to date on my side of things. How about this vision which I'll borrow -- "Do No Evil." Seriously, on a training chat with a number of volunteer moderators (and we'll get to your seemingly distrust of them later) last night, someone asked me what my current goals were for FT and while i outlines broadly some things for our volunteers, I told them that in the near side of things, I really wanted to go back to the idea of Ambassadors. We've had a lot of growth on FlyerTalk -- new member enrollments are up 67% so far for the year and as a result, so is the number of posts by members. I'm fairly comfortable with the overall direction and program of volunteers (and while you'll have your opinion, among the industry, our program is regarded as world-class) but am bothered by doing a much better job of managing two things: 1) a welcome environment from moment one on FlyerTalk and 2) easy access to answers to a newbies questions. As for #1, members do a fairly positive job of welcoming members but in the busiest and the least visited, i think it's either being overwhelmed or underwhelmed and as such for new members. We've really got some excellent general members and I'd like to find a useful and rewarding manner in which to take advantage of their generosity of time and positive contributions for FlyerTalk. Fact is we have a large number of volunteers to become Moderators but I really don't want to grow that group for the sake of growing it. As a result, maybe there is a way to create other types of opportunities for these kinds of volunteers. FlyerTalk when you step outside, is very, very intimidating. And #2 and it's not new but balancing the need for "Experts Only" and a "Beginners Slope" for members of FlyerTalk.

Anyway, you get the idea I hope.

As for non-mods, maybe civics is a good answer for you. In most large communities, there are appointed or elected groups of the general population to serve as funnels for being heard. You will never convince me that you have something to say that isn't already being heard. Is it best to have a forum where it is 200,000 trying to be heard against a handful, or the current system of 80+ that are very represented of the general membership to funnel the dialogue so that is is heard and not just managed.

Question: Just why is it that you never seem to feel that you are heard? Is this just a FlyerTalk thing or does it reveb in other parts of your life. Just wondering because you seem to always stand out on things like this and certainly continue to think that Mods have reptile skins. I've just never noticed any difference between a volunteer and our other members.

Wow, does someone need a ride on the RV, Randy? Why the personal attacks? :confused: I'm not going to continue to discuss this while you don't follow the TOS.

Plonk.

But making bold claims out of ignorance isn't something that should be punished so we all move on in life.

I said I would ask the question. If IB wants to inform us of the secret moderator-IB cabal that makes decisions around here, the forum would be a great place for it.

Yeah, sure. I spend every hour that god gives me reviewing 3 year old threads ;).


If you don't want to do the research, that's not my problem. ;)



But since you provided the link (thxs), I did skim through and you will have to tell me where it says that IB wanted an IB only forum in those chats as I just can't find it. I did, however, see that JohnMcG state that, should an FTer find that IB comms were not good, they could email JohnMcG.

Presumably you have done that very recently and John has told you that IB really wants an IB only forum to be created? Because, yes, at that stage, it would make sense to have TB involved. Before that, however, it is rather pointless.

Read through the chats and you'll find that IB quite clearly claimed open communication going forward. Maybe they just said this to appease us while Randy was selling the joint to them?

there really is a fairly active dialogue between the Moderators and IB with regard to the technical issues on FlyerTalk.

How about between the TalkBoard and Internet Brands, though? Does the TalkBoard have a relationship with Internet Brands, where they can be consulted on changes or the future of FT, or is that strictly limited to moderators?

