TalkBoard Topics - Discussion: Proposed clean-up of forum names

Markie and I, with the assistance of a few FlyerTalk members and moderators, have identified some forum titles that are not consistent with standard FlyerTalk forum naming conventions, the names of the programs being discussed, or generally accepted correct grammatical usage.

In the interest of consistency, we propose the following modifications to the forum titles. Now, I'm going to subscribe to the Linus Torvalds/Jimbo Wales theory of refinement--that is, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"--and publish this list here for comment. Anyone see any issues with any of the suggestions below?

American AAdvantage be renamed to American Airlines AAdvantage

Miles & More (Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, and other partners) be renamed to Miles & More (Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, and other airline partners)

Virgin flying club be renamed to Virgin Atlantic Airways Flying Club

Southwest Rapid Rewards be renamed to Southwest Airlines Rapid Rewards

Continental OnePass be renamed to Continental Airlines OnePass

SAS EuroBonus be renamed to SAS Scandinavian Airlines EuroBonus

United Mileage Plus be renamed to United Airlines Mileage Plus

Other North & South America Frequent Flyer Programs be renamed to Other North and South America Frequent Flyer Programs

InterContinental Hotels: Priority Club & Inter-Continental Ambassador be renamed to InterContinental Hotels (Priority Club and InterContinental Ambassador)

Avis be renamed to Avis Preferred

Budget be renamed to Budget FastBreak

Dollar be renamed to Dollar Express Renter Rewards

Hertz be renamed to Hertz #1 Club

National be renamed to National Emerald Club

Thrifty be renamed to Thrifty Blue Chip

Other Car Rental Programs/Partners (ie. Alamo, Enterprise, Sixt) be renamed to Other Car Rental Programs (Alamo, Enterprise, Sixt, and others)

Credit Card Programs/Partners be renamed to Credit Card Programs

Other Loyalty Programs/Partners be renamed to Other Loyalty Programs

Discontinued Programs/Partners be renamed to Discontinued Programs

Phones Programs/Partners be renamed to Telecommunications Partnerships

Washington D.C. (including Baltimore) be renamed to Washington D.C. and Baltimore

Australia, New Zealand & the South Pacific be renamed to Australia, New Zealand, and the South Pacific

Miles&Points be renamed to Miles and Points

Travel&Dining be renamed to Travel and Dining

Qantas Frequent Flyer be renamed to Qantas Airways Frequent Flyer

Delta SkyMiles be renamed to Delta Air Lines SkyMiles

Cathay Pacific Asia Miles be renamed to Cathay Pacific Airways Asia Miles

bmi diamond club be renamed to bmi Diamond Club

Flying Blue (Air France, KLM, and Other Partners) be renamed to Flying Blue (Air France, KLM, and other airline partners)

I've never seen the term 'Virgin Atlantic Airways' used by anyone to describe VS. Amending the name to further distinguish it from VX is a good idea, so please drop Airways and just use the name that Virgin itself uses - Virgin Atlantic to make it Virgin Atlantic Flying Club.

Given many/several TB member's desire not to inform the forums of changes such as these, I have taken the liberty of informing the VS forum of your suggestion and inviting them to comment if they feel so inclined. A good idea would be to start a similar thread in all the forums for which name changes are suggested IMHO. The VS thread can be seen at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/virgin-flying-club/1168806-forum-name-change-new-post.html

National - Emerald Club is only available in some parts of the world, so that does seem to preclude discussion of National outside the US?

I hate Telecommunications Partnerships - it just sounds so jargony and is not immediately apparent what is meant. Some I have no view on, and a number of others are tidying up

(sorry, I am being picky, but that's what you asked for. A lot of the others seem pretty sensible to me!).

I've never seen the term 'Virgin Atlantic Airways' used by anyone to describe VS. Amending the name to further distinguish it from VX is a good idea, so please drop Airways and just use the name that Virgin itself uses - Virgin Atlantic to make it Virgin Atlantic Flying Club.

We can look at these individually, but the original goal is to create some consistency in the naming of forums. It seemed a good idea to us for the standard to be [airline name] [name of program].

If that particular style stands out as unrepresentative of a given brand, though, I'm certainly willing to incorporate suggestions.

National - Emerald Club is only available in some parts of the world, so that does seem to preclude discussion of National outside the US?

The car rental section is the only section of the forum where just the company's name instead of the program's name is used. Additionally, the request for dedicated forums for some of the other car rental companies (Enterprise, Alamo, etc.) has come up several times before (though not since I've been on TalkBoard), and the reasoning is always the same: request denied because that rental company does not have an actual "program" with defined benefits. If we're going to restrict who gets a forum based on whether they have a program, why not name the program represented by that forum?

As for international National (:p) locations not participating in Emerald Club: the vast majority of discussion in the National forum is U.S.-centered, and the vast majority of National's business is done in the U.S. Additionally, most of the international National locations I'm familiar with are actually branded Europcar, not National, and so would be discussed in the Other Car Rental Programs forum. (For that matter, should we add Europcar to the title of that forum?)

I hate Telecommunications Partnerships - it just sounds so jargony and is not immediately apparent what is meant.

What would you suggest, then? Phones Programs/Partnerships makes zero sense to me and seems grammatically ridiculous. Why is "phones" pluralized? What is a "phone program"? If you can come up with something better, please do! (I almost suggested "Telecommunications Provider Partnerships," which might be a bit clearer but seemed a bit long and unwieldy.)

Given many/several TB member's desire not to inform the forums of changes such as these, I have taken the liberty of informing the VS forum of your suggestion and inviting them to comment if they feel so inclined. A good idea would be to start a similar thread in all the forums for which name changes are suggested IMHO. The VS thread can be seen at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/virgin-flying-club/1168806-forum-name-change-new-post.html

That is a good idea and one I will be happy to pursue. However, I don't have the time to undertake such an action tonight, so please don't interpret a lack of immediate action on this suggestion as a lack of agreement with it. (If anyone else wants to take up the banner and notify the masses, I won't complain! :D)

Miles & More (Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, and other partners) be renamed to Miles & More (Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, and other airline partners)



I rather prefer the current shorter version, it is self explanatory that the other partners are airlines. :o

Additionally, most of the international National locations I'm familiar with are actually branded Europcar, not National, and so would be discussed in the Other Car Rental Programs forum. (For that matter, should we add Europcar to the title of that forum?) In the UK, both National and Europcar exist. Our corporate account is with National (hence I know there is no Emerald Club :().

If you want to explicitly make the National forum even more US-centric than it is now, then by all means, go ahead. You sought suggestions and input and I gave you one.

If you want consistency, then if you go with Virgin Atlantic Airways Flying Club, then you also have to go with British Midland Airways Diamond Club and United Air Lines. All companies have different company names than the names they use as the style for their airlines. Current suggestion is to use the style name for two and the corporate name for the other. And then of course we get into KLM Royal Dutch Airlines versus KLM ;)

I wouldnt put Airways and Airlines in the names of the boards. The only one i would do it with is American Airlines as that is what they are known by.

Virgin Atlantic isnt really know as Virgin Atlantic Airways for example.

As a regular user of the Virgin Atlantic forum, I concur with Jenbel, the forum mod. No one I know ever refers to the airline as Virgin Atlantic Airways
The phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" springs to mind.

Nick

If you're going to add "Airlines" and "Airways", then by the same logic, shouldn't you be proposing

Avis be renamed to Avis Car Rental Preferred ?

bmi diamond club be renamed to bmi Diamond Club

bmi diamond club is branded and marketed with lowercase letters, so this change is not necessary.

however, the airline has recently renamed itself and is now "bmi British Midland International", so the correct, full title is now

"bmi British Midland International diamond club"

I have a few suggestions, mainly for grammar but also for clarity:

Hawaii-based Airlines should be Hawaii-Based Airlines

Travel with Pets should be Travelling With Pets

Travel with Children should be Travelling With Children

South should be Southern United States

Midwest should be Midwestern United States

West should be Western United States

Why do you hate the ampersand so!? What has it ever done to you!? ;)
United Mileage Plus be renamed to United Airlines Mileage Plus

In its rules the Mileage Plus program refers to "United Airlines and its affiliates (collectively, "United")." (http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,1155,00.html?navSource=MPFooter&linkTitle=C4.4)

Further the merged company appears to be branding in general away from "United Airlines" to "United."

bmi diamond club is branded and marketed with lowercase letters, so this change is not necessary.

however, the airline has recently renamed itself and is now "bmi British Midland International", so the correct, full title is now

"bmi British Midland International diamond club"

On this page - http://www.flybmi.com/bmi/en-gb/loyalty-programmes/reward-programmes.aspx - Diamond Club seems to be in caps, even on the image of the card.