Not limited at all to Moderators, it's just more convenient because there are 80+ mods who are typically very active in their own private forum vs. 9 TB members who generally aren't that active if there is not much put forth from members for their consideration. It really has nothing to to do with mods vs. TB vs. members. It's really just a matter of practical convenience. And actually, the mods do not even engage in conversations re: the future of FT, etc. if you think you're being left out. IB remains content in their choice to continue having me run FT and that leaves much of any "future" in my hands. As noted, FT can pride themselves as being more organic because of its members and no real need to change that. I certainly don't wield spreadsheets and a Brooks Brothers or Dockers approach. As for changes related to tech you'd be a lost bet if you thought that IB always consults the Mods on changes. What is often lost is that IB owns more than 100 other Web sites, so they obviously have a laboratory of other practices and performance issues from some of the successes of those other Web sites and as such there is certainly going to be times when they put into play something that while emotionally isn't to our liking because of the past, it works in other similar environments with other online communities. Can't say I'd argue against that and while we always think we're pretty different and special (come on, we know we are!) it doesn't pass that someone will have a better idea, or at least a different one. Just look at our members success at forums. We've seen members politic for the establishment of certain forums only to see that they did not pan out with projected traffic and other similar ideas. No big deal, we made the changes to scale them back.

As for TB and IB, there just doesn't seem much in common to chat about since IB still entrusts me to run FT and as a practical matter, tech issues aside, nothing much if any thing has changed with me and TB as compared to prior to IB entering the arena. In April, many members of TB will meet in person (we did that a few years ago as well) and I've invited some of the executives of IB to stop by and say hello. So we may see a new level or channel of dialogue, but the fact is, IB really doesn't want to interfere with the organic nature of everyday life on FT and has shown so through the past few years. We should be fairly happy with that type of situation.

Anyway, not sure if i correctly addressed your question and please let me know how better i can do so.

Randy
How about between the TalkBoard and Internet Brands, though? Does the TalkBoard have a relationship with Internet Brands, where they can be consulted on changes or the future of FT, or is that strictly limited to moderators?

I said I would ask the question. If IB wants to inform us of the secret moderator-IB cabal that makes decisions around here, the forum would be a great place for it.

You didn't "ask the question." You made an accusation. A question would have been "Was anyone outside of IB consulted prior to X happening?" rather than "Why was no one consulted?"

See the difference?

You didn't "ask the question." You made an accusation. A question would have been "Was anyone outside of IB consulted prior to X happening?" rather than "Why was no one consulted?"

See the difference?

I see the difference but it is a difference without meaning in this case. I don't consider interacting with a small cabal of unelected moderators to be consulting with FT. Sorry, YMMV.

IB doesn't get FT and never has ... creating an IB-only forum won't improve anything. Getting them involved and communicating on tech issues that are theirs to address, is usually a minimum half day event and usually a day or more before they pop in to say they are looking at, aware of it, or whatever. Rarely is it an exchange as in the days when HOM ran the place and I freely admit to missing that. The different levels of support and responsiveness (and even competency on occasion) are significant, and I think we as a community need to continue to lower our expectations which is just sad.

As for comments Randy has made in this thread regarding Mods and their communication with IB, while I appreciate they have a forum in which to complain, and I know they do plenty of complaining themselves, I think Randy's assertion that Mods reflect regular user activity is a misnomer, as they tap the system differently, for different purposes than the regular user community and we all have different expectations. They can definitely play a role in trumpeting issues we're experiencing and have documented, but they should not be representing all of us in what changes should be made, especially with no discussion out to the community. Moreover, if IB communicates with them maybe removing that layer will provide more visibility to the community by IB than currently exists, and which absolutely contributes to the frustration experienced since their takeover.

A comment that I believe was also Randys that we could never expect to read all of FT is THE point which makes IBs latest change a poor one for the FT world, as people just do not read everything, ever. Whether it's within one busy forum or across the whole board - there just isn't enough time in the day to read all that and have a life (and travel, must include travel). We all pick and choose, but with this new enhancement that picking and choosing became significantly more difficult with a lot more clutter than there ever was before. I think "regular" users would have provided a different response to IB than the Mods or whoever sbm12 is so busy saying was involved with the testing/review/assessment process for new "enhancements".

IMO - this latest enhancement is just another scenario where IB has once again failed basic expectations in communication and technology with the FT community.

Anyway, not sure if i correctly addressed your question and please let me know how better i can do so.

I think you've explained it well. I had thought, from the last election campaign, that the Talk Board would be taking a bigger role in FT's relationship with IB, but it sounds like there's really not a need for that right now. Thank you.