The styling bmi British Midland International seems an excellent idea.

I like to use the names that the airlines/programmes use to self-identify.

Great comments so far, please keep them coming!

As a regular user of the Virgin Atlantic forum, I concur with Jenbel, the forum mod. No one I know ever refers to the airline as Virgin Atlantic Airways
The phrase "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" springs to mind.

Nick

The Virgin website refers to them as Virgin Atlantic Airways - http://www.virgin.com/company/virgin-atlantic-airways/ - although the airlines web site seems to be just Virgin Atlantic - http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/index.jsp?cm_mmc=UK%20Affiliates-_-virgin.com-_-general-_-link

The Virgin Atlantic website copyright is © Copyright 2011 Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. All rights reserved

So I can see it either way. If a majority of members on the VS board want to drop the Atlantic then I don't see any harm.

Despite being an academic, and into pedantry when the occasion warrants, this time I think it doesn't. The insistence on using the full corporate form of airline names seems, to me, to be overkill. It makes things longer, hence harder to take in at a glance, with no offsetting benefit.

Is anyone confused that "Delta SkyMiles" refers to Delta Air Lines SkyMiles, for example? It's in a list of airlines, for gosh sake, on a site discussing frequent flyer programs. Is someone going to think it's about Delta Faucets or the end of a river? Let's get real here.

Ditto for many of the others. There is no possible way anyone might think "Qantas" refers to anything but Qantas Airways. Does the word "Airways" add anything except extra letters? I doubt it.

As regards car rental companies, there is a lot of discussion in all of them about the company itself beyond its frequent renter program. I don't think adding the name of the program adds any value. Other than consistency with the way airline forums are named, what's the point of specifying this? (We all know what Ralph Waldo Emerson said about consistency.)

And why the hatred of the ampersand? Everyone who speaks any language that uses a Latin-based alphabet knows what it means. It's shorter than the word "and." Not a huge difference, I grant, but is going from a shorter form to a longer one an improvement?

Some of the suggestions make a lot of sense. Removing "/Partners" from the "Programs/Partners" forums (fora?) are in this category. Promoting Baltimore from its current second-class status is another. It might also make sense to rename "Suggestions" so people don't keep asking for suggestions on how to find a cheap air fare from A to B. However, I think most are an exercise in formalism at the expense of clarity. When the context is a Web site forum list, not a legal document, I vote for clarity.

What was the catalyst for these proposed changes? Were massive amounts of folks confused about how to find their forum of interest? MHO is it's a solution to a problem I'm not entirely sure existed though of course YMMV.

The Virgin website refers to them as Virgin Atlantic Airways - http://www.virgin.com/company/virgin-atlantic-airways/ - although the airlines web site seems to be just Virgin Atlantic - http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/index.jsp?cm_mmc=UK%20Affiliates-_-virgin.com-_-general-_-link

The Virgin Atlantic website copyright is © Copyright 2011 Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd. All rights reserved

So I can see it either way. If a majority of members on the VS board want to drop the Atlantic then I don't see any harm.

And also as 'Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited' and 'VAA' but no one uses those either, so being selective about one name when others are available is perhaps a little subjective?

I agree with Nick and Jenbel - no one in recent history has used 'Virgin Atlantic Airways' to describe VS.

Now, Virgin Atlantic Flying Club I could handle, and that differentiates from say Virgin America Elevate, etc., it's the 'Airways' that's out of place :D. At least the capitalization would be right, oh and I too hate ampersands!

And also as 'Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited' and 'VAA' but no one uses those either, so being selective about one name when others are available is perhaps a little subjective?

I agree with Nick and Jenbel - no one in recent history has used 'Virgin Atlantic Airways' to describe VS.

Now, Virgin Atlantic Flying Club I could handle, and that differentiates from say Virgin America Elevate, etc., it's the 'Airways' that's out of place :D. At least the capitalization would be right, oh and I too hate ampersands!

I have to agree with above views. Virgin Atlantic Flying Club ^

& whats all this fuss about ampersands? :rolleyes:

What was the catalyst for these proposed changes? Were massive amounts of folks confused about how to find their forum of interest? MHO is it's a solution to a problem I'm not entirely sure existed though of course YMMV.

Great question. Totally agree.

I'd like to commend jackal and Markie for kicking off this discussion. The forum naming convention does appear slightly ad hoc at the moment so their proposal to introduce a degree of standardisation will add polish to the forum lists.

Virgin Atlantic Flying Club. The company may be registered as Virgin Atlantic Airways, but it's branding and advertising is all simply "Virgin Atlantic".

With the expansion of the other Virgin airlines (Blue, America, etc) the inclusion of Atlantic in the forum title makes sense so as to differentiate it from those sister airlines.

Sounds like a great time to use the polling feature available to moderators in their individual forums and let the members decide. As I don't fly Virgin/Virgin Atlantic, I wouldn't know what the users in that forum would prefer though see posts in this thread leaning in one direction. The polling feature could easily address that if it can't be resolved at the moderator/Talk Board level.

Great question. Totally agree.

I also agree on the great question.
Thanks.

I also agree on the great question.
Thanks.
It was answered by another user above:

The forum naming convention does appear slightly ad hoc at the moment so their proposal to introduce a degree of standardisation will add polish to the forum lists.

I also agree on the great question.
Thanks.

+3

Quoting myself for 2 reasons:

1) This is what I posted in the private TB forum & AFAIK we're allowed to quote ourselves (see below)

2) I'm running a test on a possible glitch re: TB posting that has absolutely nothing to do w/ the topic under discussion before reporting to IB IT, but didn't just want to post 'test'.

Ok I definitely have not had time to read all the proposed name changes, but here's what I would suggest.

Post the proposed name changes (yes I know it's more work) in each of the affected forums & get their input.

Right or wrong, wish or not, most folk don't go to TB, so while we're tossing it up for comments there, it's probably not going to get seen unless you do the individual forums. And in fairness, it's the FTers affected in those forums who should have input.

They may say here's my interpretation (which obviously Virgin Atlantic is doing), or they may say eh, don't really give two patooties. But they should have their say IMO.

BTW - if you do post in the individual forums, I think in this case there's no harm, no fowl in posting a link to the thread in TB - ie, you're not going to run afoul of the cross-post rules. Not like you're spamming folk ;)

Cheers. Sharon

Sorry - really do need to do a test.

Cheers.

We're very open to going with the way the member feel makes it easiest to find information, so once the comments die down, we can amend the proposal to include as many as possible before we post a formal motion.

The cross-posting in each forum concerned would be against the TOS and so I have asked the Moderator Team what they think about this, otherwise jackal and I would, most likely be suspended! Not the general idea.

Are we really discussing anything that will actually affect the user's experience?

We have forums where threads get merged 1000% more than their counterparts. That nightmare is a biggie, but apparently, not deemed worthy of discussion. Forum names - who cares, honestly?

In that context, why would silly semantics somehow fall onto anyone's radar?

We have forums where threads get merged 1000% more than their counterparts. That nightmare is a biggie, but apparently, not deemed worthy of discussion.


I am afraid that's a Moderation issue and so outside the scope of TalkBoard. The decision to close that thread is that of the Community Director, to whom we are all subservient.

Are we really discussing anything that will actually affect the user's experience?

We have forums where threads get merged 1000% more than their counterparts. That nightmare is a biggie, but apparently, not deemed worthy of discussion. Forum names - who cares, honestly?

In that context, why would silly semantics somehow fall onto anyone's radar?

Agree. It seems overly pedantic to chase minnows while whales of topics go unresolved.

I'd like to commend jackal and Markie for kicking off this discussion. The forum naming convention does appear slightly ad hoc at the moment so their proposal to introduce a degree of standardisation will add polish to the forum lists. +2^

I'll concur with some of the above to go with:

Virgin Atlantic Flying Club

which would stand out from:

Virgin America Elevate

In the future, FT may entertain two new forums, which may be:

V Australia Velocity

and a

Virgin Blue Velocity

Agree. It seems overly pedantic to chase minnows while whales of topics go unresolved.

But sometimes minnows are easier to land than whales ;)

Given I've complained previously about TB being overly quiescient and reactive to the point where they were disappearing off the radar, I think it does seem churlish to now chide them for identifying a problem themselves and going off to solve it.

They don't need to wait until someone complains about it - in fact IMHO, they shouldn't just rely on people complaining about things to identify stuff they need to look at so a ^ to Markie and jackal for being proactive.

And also as 'Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited' and 'VAA' but no one uses those either

Actually, in West Africa it was quite common for Virgin Atlantic to be referred to as "VAA" as opposed to Virgin Nigeria which was referred to as "VNA". There appeared to be a social taboo against using the word "Virgin" in polite society. Nobody used "VS" or "VK" in conversation, although ironically "VK" is being used more extensively now that the airline has dropped the Virgin branding - but Virgin Atlantic is still referred to as "VAA" in most circles.

But sometimes minnows are easier to land than whales ;)

Not always as what one poster termed a "trivial" matter went unresolved recently but I'll abstain from saying more. ;)

It's possible and even quite probable that the TalkBoard is able to multitask and deal with more than one situation at a time. :p

So while looking at eventually cleaning up and tweaking the forum names...a project which I fully support...we can also look into any number of other issues facing FlyerTalk. And we can consider both those issues raised by the membership as well as issues we have generated internally and which we list for discussion as we've done here.

The New Year is barely a week old and the gears of progress are just starting to grind. :)

I am pleased to see the Talkboard taking initiative on something they believe might enhance the member experience. I remember us briefly discussing this several years ago... and feeling that the forums were airline/hotel forums were misnamed because they were named for the reward programs when most of the discussion in the respective forums had nothing to do with the programs... but the companies and operations overall.

I might make it even simpler... and just use the company name... ie... United Airlines Forum or American Airlines Forum.... and then have the forum description say something like "For all discussion related to United Airlines and the Mileage Plus program."

Given I've complained previously about TB being overly quiescient and reactive to the point where they were disappearing off the radar, I think it does seem churlish to now chide them for identifying a problem themselves and going off to solve it.

They don't need to wait until someone complains about it - in fact IMHO, they shouldn't just rely on people complaining about things to identify stuff they need to look at so a ^ to Markie and jackal for being proactive.

Agreed. The TB may be less and less relevant, but they SHOULD identify areas for improvement and recommend fixes in the fewer and fewer places they are allowed to make recommendations. ^

For the ever-expanding number of issues beyond the purview of the TB, I have already found the new community director to be quite receptive and responsive to input on all sorts of issues, including the mega-threading issue.

Despite being an academic, and into pedantry when the occasion warrants, this time I think it doesn't. The insistence on using the full corporate form of airline names seems, to me, to be overkill. It makes things longer, hence harder to take in at a glance, with no offsetting benefit..:D and ^ and +1

I might make it even simpler... and just use the company name... ie... United Airlines Forum or American Airlines Forum.... and then have the forum description say something like "For all discussion related to United Airlines and the Mileage Plus program."^ and +1. KISS.

We're very open to going with the way the member feel makes it easiest to find information, so once the comments die down, we can amend the proposal to include as many as possible before we post a formal motion.

The cross-posting in each forum concerned would be against the TOS and so I have asked the Moderator Team what they think about this, otherwise jackal and I would, most likely be suspended! Not the general idea.

When I was the TB VP/Secretary I would often, in coordination with the forum moderators, post a link in an affected forum to the TB discussion of a matter that would affect that forum. Seemed like a GREAT way to get regular poster input to TB proposals.

Examples:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-rapid-rewards/781674-your-opinion-matters-talkboard-seeking-input-adding-ata-wn-forum.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/other-north-south-america-frequent-flyer-programs/781678-your-opinion-matters-talkboard-seeking-input-adding-ata-wn-forum.html

(once in the SWA forum, once in the ONSAAP forum)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/women-travelers/773891-your-opinion-matters-should-there-separate-forum-luggage-travel-products.html

When I was the TB VP/Secretary I would often, in coordination with the forum moderators, post a link in an affected forum to the TB discussion of a matter that would affect that forum. Seemed like a GREAT way to get regular poster input to TB proposals.

Times change. TalkBoard is now dominated by Moderators. Cross-posting is verboten, no exceptions.

Soon we may just have a TalkBoard megathread entitled "TalkBoard Proposals and Voting". :D

I am pleased to see the Talkboard taking initiative on something they believe might enhance the member experience. I remember us briefly discussing this several years ago... and feeling that the forums were airline/hotel forums were misnamed because they were named for the reward programs when most of the discussion in the respective forums had nothing to do with the programs... but the companies and operations overall.

I might make it even simpler... and just use the company name... ie... United Airlines Forum or American Airlines Forum.... and then have the forum description say something like "For all discussion related to United Airlines and the Mileage Plus program."

I know that previously that the argument given was (paraphrasing) "Flyertalk is a forum primarily about earning miles and points, so forums should be named accordingly." However, in my personal opinion, FT is now much more than just a place to talk about FF mileage- it's a place to talk about all aspects of travel. Therefore, I would support forums being renamed after the company as proposed above.

I also agree with those who say that adding "Airlines" to a title name just to add it is not a productive action.

It's possible and even quite probable that the TalkBoard is able to multitask and deal with more than one situation at a time. :p


If that was the case, there wouldn't be the need for abstain votes for those who are too busy to research an issue.

:p

Times change. TalkBoard is now dominated by Moderators. Cross-posting is verboten, no exceptions.

Soon we may just have a TalkBoard megathread entitled "TalkBoard Proposals and Voting". :D

It's interesting that cross-posting is not defined in the FT Rules and Regulations section. The usual definition is generally the spam-like posting of the identical message to multiple forums.

Alerting specific forums to a TB thread that is discussing a "significant" change that involves that forum does not seem to me to be in the spirit of the definition of a cross-post.

It's interesting that cross-posting is not defined in the FT Rules and Regulations section. The usual definition is generally the spam-like posting of the identical message to multiple forums.

Alerting specific forums to a TB thread that is discussing a "significant" change that involves that forum does not seem to me to be in the spirit of the definition of a cross-post.

^ agreed - but apparently some don't agree with this simple, clear, and concise definition. :(

^ agreed - but apparently some don't agree with this simple, clear, and concise definition. :(

My God, what a ridiculous circus this has become then.

The TB, the supposed representatives of the posters, are unable to post a link in a potentially affected forum about a potential change to that forum and solicit input from the posters on that forum on that proposed change?

How does that slavish devotion to the letter of the supposed law make any sense or serve the posters?

Honestly, this place has gone kookoo.

IF that is truly how the moderators are interpreting the TOS then the TB needs to amend the TOS to make clear that TB outreach is NOT an example of cross posting.

I won't hold my breath.

Forget the circus.

I have raised a thread in the bmi forum, with a poll for bmi diamond club forum users to express their opinion in the context of bmi.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/bmi-diamond-club/1169569-proposal-could-change-name-bmi-forum.html

If this comes up for a vote, perhaps the voting members would take cognisance of the results of the poll?

IF that is truly how the moderators are interpreting the TOS then the TB needs to amend the TOS to make clear that TB outreach is NOT an example of cross posting.

Any attempt to do that would be immediately shut down as discussion of moderator actions.

Great question. Totally agree.

+1. Seriously - have you folks tried to use this website on a mobile phone? Things are difficult enough to try and read/look at. Why ADD letters?

I have a few suggestions, mainly for grammar but also for clarity:

Hawaii-based Airlines should be Hawaii-Based Airlines

Travel with Pets should be Travelling With Pets

Travel with Children should be Travelling With Children

South should be Southern United States

Midwest should be Midwestern United States

West should be Western United States

I have a suggestions questions for you? How about proposed to creating new Southwestern United States or Northwestern United States?