I personally think the perspective here is a little different. In our point of view FT is an important piece of our online activity, therefore we would like to have all issues, be it on the tech or administration side, cleaned up.

Internet Brand wants the same - but more for operational and business than for emotional reasons. The recent outage / cyber attack showed how vulnerable the whole IB empire (and probably any comparable enterprise) is. This is not about an individual issue just effecting FlyerTalk. There are talks with IB behind the scenes... however if it's about tech stuff then what are you supposed to do except hoping it get's better. This comes from someone smashing his notebook with a baseball bat... :o

So regarding the original post, I think the proposal that magiciansampras made came with the best intentions. But what would such a forum actually result in ? Internet Brands operates many platforms and it is just too much to dedicate individual discussion forums next to the opportunity to contact the reps via pm. Add that up to the number of websites owned by IB !! :eek:

Thanks GoingAway. I don't know if you might have been mislead by the comments of the OP, "secret moderator-IB cabal". The actual facts of the scenario for this "latest enhancement" (your reference) if it makes any difference is that IB posted to the Moderators that they were making a change ... the very same afternoon that they made the change. There was no actual long testing period by the Mods which might have resulted in a different response nor lengthy period of input. In fact, the very first reply from a Mod regarding this issue when it was posted by IB, was that they did not think it that important to change vs. "other things that need fixing (like search, or the periods of slooooow speed on FT for instance)." The very first reply. Now, do you really think that this reply is that different than "regular" users might have posted?

Again, I totally understand you may have been mislead by the OP believing there is some sort of "secret moderator-IB cabal." There is not. I hope the addition of actual facts are of assistance to you.

I think "regular" users would have provided a different response to IB than the Mods or whoever sbm12 is so busy saying was involved with the testing/review/assessment process for new "enhancements".

IMO - this latest enhancement is just another scenario where IB has once again failed basic expectations in communication and technology with the FT community.

I personally think the perspective here is a little different. In our point of view FT is an important piece of our online activity, therefore we would like to have all issues, be it on the tech or administration side, cleaned up.

Internet Brand wants the same - but more for operational and business than for emotional reasons. The recent outage / cyber attack showed how vulnerable the whole IB empire (and probably any comparable enterprise) is. This is not about an individual issue just effecting FlyerTalk. There are talks with IB behind the scenes... however if it's about tech stuff then what are you supposed to do except hoping it get's better. This comes from someone smashing his notebook with a baseball bat... :o

So regarding the original post, I think the proposal that magiciansampras made came with the best intentions. But what would such a forum actually result in ? Internet Brands operates many platforms and it is just too much to dedicate individual discussion forums next to the opportunity to contact the reps via pm. Add that up to the number of websites owned by IB !! :eek:

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that certain TBers campaigned on trying to improve the relationship of the FT membership with IB. If not a separate forum, I'm happy to listen to their ideas. If we create the forum and it is barren, we can close it. No biggie. But maybe, just maybe, IB would feel compelled to communicate with us if there was a separate forum to use.

Clearly the current system isn't working. Any actual TBers want to chime in?

Thanks GoingAway. I don't know if you might have been mislead by the comments of the OP, "secret moderator-IB cabal". The actual facts of the scenario for this "latest enhancement" (your reference) if it makes any difference is that IB posted to the Moderators that they were making a change ... the very same afternoon that they made the change. There was no actual long testing period by the Mods which might have resulted in a different response nor lengthy period of input. In fact, the very first reply from a Mod regarding this issue when it was posted by IB, was that they did not think it that important to change vs. "other things that need fixing (like search, or the periods of slooooow speed on FT for instance)." The very first reply. Now, do you really think that this reply is that different than "regular" users might have posted?

Again, I totally understand you may have been mislead by the OP believing there is some sort of "secret moderator-IB cabal." There is not. I hope the addition of actual facts are of assistance to you.

Very interesting, thanks for this information. It might be helpful if it were also posted in the current related thread in the Technical Issues forum:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/technical-issues/1062069-my-flyertalk-showing-all-threads-since-3-1-10-a.html

Clearly the current system isn't working. Any actual TBers want to chime in?