Any attempt to do that would be immediately shut down as discussion of moderator actions.
Actually, there is a post on the public TB forum where Randy suggested that the TB review the TOS...

It seems you are chosing to tie yourself up in rules of your own making.

+1. Seriously - have you folks tried to use this website on a mobile phone? Things are difficult enough to try and read/look at. Why ADD letters?This is a non-trivial point, not just for mobile phones but for anyone with screen real estate constraints. We should be looking for ways to shorten forum names where this can be done without loss of clarity, not ways to lengthen them by using legally correct corporate names when the common shorter forms don't confuse anyone.

The key is to focus on the users, then design a site for their needs. Who uses this list, what do they use it for, and how can they use it most easily to do that? I submit that, for example, "Delta SkyMiles" is easier to take in at a glance in a list than "Delta Air Lines SkyMiles," especially when the words "Air Lines" are repeated with trivial variations (Airlines, Airways, ...) in most of the forum titles on either side of it. The repetition of nearly-identical words in different places is noise. It tends to mask the differences among the words that matter. It thus reduces usability and increases errors.

I spent much of a long career worrying about information system usability. I've taught IS design at the graduate level. I've designed user interfaces and have been told, by real people who had to use them to get real work done, that those interfaces were good. While I'm all for consistency when it has no downside, in this case the suggested consistency has a big downside. These changes as a whole (especially in the airline and car rental sections) will improve consistency but harm usability. It's up to the TalkBoard to decide which of those two is more important. As an experienced professional in this field, I know which side I'd come down on.

^ Efrem - you said it PERFECTLY. Thank you!!

Indeed. +2

I might make it even simpler... and just use the company name... ie... United Airlines Forum or American Airlines Forum.... and then have the forum description say something like "For all discussion related to United Airlines and the Mileage Plus program."

I know that previously that the argument given was (paraphrasing) "Flyertalk is a forum primarily about earning miles and points, so forums should be named accordingly." However, in my personal opinion, FT is now much more than just a place to talk about FF mileage- it's a place to talk about all aspects of travel. Therefore, I would support forums being renamed after the company as proposed above.

That's an idea I had contemplated (but not made a decision on) several years ago and would certainly be open to looking at it again.

When I was the TB VP/Secretary I would often, in coordination with the forum moderators, post a link in an affected forum to the TB discussion of a matter that would affect that forum. Seemed like a GREAT way to get regular poster input to TB proposals.

Examples:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-rapid-rewards/781674-your-opinion-matters-talkboard-seeking-input-adding-ata-wn-forum.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/other-north-south-america-frequent-flyer-programs/781678-your-opinion-matters-talkboard-seeking-input-adding-ata-wn-forum.html

(once in the SWA forum, once in the ONSAAP forum)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/women-travelers/773891-your-opinion-matters-should-there-separate-forum-luggage-travel-products.html

This is a project I will undertake in a few days when I have time. I will fully take responsibility and accept any punishment meted out by any moderators for cross-posting so as to protect Markie. :p

In the meantime, if anyone else wants to post notes in the forums they frequent, feel free to do so. As I mentioned above, please do not mistake my delay in doing this as opposition to the idea.

I have a suggestions questions for you? How about proposed to creating new Southwestern United States or Northwestern United States?

At this time we are not considering any new forums or forum relocations within this proposal. Those may be considered in the future under a different proposal.

My God, what a ridiculous circus this has become then.

The TB, the supposed representatives of the posters, are unable to post a link in a potentially affected forum about a potential change to that forum and solicit input from the posters on that forum on that proposed change?

How does that slavish devotion to the letter of the supposed law make any sense or serve the posters?

Honestly, this place has gone kookoo.

IF that is truly how the moderators are interpreting the TOS then the TB needs to amend the TOS to make clear that TB outreach is NOT an example of cross posting.

I won't hold my breath.

I think we might be OK if the change was to one or two forums. But as the change is wholesale, posting the same thread 'Please see this proposal to amend this forum's name' could be seen as exactly that - repetitive off-topic posting in multiple forums.

TB member outreach is whole separate discussion - as the TOS are being reviewed by a group of Moderators at present, it may be possible to insert this suggestion when they come for approval.

What Efrem says + 3.

I'm a user experience person with a very long history of building very large, information-rich, global websites. Usability should always be preferred to slavish consistency.

My usual approach in developing this kind of taxonomy from scratch would be to work with a group to develop a strawman (probably via a card sorting exercise) and then test with the intended audience, iterating to refine.

But when working with an existing taxonomy I'd always favour pragmatism in focusing on what doesn't work well, rather than attempting to coerce a working system into a new model unless there were massive issues.

I certainly wouldn't want to be so rude as to quote Emerson! ;)

BC

My own preference would be for usability for those trying to navigate over 'correctness'. There seems to me little point in correcting the name on the fora we are each familar with: we walk past the 'entry sign' without even looking. Making it easier to find what we are less familiar with helps both asker and responder(s) by getting things in the right place first time.

I spend most of my time in the bmi forum. When tracking down an appropriate 'foreign' group to ask about airline policy, airport facilities, lounges, etc I want to be able to quickly see what I need. Not everyone tracks the changes in names and alliances, so where feasible I think all common terms should be available. For example if airlines merge and come up with a clever new name it is likely (from the perspective I'm using) to be useful to retain the old names in the title for a period.

Getting back to specific naming conventions...


I think the words Airline and International are usually dropped in conversation, and could be in the forum titles (unless they are commonly used in the casual identification of the carrier as per AA).

Could the airline code be incorporated? It often isn't obvious what code is used for which airline, and they aren't easy to search as two-letter abbreviations are 'noise' in a lot of contexts (not necessarily for us, but again for those of lesser industry knowledge).

Miles & More is an oddity as it puts the programme name ahead of the airlines, which caught me out initially. I think this is a bigger 'inconsistency' that anything else.

I don't find the phrase 'airline partners' more useful that 'partners' since I think its common to discuss the non-airline partners (hotels, car rental, etc) in there. I think it may actually steer people towards the hotel/rental forum if they have a question about points conversion, etc but the people there are less likely to know how the a specific airline programme would be affected.


So for my home forum:

bmi British Midland diamond club (BD)

Just wanted to get some feedback on a couple of points. I'm picking this post because a) I have a few minutes and this is the one that popped up and b) I think it addresses some of the questions also raised above. I'll comb back through this thread later and see if there are other points I can engage in discussion on.

I think the words Airline and International are usually dropped in conversation, and could be in the forum titles (unless they are commonly used in the casual identification of the carrier as per AA).

So, United Mileage Plus but Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan? British Airways Executive Club but Delta Sky Miles?

I'm not necessarily opposed to that. If you want to make the measure of consistency the "casual identification of the carrier," then I can't very well argue that it's inconsistent. ;)

It just seemed odd to me to have Alaska Airlines and British Airways but not United Airlines.

I'm not closed-minded about this, though! I just want the forum to present a professional image, especially to newbies or influential people (travel industry executives, etc.).

This change isn't really intended for the frequent users, since as you indicated, it's really just a barely-glanced-at signpost by those who know where to click. It's intended for those looking for information the first time.

One thought: which helps us get higher up in the Google results? (I bring this up NOT in order to try to enhance IB's SEO--I have no dog in that fight, as I am not compensated by them at all--but more with the attitude that more visibility in search results equals more members in our community equals better discussion and a wider, deeper breadth of knowledge to draw from.)

Could the airline code be incorporated? It often isn't obvious what code is used for which airline, and they aren't easy to search as two-letter abbreviations are 'noise' in a lot of contexts (not necessarily for us, but again for those of lesser industry knowledge).

Not a bad idea, but then we go back to some of the arguments about wanting to shorten, not lengthen, the forum titles.

What format would you suggest?


UA - United Mileage Plus
United (UA) Mileage Plus
United Mileage Plus (UA)
Something else?


Miles & More is an oddity as it puts the programme name ahead of the airlines, which caught me out initially. I think this is a bigger 'inconsistency' that anything else.

It is an oddity, but it's also an oddity of a program in that it is a program that represents several airlines. In this case, I don't think special treatment of its title is inconsistent.