FT seems more active than ever, and it's working a lot better than, say, the new Southwest Airlines website (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-rapid-rewards/1051189-new-southwest-website-look.html).

However, back to the point of the OP. IB is a business. They are stretched thin for staff, and IMHO we are lucky to get as much of their time as we do. We should use that limited time for the highest value FT can get. I believe that is occurring.

The problem is mostly one of perception. As Randy described, almost all the interaction with IB is occurring away from the public forums. That includes email and phone calls. IB can help with administrative problems, and these channels of communication are the best ones for that discussion. Problems posted in the Technical Issues forum WILL be raised with IB when IB is a necessary part of the fix.

A public griping forum for IB would be fun, but it would be a low-value use of the time of IB's staff. That's my opinion, anyway.

IB is a business. They are stretched thin for staff, and IMHO we are lucky to get as much of their time as we do.

LOL, imagine if we treated the airlines like this?

"Yeah, sure, United lost my bags and canceled my flight 4 times, but hey, they're busy people and we should be lucky that we get as much of their time as we do."

Classic. ^

Wirelessly posted (goingaway\'s phone: BlackBerry8900/4.6.1.231 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

Thanks GoingAway. I don't know if you might have been mislead by the comments of the OP, "secret moderator-IB cabal". The actual facts of the scenario for this "latest enhancement" (your reference) if it makes any difference is that IB posted to the Moderators that they were making a change ... the very same afternoon that they made the change. There was no actual long testing period by the Mods which might have resulted in a different response nor lengthy period of input. In fact, the very first reply from a Mod regarding this issue when it was posted by IB, was that they did not think it that important to change vs. "other things that need fixing (like search, or the periods of slooooow speed on FT for instance)." The very first reply. Now, do you really think that this reply is that different than "regular" users might have posted?

Again, I totally understand you may have been mislead by the OP believing there is some sort of "secret moderator-IB cabal." There is not. I hope the addition of actual facts are of assistance to you.

I think "regular" users would have provided a different response to IB than the Mods or whoever sbm12 is so busy saying was involved with the testing/review/assessment process for new "enhancements".

IMO - this latest enhancement is just another scenario where IB has once again failed basic expectations in communication and technology with the FT community.

Thanks, Randy. To be clear, not misled by the OP but rather sbm12's posts both in this and the tech forum thread which were fairly strong intimating that a)of course it was tested within FT and b) that he/she was one of those testers. When you post calling people liars and more, you expect there to be some reason, but apparently the post and inference were incorrect and misleading in and of themselves - disappointing all around

Read through the chats and you'll find that IB quite clearly claimed open communication going forward. Maybe they just said this to appease us while Randy was selling the joint to them?Well, I did read it through and I have to ask again the question that you pointedly failed to answer: where exactly does it say that IB wanted an IB only forum? Because while John certainly stated that he wanted comms to flow, he was distinctly non committal on any particular means of comms. OTOH, he was very clear in inviting FTers to email IB if they were under the impression that comms were not flowing adequately.

As I could not for a second imagine that you would be a person that would stir the pot for the sake of stirring the pot, I can only assume that you have in fact got in touch with IB (as John suggested in those chats that you have researched in detail) and that IB have told you that they would welcome an IB only forum, which would only makes sense if IB themselves wanted it. I note that, again, you have not answered that question. No doubt that this must be your natural shyness and modesty... ;)

i do not think its a bad idea to request more direct and prominent access to the owners of a website.

Well, I did read it through and I have to ask again the question that you pointedly failed to answer: where exactly does it say that IB wanted an IB only forum?


And where did I claim that they said this? :confused:

The IB forum is my suggestion. If you have ideas on how to increase communication between IB and FT, please feel free to speak up.

Are you on the TB? I forget.