I don't find the phrase 'airline partners' more useful that 'partners' since I think its common to discuss the non-airline partners (hotels, car rental, etc) in there. I think it may actually steer people towards the hotel/rental forum if they have a question about points conversion, etc but the people there are less likely to know how the a specific airline programme would be affected.

In the case of "and other airline partners," the title is meant to refer to those smaller regional carriers that also have ties to that particular program. There is some discussion as to what "partners" the title of the Flying Blue forum references in one of the discussion threads on the recent motion to rename that forum. No one would argue that other partnerships can't be discussed in that forum, but we're not going to go renaming every forum "...and other partners" simply because that carrier's partners are also discussed there. Even though people can earn Alaska Airlines miles through 1-800-FLOWERS, it doesn't make sense to name the forum "Alaska Airlines Mileage Plan and other partners." In the same vein, Flying Blue and Miles & More cover several different carriers, some large enough to name and others that some would say aren't large enough to mention, and the title of the forum is meant to cover those. I suppose the actual meaning would be more along the lines of "Miles & More (Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, and other carriers who participate in the Miles & More program)," but that would be far too long.

Anyway, more on some of the other points raised in a bit, and I'll work towards incorporating some of the concerns about pragmatism and length in the next few days.

Just wanted to add this, since it's quick:

I have a few suggestions, mainly for grammar but also for clarity:

Hawaii-based Airlines should be Hawaii-Based Airlines

Travel with Pets should be Travelling With Pets

Travel with Children should be Travelling With Children

South should be Southern United States

Midwest should be Midwestern United States

West should be Western United States

Good eyes.

Only thing I'd suggest (over the objections of our Commonweath friends! :D) is that "Traveling" have a single l, since that is the standard American spelling. And although we are a global Web site, we were founded by an American and operate in the U.S, so we should stick to American spellings (with possible exceptions when the target audience of a forum is not American).

I'll look at these over the next few days and will probably incorporate at least some of them. If I don't get this edited into the proposal in the first post, remind me to do so. That is, unless there's a huge backlash against your proposals over the next few days... :p

Qantas is never referred to as Qantas Airways in conversation even if that is their official company name.

The same applies to United, Continental, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Blue, Cathay Pacific, Delta (though Delta Air Lines is somewhat common), Emirates and SAS/Scandinavian.

While I recognise a desire to have consistent naming, you should be looking at naming the forums consistently with the way the airlines refer to themselves in their dealings with consumers rather than insisting on names that simply aren't used.

It just seemed odd to me to have Alaska Airlines and British Airways but not United Airlines. British Airways is always British Airways - or BA. It never, ever gets shortened to just 'British' and anyone who tries 'Brit Air' or 'British' on the BA forum gets very short shrift (and for Brit Air, pointed at the AF forum).

United is commonly referred to as just 'United'.

Qantas is never referred to as Qantas Airways in conversation even if that is their official company name.

The same applies to United, Continental, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Blue, Cathay Pacific, Delta (though Delta Air Lines is somewhat common), Emirates and SAS/Scandinavian.

While I recognise a desire to have consistent naming, you should be looking at naming the forums consistently with the way the airlines refer to themselves in their dealings with consumers rather than insisting on names that simply aren't used.Thank you. Your points move this discussion forward, IMHO. I was digging around the internet this morning and found the following guidelines that relate to the usage of DL's brand. Interesting stuff.

Use the Delta master brand signature as the primary brand expression for employees, customer and community constituencies.

The “Air Lines” modified master brand is ONLY used when legally required (e.g., Latin/South America, Mexico, Caribbean), or in foreign markets (Asia and Pacific, e.g., China) on specific informational applications (such as business cards) where clarifying area of business is necessary.

http://deltabrandcenter.com/howwelook/basics_sig_usage.shtml

British Airways is always British Airways - or BA. It never, ever gets shortened to just 'British' and anyone who tries 'Brit Air' or 'British' on the BA forum gets very short shrift (and for Brit Air, pointed at the AF forum). So true! :)

I rather prefer the current shorter version, it is self explanatory that the other partners are airlines. :o
I fully agree. The proposed new title for the M&M forum doesn't seem to be a better description.

SAS EuroBonus be renamed to SAS Scandinavian Airlines EuroBonus

Can be

SAS EuroBonus
or

Scandinavian Airlines EuroBonus

but not

SAS Scandinavian Airlines EuroBonus

+1. Thank you for putting it so well and for using your professional knowledge to give us some solid guidance.

This is a non-trivial point, not just for mobile phones but for anyone with screen real estate constraints. We should be looking for ways to shorten forum names where this can be done without loss of clarity, not ways to lengthen them by using legally correct corporate names when the common shorter forms don't confuse anyone.

The key is to focus on the users, then design a site for their needs. Who uses this list, what do they use it for, and how can they use it most easily to do that? I submit that, for example, "Delta SkyMiles" is easier to take in at a glance in a list than "Delta Air Lines SkyMiles," especially when the words "Air Lines" are repeated with trivial variations (Airlines, Airways, ...) in most of the forum titles on either side of it. The repetition of nearly-identical words in different places is noise. It tends to mask the differences among the words that matter. It thus reduces usability and increases errors.

I spent much of a long career worrying about information system usability. I've taught IS design at the graduate level. I've designed user interfaces and have been told, by real people who had to use them to get real work done, that those interfaces were good. While I'm all for consistency when it has no downside, in this case the suggested consistency has a big downside. These changes as a whole (especially in the airline and car rental sections) will improve consistency but harm usability. It's up to the TalkBoard to decide which of those two is more important. As an experienced professional in this field, I know which side I'd come down on.

My 2 cents is that shorter is better. Eliminate Air Lines, Airlines, Airways, Hotels, and any other words that convey little or no information.

We can achieve consistency in brevity as easily as we can in verbosity.

Sorry, if this was mentioned in the thread, but how is the effect of the standarizing for linked threads? A far as I understand the suggestion, the renaming affects the names of the threads and therefore the links. Especially master threads with links to thread worth to read might be affected.

Is there a answer or a solution? Of course, I will adjust them manually, but I thought I highlight this, because this could not be done in a few minutes and I fear that broken links cause more hassle for users than too live with the names as the currently are. We do not have thousand of links, but a thread with a few links to other threads in our forum. And though we do not mind the work, I personally think this issue should be solved before the change.

Do not get me wrong, I am not completely against this standarizing, but I like to hear about the technical effect as well. I assume, you have discussed this and again sorry, if I overread it.

Forget the circus.

I have raised a thread in the bmi forum, with a poll for bmi diamond club forum users to express their opinion in the context of bmi.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/bmi-diamond-club/1169569-proposal-could-change-name-bmi-forum.html

If this comes up for a vote, perhaps the voting members would take cognisance of the results of the poll?

I have done this, too:
www.flyertalk.com/forum/intercontinental-hotels-priority-club-inter-continental-ambassador-426/

But since I personally think, it is not such a big change, I have not set up a poll - but might do so later, if there is a demand.

I navigate my frequently visited programs by changing the number at the end of the URL so the forum names don't matter to my use of the site, I suspect many others do as well. Flying -665 and crediting -442 this week :)

I can understand the need for wanting a FT style book, however name changes should be to the benefit of newly arrived guests.

I might make it even simpler... and just use the company name... ie... United Airlines Forum or American Airlines Forum.... and then have the forum description say something like "For all discussion related to United Airlines and the Mileage Plus program."This makes sense to me, but perhaps shorten the name even further...

...and perhaps the inclusion of the corporate logo of an airline in the title would further simplify immediate recognition, even for those FlyerTalk members with limited real estate on their displays.

Here is a suggested example and its description, which should satisfy a number of different thoughts and opinions, although the DELTA logotype may be cropped out of the logo for space saving purposes while the text Delta remains for those who prefer not to view images on FlyerTalk:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070520/delta-logo.gif Delta
Delta Air Lines and the SkyMiles frequent flier loyalty program

Qantas is never referred to as Qantas Airways in conversation even if that is their official company name.

The same applies to United, Continental, Virgin Atlantic, Virgin Blue, Cathay Pacific, Delta (though Delta Air Lines is somewhat common), Emirates and SAS/Scandinavian.

While I recognise a desire to have consistent naming, you should be looking at naming the forums consistently with the way the airlines refer to themselves in their dealings with consumers rather than insisting on names that simply aren't used.

Qantas refers to its frequent flyer program as "Qantas Frequent Flyer". If you search "Qantas Airways" you'll come up with "Qantas" or "Qantas Airways Limited".

http://www.skimax.com.au/FrequentFlyers/QantasFFLogo_large.gif

This makes sense to me, but perhaps shorten the name even further...

...and perhaps the inclusion of the corporate logo of an airline in the title would further simplify immediate recognition, even for those FlyerTalk members with limited real estate on their displays.

Here is a suggested example and its description, which should satisfy a number of different thoughts and opinions, although the DELTA logotype may be cropped out of the logo for space saving purposes while the text Delta remains for those who prefer not to view images on FlyerTalk:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070520/delta-logo.gif Delta
Delta Air Lines and the SkyMiles frequent flier loyalty program

Superb.

Does anybody really listen here? Folks are stating that things should be SHORTENED due to accessing via mobile devices and then suggestions are to make things MORE complicated?

Here is my question (aside from why people actually don't listen). . .

Do the "powers to be" really think that people who are participating in a TRAVEL forum wouldn't have a clue as to what DELTA, UNITED, AMERICAN, STARWOOD, HYATT, etc. would be and need MORE information? :confused:

Seems much ado about nothing to me. .

Wisely and well-spoken ^

I can see the logic of a consistent approach. However, some of the proposed changes seem to be change for change's sake.

Virgin flying club be renamed to Virgin Atlantic Airways Flying ClubJenbel and others are of course correct. Virgin Atlantic Airways Flying Club must be a non-starter when the airline is normally known as Virgin Atlantic. In any case, the loyalty program is Virgin Flying Club, so, for the sake of consistency, is the Virgin Atlantic Airways Virgin Flying Club being proposed?The Virgin Atlantic website copyright is © Copyright 2011 Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd.So why not the Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd Virgin Flying Club?

I think not.SAS EuroBonus be renamed to SAS Scandinavian Airlines EuroBonusConsistency for consistency's sake. Who ever talks about 'SAS Scandinavian Airlines'?InterContinental Hotels: Priority Club & Inter-Continental Ambassador be renamed to InterContinental Hotels (Priority Club and InterContinental Ambassador)Two different programs, combined in FT a while ago for user convenience. Keeping the colon and dropping the brackets would be more logical.

Avis be renamed to Avis Preferred
Budget be renamed to Budget FastBreak
Dollar be renamed to Dollar Express Renter Rewards
Hertz be renamed to Hertz #1 Club
National be renamed to National Emerald Club
Thrifty be renamed to Thrifty Blue ChipWell, OK so far as the rental company programs are concerned, but those of us who earn airline miles with rentals wthout being members of the renters' programs could feel excluded.Australia, New Zealand & the South Pacific be renamed to Australia, New Zealand, and the South PacificAgain, replacing '&' with 'and' is one thing. Adding a comma after 'Zealand' is wrong.Flying Blue (Air France, KLM, and Other Partners) be renamed to Flying Blue (Air France, KLM, and other airline partners)Misplaced comma again (after KLM).Despite being an academic, and into pedantry when the occasion warrants, this time I think it doesn't. The insistence on using the full corporate form of airline names seems, to me, to be overkill. It makes things longer, hence harder to take in at a glance, with no offsetting benefit.

Is anyone confused that "Delta SkyMiles" refers to Delta Air Lines SkyMiles, for example? It's in a list of airlines, for gosh sake, on a site discussing frequent flyer programs. Is someone going to think it's about Delta Faucets or the end of a river? Let's get real here.I quite agree.I might make it even simpler... and just use the company name... ie... United Airlines Forum or American Airlines Forum.... and then have the forum description say something like "For all discussion related to United Airlines and the Mileage Plus program."This is already happening de facto in some forums/fora. For example, the Flying Blue forum includes sub-fora on Air France Frequence Plus and KLM Flying Dutchman, even though these programs haven't existed for several years. They serve to discuss the airlines' activities but not the frequent flyer programs.

Roger, not disagreeing with anything you wrote above; I'd just like to point out that the use of the "serial comma" is one of those rules of grammar that is not absolute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_comma

Here is a suggested example and its description, which should satisfy a number of different thoughts and opinions, although the DELTA logotype may be cropped out of the logo for space saving purposes while the text Delta remains for those who prefer not to view images on FlyerTalk:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070520/delta-logo.gif Delta
Delta Air Lines and the SkyMiles frequent flier loyalty program

Great suggests!! I like that. This is so much better than before. Lets proposed to changes a different title. I would agree with you this.

I think there is something else. It should be exact Delta Air Lines SkyMiles Frequent Fliers Program. That's will work out very well. Its just a simple way to do it.

Just for your information, the correct and proper name of the InterContinental Hotels ist

InterContinental Hotels Group, shortened to IHG.

(for reference: www.ihgplc.com)

It would be just a minor change, but it would reflect what it is, a chain with more than one brand. The more I look on to the change, the colon made this more clear, that there were in fact two loyalty programms and the hotel was just the name with the "Group" missing.

From the first replies in the thread in our forum and also the suggestion by flyertalker Roger, it should (must) be clear, that there are several brands and that there are two loyalty schemes, one for InterContinental Hotels and one for the remaining brands of the IHG.

Just reporting back how the users of the bmi diamond club forum have voted so far:
60% feel the status quo is optimal for the bmi board
25% don't mind/don't care either way
15% feel that the result of the proposed standardisation would be a good thing for the nomenclature of the bmi board

Personally, as long as we are higher in the list than those BA types, everything is cool. ;)

hmmm - is now the time to alert the BA board to a way for them to get placed above bmi again? (British Midland International bmi Diamond Club would just about do it :D)

Wouldn't be the first time the forum has skewed a vote :D

I see the proposed changes as good for many reasons, including google searches.

But, the frequent flyer programs and the airline names are often seperate. It would then seem like a comma would be best.

"United Airlines, Mileage Plus" and
"Virgin Atlantic Airways, Flying Club", etc
would be more appropriate.

Great initiative.

I see the proposed changes as good for many reasons, including google searches.

But, the frequent flyer programs and the airline names are often seperate. It would then seem like a comma would be best.

"United Airlines, Mileage Plus" and
"Virgin Atlantic Airways, Flying Club", etc
would be more appropriate.

Great initiative.

Really? Great initiative?! I think this is an example of how TB members don't have anything "real" to do and/or contribute. I am still of the mind that people who come to a TRAVEL board KNOW what United, American, Hyatt, Marriott, Starwood, etc. mean. Additionally, has anybody talked with folks at IB IT to determine if this CAN be done and what the effects would be on the backend?

Good concerns. And yes, we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

1 other concern I have is that we take the time to make sure that these are in fact the names we're going to use for the forums for the long haul. It makes no sense, to change, then change again, and tweak again. But if the right forum headings are finalized, why not?

Good concerns. And yes, we don't need to reinvent the wheel.

1 other concern I have is that we take the time to make sure that these are in fact the names we're going to use for the forums for the long haul. It makes no sense, to change, then change again, and tweak again. But if the right forum headings are finalized, why not?

Sure we can! You can do that. It just a simple way to do it. I think you would likely to changed a different title. I think it would workout very well. That's would be necessary for proposed to renamed the forums title. Obviously, I would liked to see changed different title. Those member will like that and they can barely see the title is much easier and more convenient for everyone else.

If you're going to change the Cathay Pacific Asiamiles forum name , I wouldn't go for Cathay Pacific Airways Asiamiles, but rather maybe, Cathay Pacific/DragonAir Asiamiles. By sticking the 'Airways' after Cathay Pacific seems to lengthen the name which most people don't use anyway.

But then again, if you do any change to the current name, note that Asiamiles & The Marco Polo Club go hand in hand too as one complements the other.. so maybe you might want to consider "Cathay Pacific Airways / DragonAir Group Asiamiles & The Marco Polo Club "

PS - "Asia Miles " should be one word anyway.. "Asiamiles"

While IB is at it, maybe they'd also like to change the current Singapore Airlines Krisflyer to Singapore Airlines / Silkair Krisflyer & PPS ?