I can only assume that you have in fact got in touch with IB (as John suggested in those chats that you have researched in detail) and that IB have told you that they would welcome an IB only forum

Wrong. My PMs to IB on this issue have been unreturned. @:-)

My PMs to IB on this issue have been unreturned. @:-)

I think that's your answer right there. @:-)

Wrong. My PMs to IB on this issue have been unreturned. @:-)Very interesting. So we have established that at no point has IB expressed the desire to see an IB only forum established.

Since there would be no point in having an IB only forum established if IB did not participate in it, it would be a waste of TB's time to create such a forum.

Therefore, until such time as IB express such a desire, any such discussion by TB would be utterly pointless and a waste of everybody's time. Time to move on.

I think that's your answer right there. @:-)

Very interesting. So we have established that at no point has IB expressed the desire to see an IB only forum established.

Since there would be no point in having an IB only forum established if IB did not participate in it, it would be a waste of TB's time to create such a forum.

Therefore, until such time as IB express such a desire, any such discussion by TB would be utterly pointless and a waste of everybody's time. Time to move on.

Nothing of the sort.

We've established that IB doesn't like communicating with me via PMs. This could be for a variety of reasons. Lots of people don't like communicating with me (see above). I ask tough questions. ;)

Nothing of the sort.

We've established that IB doesn't like communicating with me via PMs. This could be for a variety of reasons. Lots of people don't like communicating with me (see above). I ask tough questions. ;)

We haven't established that the reason people don't like communicating with you is because you ask tough questions.

We haven't established that the reason people don't like communicating with you is because you ask tough questions.

What we have established is that IB apparently doesn't like communicating with anyone. Oh, except the small group of moderators the day a change is coming. :rolleyes:

So I say open that group up! Let's let IB communicate with us all about potential changes and feedback.

Why are you against open communication channels, Spiff?

What we have established is that IB apparently doesn't like communicating with anyone.

I don't think we've established that, either.

Another possible explanation is that IB doesn't care to communicate with someone who shows tremendous disrespect to the established host of this website.

What we have established is that IB apparently doesn't like communicating with anyone. Oh, except the small group of moderators the day a change is coming. :rolleyes:

So I say open that group up! Let's let IB communicate with us all about potential changes and feedback.

Why are you against open communication channels, Spiff?I am glad that you have at last taken your mask off and recognised, implicitly, that your 'proposal' was not a through-through, constructive proposal but just a device to air your dissatisfaction with IB. So I can only go back to my first post, here: you are asking for an 'Obama only' type-forum so that some posters can rant and rave about IB. Perhaps it would have been more honest to say so right from the start?

Actually let the record show that Spiff is very much proactive for open channels of communication. That is supported factually by him being recognized by several TalkBoards, electing him Vice-President as the liaison to the community in posting up communication from the Talkboard to the members. He was elected because the members of the various TalkBoards did actually recognize Spiff believed and supported that particular open communication channel.
Why are you against open communication channels, Spiff?

Another possible explanation is that IB doesn't care to communicate with someone who shows tremendous disrespect to the established host of this website.

LOL, disrespect, really? How does this square with personal attacks?

I am glad that you have at last taken your mask off and recognised, implicitly, that your 'proposal' was not a through-through, constructive proposal but just a device to air your dissatisfaction with IB. So I can only go back to my first post, here: you are asking for an 'Obama only' type-forum so that some posters can rant and rave about IB. Perhaps it would have been more honest to say so right from the start?

Of course this is about airing my dissatisfaction with IB - why else would the forum exist, to shower them with praise? :confused: IB has made some terrible decisions recently and we should be able to discuss them openly. ^

Of course this is about airing my dissatisfaction with IB - why else would the forum exist, to shower them with praise? :confused: IB has made some terrible decisions recently and we should be able to discuss them openly. ^
Why do you feel you can't discuss them openly?

Why do you feel you can't discuss them openly?

Because they never respond! It's like talking to a wall. I want a place where they are expected to respond, just like ORP.

LOL, disrespect, really?

Yes, really.

I think that your posts to Randy are frequently disrespectful. I also think that the manner in which you choose to attempt to engage Randy is confrontational at times and very dismissive at other times. I suspect that I am not the only person with this opinion.

Yes, really.

I think that your posts to Randy are frequently disrespectful. I also think that the manner in which you choose to attempt to engage Randy is confrontational at times and very dismissive at other times. I suspect that I am not the only person with this opinion.

Well thank you for your opinion, but it's severely off-topic and as Randy often says, let's try to stay on topic. I welcome your thoughts through PM.

Because they never respond! It's like talking to a wall. I want a place where they are expected to respond, just like ORP.So because your classmate does not want to play with you, you think that stamping your feet on the ground and shouting "mummy, mummy, he does not want to play with me" will get him to play with you?

So because your classmate does not want to play with you, you think that stamping your feet on the ground and shouting "mummy, mummy, he does not want to play with me" will get him to play with you?

:confused:

What is this supposed to mean? I find your response incoherent. Can you rephrase, please?

Well thank you for your opinion, but it's severely off-topic and as Randy often says, let's try to stay on topic. I welcome your thoughts through PM.

Not really. You've chosen to publicly wonder why IB doesn't choose to communicate with you. You also asked for clarification of what I meant by 'disrespectful'. I'm merely providing a possible explanation in addition to the specious explanations you've offered.

Not really. You've chosen to publicly wonder why IB doesn't choose to communicate with you. You also asked for clarification of what I meant by 'disrespectful'. I'm merely providing a possible explanation in addition to the specious explanations you've offered.

I don't publicly wonder why IB doesn't communicate with me. I know why they don't: they have no interest in doing so. That's why I want to open up a channel to them. I want them to know that the FT population wants to communicate with them. It's not just me. Read that thread in technical.

Your point about me disrespecting Randy is simply off-topic to this discussion. I appreciate your concern though.

Edited to add: I took Randy off ignore, so Randy, if you feel disrespected by my questions here, please send me a PM so we can sort it out. Thanks!

:confused:

What is this supposed to mean? I find your response incoherent.You know, I am not altogether surprised. You seem to have great difficulties in looking at your situation with any sense of detachment.

Can you rephrase, please?You want IB to play with you and you find that they won't. Instead of asking yourself why this is so and/or of moving on, you turn to mummy TB in the hope that mummy TB will coerce IB to play with you, ignoring in the process that TB cannot coerce IB to play with you and that the issue is between you and IB, not between TB and IB.

I don't publicly wonder why IB doesn't communicate with me. I know why they don't: they have no interest in doing so. That's why I want to open up a channel to them. I want them to know that the FT population wants to communicate with them. It's not just me. Read that thread in technical.

Your point about me disrespecting Randy is simply off-topic to this discussion. I appreciate your concern though.

Edited to add: I took Randy off ignore, so Randy, if you feel disrespected by my questions here, please send me a PM so we can sort it out. Thanks!

Of course your PM box is full. :D

Of course your PM box is full. :D

Oh crap, that explains it! :D

You know, I am not altogether surprised. You seem to have great difficulties in looking at your situation with any sense of detachment.


:confused:

Again, is this anything other than a personal attack? I don't see the relevance of your comment vis-a-vis this thread. Can you explain?


You want IB to play with you


Um, no. I don't want anyone to play with me. Thanks.


Instead of asking yourself why this is so and/or of moving on, you turn to mummy TB in the hope that mummy TB will coerce IB to play with you, ignoring in the process that TB cannot coerce IB to play with you and that the issue is between you and IB, not between TB and IB.

Why are you so hostile to the idea of an IB forum when IB is on the record of wanting open communication with the FT populace? Do you feel that private messages to managers at IB constitutes "open communication"? Do you not see value in a venue for FTers to express displeasure with what is occurring on FT, both technical and otherwise? Do you have any alternate proposals on how FTers should communicate with IB?