Note that the mileage accrual / award scheme and the loyalty programmes of these two particular airline groups are different yet go hand in hand with each other.

If you need to change the name, then I say, go with the official names.


I'm trying to question if any change is even necessary?

Great question. Totally agree.

+1 maybe the OP and other TB have too much time on their hands :D

Jut my 5c. Proposed changes are unnecessary and most of the changes (making names longer) will make iPhone App even less friendly and cluttered...

If you're going to change the Cathay Pacific Asiamiles forum name , I wouldn't go for Cathay Pacific Airways Asiamiles, but rather maybe, Cathay Pacific/DragonAir Asiamiles. By sticking the 'Airways' after Cathay Pacific seems to lengthen the name which most people don't use anyway.

But then again, if you do any change to the current name, note that Asiamiles & The Marco Polo Club go hand in hand too as one complements the other.. so maybe you might want to consider "Cathay Pacific Airways / DragonAir Group Asiamiles & The Marco Polo Club "

PS - "Asia Miles " should be one word anyway.. "Asiamiles"

While IB is at it, maybe they'd also like to change the current Singapore Airlines Krisflyer to Singapore Airlines / Silkair Krisflyer & PPS ?

Note that the mileage accrual / award scheme and the loyalty programmes of these two particular airline groups are different yet go hand in hand with each other.

If you need to change the name, then I say, go with the official names.


I'm trying to question if any change is even necessary?

It's Dragonair not DragonAir :o

This makes sense to me, but perhaps shorten the name even further...

...and perhaps the inclusion of the corporate logo of an airline in the title would further simplify immediate recognition, even for those FlyerTalk members with limited real estate on their displays.

I agree wholeheartedly. Most threads are not about just Mileage Plus, or AAdvantage but the entire experience flying UA or AA. It just makes more sense.

Continental OnePass be renamed to Continental Airlines OnePass


Why bother, since the Continental name will soon disappear anyway??? :confused:

Jut my 5c. Proposed changes are unnecessary and most of the changes (making names longer) will make iPhone App even less friendly and cluttered...

+1

Another vote for the "If it ain't broken, don't fix it".. Let's just keep them the same way that they are now..

My 2 cents is that shorter is better. Eliminate Air Lines, Airlines, Airways, Hotels, and any other words that convey little or no information.

We can achieve consistency in brevity as easily as we can in verbosity.

+1

Names should be as short as possible, to convey the necessarily information for two reasons, 1) typing, as rare as that is in the days of clicking links, it's harder on mobile devices, and 2) the screen size of netbooks and mobile devices is smaller. The way they are taking space out of coach, about the only thing you can open up is a netbook or handheld; smart phones are flying out of the cell phone stores so expect more FT'er traffic from those devices (IB can check access logs for real numbers here)


Avis be renamed to Avis Preferred
Budget be renamed to Budget FastBreak
(etc)


Beside brevity, if Avis renames their program from "Preferred" to something else, say "Loyalty" does that mean we rename the forum again? If they created a second program that co-existed with the first, the program name would be needed if two forums were warranted. [1] Otherwise it's redundant and doesn't add much more information.

Same comments for airlines, save for the fact that programs like AAdvantage have been around long enough, that they are recognizable and unambiguous enough to stand alone, until which time they get renamed or merged.

+1 also to using Logos, with the following caveats: The forums may not be allowed to use airline logos w/o permission, although this should come under fair use as identification -- but since the airlines are sometimes criticized here, company lawyers may make a stink out of their use. The second caveat is not to use just the logo, in case a browser is only displaying text.

+1/2 on changing from "&" to "and" because symbols can be harder to get at on a mobile than a full keyboard, with the missing +1/2 saying there needs to be a major reason to change, and this isn't enough. However, creating new forums without the "&" would probably be a good 'rule' going forward.

All that said, it's still a positive sign that ideas and discussions of this nature are happening.

[1] Note to TB & IB: back in the early dawn, Compuserve would have been hosting these boards, because the Internet wasn't for 'commoners', they would typically do a Section or Forum split only when post volume approached a certain level. For example, if TS&S gets too 'busy' it might split into Airport Security and Non-Airport Security. There were technical limits at the time that drove this that don't exist here, but it did keep things roughly right sized.

Hey, I just got a thought: This Forum is not about air-lines, it is about Frequent Flier Programmes. Therefore the the FF-programmes should be first, like

Eurobonus (SAS, Estonian)
Miles & More (Lufthansa, Swiss, LOT)
Diamond Club (Brittish Midland International)
Flying Club (Virgin Atlantic)
Aadvantage (American Airlines)
FastBreak (Budget)


/Ola

I agree wholeheartedly. Most threads are not about just Mileage Plus, or AAdvantage but the entire experience flying UA or AA. It just makes more sense.

Agree might as well just put the airline name there

As long as you're digging around in there, how 'bouts somebody change the subhead of the New York City (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mid-atlantic-453/) sub-forum to anything but We don't think they named it twice, there's just an echo in this forum.I'm sure it was the "New York, New York" forum at one point, and that would have made a little sense, but these days, it ain't and it don't.

The problem with the proposal is that jackal, among others seeks consistency, when consistency already exists, or seeks to develop a consistency which is longer when a shorter one would do.

1. The naming convention seems to be the most commonly used name for the airline. So British Airways gets the word Airways because only a few Americans who don't regularly fly BA call it 'British'. No Virgin Atlantic Flyers use the word Airway so we don't use it. This is consistent naming, just not the same consistent naming that jackal is looking for.

2. Ampersand use. I know that some don't like the ampersand, but I do and would encourage greater use rather than less. I would propose changing all 'and's to ampersands. it makes the website more user-friendly for mobile users.

Going back Emerson reference - A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds - we have to examine how consistency will help us rather than just implement it for the sake of consistency. In this case, I only see how making the proposed changes harms us rather than helps us.

Quote from Dr. Travis J. Hedrick:

"Change, for change's sake, is a recipe for failure."

I think it's all good here. I have no complaints. But if you guys wanna change it up, go nuts, I guess. I sure can't stop you.

JB

Seems like a solution looking for a problem to me.

If anything, since most of the airline fora contain general airline-related discussion rather than just the FFPs, they should be named just for the airline, and by its common name (i.e. Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Lufthansa, etc.)

Just as a little history here for the folks who haven't been posting on FT for a decade or so.

The original purpose of FT was not to be a general travel discussion site but to be THE place to discuss ways to maximize miles and points. Thus the various forums were named after the name of the mileage or points program rather than the airline.

Over the years for whatever reason...benign neglect, a subtle change of direction,etc...the forums have morphed into a general travel discussion of all things concerning that airline, hotel, rental car, etc.

So we're now trying to decide how we go forward here. Do we throw in the towel and continue the trend to turn this IBB into a general travel site? Or do we try to stick with the horse that got us here....miles and points....and continue the forum names in that direction?

That's sorta where I'm coming from here. No make-work projects or nefarious intentions with this whole issue as far as I'm concerned. Just re-defining who we want to be going forward by the way we name and position our travel forums.

ust re-defining who we want to be going forward by the way we name and position our travel forums.

A forum will be what it wants to be no matter what you call it. JMO.

A forum will be what it wants to be no matter what you call it. JMO.

And that's what has happened over the years.

It's certainly possible to keep the miles/points focus with vigorous moderation.

But nobody wants to work that hard and, obviously, the majority of the membership has seemed to want to expand the mission of FT.

Keeping the mileage and point program names in the forum title would be a nostalgic memorial to the vision that Randy had when he created FT. And it would be a subtle hint to those who care as to the purpose of the forums.

But beyond that this place is going to be what it's going to be short of some major intervention which I don't think any of us want to see.

I do not see us backpeddling and ever getting back to just points and miles. Personally, I think the forum titles should truly reflect the forum... that is why I earlier suggested just using the airline/hotel names.