Why are you so hostile to the idea of an IB forum when IB is on the record of wanting open communication with the FT populace? Do you feel that private messages to managers at IB constitutes "open communication"? Do you not see value in a venue for FTers to express displeasure with what is occurring on FT, both technical and otherwise? Do you have any alternate proposals on how FTers should communicate with IB?I am not hostile to an "IB only forum" in itself provided that we have established that IB want to participate in such a forum. If they have not, there is not point whatsoever. As we have established further up in the thread, at no point has there been a suggestion from IB that they wanted that. It is therefore a complete waste of time. It is exactly the same as asking for an "Obama only" forum. A pointless exercise.

I am, OTOH, not altogether impressed by attempts to involve the governance of FT in the pursuance of personal agendas.

I am not hostile to an "IB only forum" in itself provided that we have established that IB want to participate in such a forum. If they have not, there is not point whatsoever. As we have established further up in the thread, at no point has there been a suggestion from IB that they wanted that. It is therefore a complete waste of time. It is exactly the same as asking for an "Obama only" forum. A pointless exercise.


I don't think we've established that IB doesn't want a forum. What evidence is there of that? :confused:

Further, is it your view that TB should only implement new forums when IB wants them? If so why not just get rid of TB and let IB do it? Let's cut out the middle man. I don't believe for a second that you actually mean to suggest that TB should get IB's consent on decision-making.


I am, OTOH, not altogether impressed by attempts to involve the governance of FT in the pursuance of personal agendas.

Huh? What "personal agenda" is this? And is it the same personal agenda of lucky and markie who both campaigned on the same exact thing I am proposing here? :confused:

I don't think we've established that IB doesn't want a forum. What evidence is there of that? :confused: Cart before the horse. We have not established that there is a willingness of IB to participate in such a forum. Until such a willingness is established, it is a waste of energy to create a forum.

Further, is it your view that TB should only implement new forums when IB wants them?No but as I said right in my first post in this thread (god, this is hard work :(, perhaps if I repeat it 1000 times, it will start to sink through...), an IB only forum only makes sense if IB participate otherwise, it would jsut be a ranting and raving forum for bitter and disaffected FTers.[/QUOTE]

Cart before the horse. We have not established that there is a willingness of IB to participate in such a forum. Until such a willingness is established, it is a waste of energy to create a forum.


But what we have established, based on what IB said during the sale of FT, is that they want open communication with FT. They didn't say just moderators. They didn't say just TB. They said with FT. Now all we're doing is arguing about the venue.



No but as I said right in my first post in this thread (god, this is hard work :(, perhaps if I repeat it 1000 times, it will start to sink through...), an IB only forum only makes sense if IB participate otherwise, it would jsut be a ranting and raving forum for bitter and disaffected FTers.

You are assuming IB won't participate. Why? They have shown a willingness to communicate with FT.

I'm interested in your theory about personal agenda. Can you expound on that? Or is it just a hit and run type thing?

You are assuming IB won't participate. Why?Fine, no problem. I am not basing myself on assumptions but on facts. As soon as you can produce a clear statement from IB that they do want such a forum, I will be entirely in favour of it. Feel free to come back when you have it. Until then, the existence or otherwise of such willingness is nothing more than pure speculation on your part.

Fine, no problem. I am not basing myself on assumptions but on facts. As soon as you can produce a clear statement from IB that they do want such a forum, I will be entirely in favour of it. Feel free to come back when you have it. Until then, the existence or otherwise of such willingness is nothing more than pure speculation on your part.

So let me get this straight. You like the idea of the forum, you just don't think that IB wants it.

I gotta ask: why do you care what IB wants or doesn't want? Do you work for them or something? :confused:

And does your allegiance to IB end here or should all TB decisions be vetted by IB? After all, shouldn't we make sure IB is cool with them? Heaven forbid TB should OK a forum that IB doesn't want.

I find your position to be quite untenable my good man.

This seems to be getting a little or a lot off-topic and more a conversation with one-to-many or many-to-one. Let's cool this off for a little while and maybe enjoy FlyerTalk for what it can be to each member -- very valuable toward the topic of miles, points and travel. Let's see if we have any consensus from the TB to take this recommendation up for a new forum before continuing down the current path.

Thank you all for understanding.