I believe there is one forum crying out for a title amendment and that is Virgin flying club. The VS mod team has done gallant work trying to add some clarity as you can see below…

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/virgin-flying-club/961845-if-new-forum-virgin-you-looking.html

.. but could use some help from our TalkBoard members. Whether an amended title takes the form of Virgin Atlantic Flying Club or Virgin Atlantic Airways Flying Club is something for our TalkBoard to take advice from the regulars of that forum

The bmi diamond club forum title might be a candidate for future change if and when the airline finds its place in this world and finally decides on what it wants to call itself ;)

Whether an amended title takes the form of Virgin Atlantic Flying Club or Virgin Atlantic Airways Flying Club is something for our TalkBoard to take advice from the regulars of that forumWell, up to a point, but if consistency is required and noting the name of the program is Virgin Flying Club, it would be the Virgin Atlantic Airways Virgin Flying Club, which of course is nonsense.

For reasons mentioned above, the word Airways is superfluous. FWIW, my own preference would be to retain Virgin Flying Club but I could understand Virgin Atlantic Flying Club if a change is deemed necessary.

Can our good talk board members advise us where this proposal currently sits?

Can our good talk board members advise us where this proposal currently sits?

This was never a formal proposal/motion. It was up for discussion in both the private & public TB forum, and from what I can see didn't gain much traction in either.

I did appreciate some mods (such as GoldCircle) who raised the issue in their forums asking for input. There may have been more mods who did the same, but I didn't get to every forum.

If it had gotten to the point of a formal proposal I probably would have looked at each of the forums being affected to find out if it had been discussed as it was in the BMI forum & what members' take were on proposed changes, but it didn't get that far.

Cheers.

Can our good talk board members advise us where this proposal currently sits?

Unfortunately it's a dead duck. Not enough support from the other members of TalkBoard. We tried.

Unfortunately it's a dead duck. Not enough support from the other members of TalkBoard. We tried.
Actually, I respectfully disagree. I didn't do all I could. :)

I put the idea out there and then got far busier than expected through January. I sort of mentally tabled the idea in my head with plans to get back to it when I can analyze all of the comments and do some further legwork to make it the best proposal I could. I'm still not in a place where I can spend the mental energy to accommodate all of the comments and forums affected, so I haven't brought it up. I had plans to, though, and will be happy to attempt to move forward on this soon.

FWIW, some TB members were supportive, some thought there needed to be some changes to the proposal, and a couple didn't see the point of the idea, but I'm optimistic we can eventually do something to please us grammarians. ;)

Gentlemen, I salute your efforts, nonetheless.

However, reading through the objections in this thread does arouse wonderment as to how mankind managed to progress from the invention of the wheel to mastering flight beyond mach 2 :(

However, reading through the objections in this thread does arouse wonderment as to how mankind managed to progress from the invention of the wheel to mastering flight beyond mach 2 :(

Did I miss the part where mankind had 5 gazillion dif ways of describing a FT thread? ;) :D

FWIW - the fact that folk in some of the forums being affected were against the changes had weight w/ me.

Cheers.

Thank you SkiAdcock for taking cognisance of the poll undertaken in the BD forum.

I had hoped our TalkBoard would take an overview, taking on board the feedback members had kindly provided here, and in the BD and VS forums, and formulate a consistent approach to the way forums are titled on FlyerTalk.

MilePoint is a useful point of reference. Starting from first principles a consistent method of titling forums seemed to have been thought through and implemented there.

The cessation of discussion here is disappointing as TalkBoard as an entity has not made clear to the membership what its feelings on the proposal tabled in January are.

Does our Talkboard seek to create a degree of consistency? I don't believe this has been answered. If it does, is it happy with the suggestions outlined by jackal in his OP? If not, can our TalkBoard work together to agree a consistent format that reflects the programme names? The task here, surely, is one of simple housekeeping but it does require some thought to the bigger picture.

The message I am receiving is MP sees value in a consistent naming format and is capable of implementing its wishes but our TB either does not or cannot. I have no axe to grind either way but I would appreciate an expression of standing from our Talkboard on this.

Well in fairness it's pretty easy to get consistent naming format when you're a site that's a month old & starting from scratch ;). Just sayin...

I've brought up your concern to the private TB to discuss again. I think part of the reason it got tabled was that jackal, who was the original proposer, said he needed some time to try & sort out everyone's thoughts on it, and that includes both TB AND FT members, and he was going into a busy period.

As he mentioned, some were supportive, some thought some changes needed to be made, and some didn't see the point. While he was speaking of TB members, that also holds true of FT members in the few forums I saw it being discussed.

And if it moves forward, then we'll need (w/ mods permission) to bring it up in each of the forums named - and there were a lot of them, not just BD & VS.

Cheers.

I seriously doubt brevity is compatible with consistency. But I'm open to solutions to that dilemma.

I seriously doubt brevity is compatible with consistency. But I'm open to solutions to that dilemma.This is very true. Would using the free line of text below the forum header help achieve this objective. For example,


AAdvantage
American Airlines | American Eagle | American Connection

Asia Miles | MarcoPolo Club
Cathay Pacific Airways | Dragonair

Asiana Club
Asiana Airlines

Diamond Club
British Midland International (BMI)

Executive Club
British Airways | BA CityFlyer | Comair | OpenSkies | SunAir

Flying Blue
Air France | KLM | Aircalin | Air Europa | Kenya Airways | Tarom

Miles & More
Lufthansa | Austrian Airlines | Brussels Airlines | Lufthansa Italia | Swiss International Air Lines

SkyMiles
Delta Air Lines | Delta Connection | Delta Shuttle

This is very true. Would using the free line of text below the forum header help achieve this objective. For example

Hmm, that has a certain aesthetic appeal to it.

Brevity usually works, especially when one such as MP has hindsight & other things to work upon when doing their own thing. ;)

In fairness, jackal started the thread based upon FT's current nomenclature & that's what we're talking about here. And what his original proposal was based upon.

If he wants to scrap that & go to FF101 I've got no problem w/ it. FWIW - I figure regardless of the shortness or longness of it, members of FF programs will sort it out pretty quickly & bookmark their favorites - and have done up to date.

Cheers.

Would using the free line of text below the forum header help achieve this objective.Yes, though program names in bold without member names would be more attractive IMO. Do we really need to have Delta Connection and (BA/)Comair to be mentioned in the headings?

Including member names, brevity could be compromised - for example, Miles and More currently has no fewer than 9 members, and is likely to expand as LH's influence grows.

And don't even think of adding member names to the alliance headings (Star Alliance currently with 27 ;)).

Including member names, brevity could be compromised - for example, Miles and More currently has no fewer than 9 members, and is likely to expand as LH's influence grows.

And don't even think of adding member names to the alliance headings (Star Alliance currently with 27 ;)).

It would be nice if we could abbreviate members names, but that reduces readability for new arrivals. So Prospero's version is probably better.

As for Star Alliance, we could list the two-character airline codes to please the cognoscenti and irritate everyone else. And yes, that was only a joke!

Typically, airline specific forums are just that - airline specific. News about QF goes in the Qantas Frequent Flyer forum. News about Air New Zealand goes in the Air New Zealand Air Points forum (which is actually Airpoints by the way ;))

I think if we're changing things, we should be removing the program names altogether. These are not mileage program specific anymore.

I propose changing "Airline Programs" sub-heading to "Airlines" and removing using only the common colloquial names for the airlines. This promotes ease of use and familiarity.

For example:

Air Canada
Other Airlines (India)
Air New Zealand
AirTran
Alaska (Airlines?)
Alitalia
ANA
American (Airlines?)
Asiana
bmi
British Airways
Cathay Pacific

...etc

That would be entirely worthwhile, but would make a hash of boards such as Miles & More, which would need to have their threads split.

That would be entirely worthwhile, but would make a hash of boards such as Miles & More, which would need to have their threads split.

"Those Silly European Airlines" ? :D

I think if we're changing things, we should be removing the program names altogether.

For example:

Air Canada
Other Airlines (India)
Air New Zealand


Hmmm, that certainly scratches my brevity itch! ^

Prospero is on to something. I do have to disagree with dropping the plan name, sometimes that is my only clue. Executive Club does not trigger immediately trigger British Airways. Mileage Plan and Mileage Plus also occasionally confuse me when I am deleting my iDine emails despite one being my primary program.