TalkBoard Topics - Proposed: Close Omni to members with <x (to-be-determined) period of time on FT

I think most of you know the history here ...Omni used to be a forum open only to members with a certain time on FT or certain post count (can't recall what it was now). That was changed within the last couple of years and many Omni posters were upset as their posts could then be found through Google searches and so forth. Some members stopped posting there, at least one deleted all his posts there and elsewhere on FT. I'm not sure there has been a benefit to FlyerTalk or its members to opening up Omni to anyone with no restrictions.

FlyerTalk's primary purpose is miles and points. It's logical to allow people who meet under that purpose to have off-topic discussions. The reverse does not hold, however. It makes no sense to have a place on a board about miles and points for a person to come and post only about politics or vacuums or anything else that is off-topic. I'm guessing here, but I can't imagine there is anyone that started as an Omni poster and developed into a member of the "flyer" part of the FlyerTalk community.

I ask Talk Board to considered once again making Omni a private forum and establishing guidelines for entry.

I ask Talk Board to considered once again making Omni a private forum and establishing guidelines for entry.

I'd be in favor of that.

I'd like to at least see some minimal post count/days-as-a-member standard for entry.

What those numbers should be are subject to debate but I do think it should revert back to a forum where you earn entrance based on your miles/points contributions elsewhere on FT.

And one more thing. I would like to see folks logged in for OMNI to be visible. That prevents lurkers, suspended members and maybe even Google bots from reading the content.

I have forgotten. Wasn't opening OMNI to everyone a decision Randy enacted on his own without a TB vote? Or was this an IB decison? Or was it something else?

It was a decision by Randy. No TB involvement that I can remember although he did bounce it off his fellow mods for comments.

Not sure if IB was involved or not. He didn't mention it.

And one more thing. I would like to see folks logged in for OMNI to be visible. That prevents lurkers, suspended members and maybe even Google bots from reading the content.

How? I generally post in the "invisible" mode but that should not have any effect on who can read Omni. As long as we have to be logged in, that should suffice.

How? I generally post in the "invisible" mode but that should not have any effect on who can read Omni. As long as we have to be logged in, that should suffice.

Logged in is all I ask. My reference to lurkers were those folks not logged in. Visible or invisible is fine....just be logged in to view the OMNi's.

I'd like to at least see some minimal post count/days-as-a-member standard for entry.

What those numbers should be are subject to debate but I do think it should revert back to a forum where you earn entrance based on your miles/points contributions elsewhere on FT.

And one more thing. I would like to see folks logged in for OMNI to be visible. That prevents lurkers, suspended members and maybe even Google bots from reading the content.

Hear, hear!

I think most of you know the history here ...Omni used to be a forum open only to members with a certain time on FT or certain post count (can't recall what it was now). That was changed within the last couple of years and many Omni posters were upset as their posts could then be found through Google searches and so forth...It is not difficult to code any Web page so that Google and other search engines that play by the rules (which includes just about every search engine anyone can be expected to use) will ignore it. This doesn't require anything special about who can see the page by going to it, being logged in, or anything else.

If we want search engines to ignore OMNI posts, let's do that. If we want to require seniority or log-in to access OMNI, let's do that (and we'll get the first as a by-product, whether we want it or not). Above all, though, let's not confuse these two issues. They're separate.

If we want search engines to ignore OMNI posts, let's do that. If we want to require seniority or log-in to access OMNI, let's do that (and we'll get the first as a by-product, whether we want it or not). Above all, though, let's not confuse these two issues. They're separate.


That paragraph was only to refresh people's minds about what took place and what some of the complaints were when Omni was opened.

The general proposal/idea and my reason for suggesting it are clearly in the two paragraphs after that.

Excellent idea. The justification for opening it was never very convincing, imo.

I'd be willing to consider both a minimum time/post count for Omni access or a logged-in requirement.

I'd be in favor of that.

I'd like to at least see some minimal post count/days-as-a-member standard for entry.

What those numbers should be are subject to debate but I do think it should revert back to a forum where you earn entrance based on your miles/points contributions elsewhere on FT.

And one more thing. I would like to see folks logged in for OMNI to be visible. That prevents lurkers, suspended members and maybe even Google bots from reading the content.



+1 on both counts.

And it means more to me that the person saying this is a current moderator of that forum & thus knows what, if any, hassles are involved.

Having said that, I was supportive of both before although they got knocked down.

FWIW - the Omni opening happened shortly after IB acquiring FT. In my mind it's not a coincidence it got opened given IB is in the 'click' bizness.

Cheers.

I have forgotten. Wasn't opening OMNI to everyone a decision Randy enacted on his own without a TB vote? Or was this an IB decison? Or was it something else?

When I first joined FT, OMNI was open to everyone -- and to search engine bots too -- and remained that way for years until it was limited to a small sub-set of FTers. Then things reverted largely to the way it was before and so no OMNI remains open to (most) everyone again (and to the search engine bots). The period of time where OMNI was limited to a small sub-set of FTers (and not accessible by ordinary search engine bots) -- represents a minority of the years covering OMNI's existence.

I guess the cycling through the approaches must be a function of the tugs between the difficulty of moderating the forum and of the business interests tied to advertising.

I'd be in favor of that.

I'd like to at least see some minimal post count/days-as-a-member standard for entry.

What those numbers should be are subject to debate but I do think it should revert back to a forum where you earn entrance based on your miles/points contributions elsewhere on FT.

And one more thing. I would like to see folks logged in for OMNI to be visible. That prevents lurkers, suspended members and maybe even Google bots from reading the content.Yes, yes, and yes! ^

And one more thing. I would like to see folks logged in for OMNI to be visible. That prevents lurkers, suspended members and maybe even Google bots from reading the content.

While that may work to prevent lurkers and maybe even search engine bots from viewing the content, I have doubts that any of these measures are going to put an absolute stop to suspended members viewing the content.

I'd like to at least see some minimal post count/days-as-a-member standard for entry.

If this were going to work like a cooling-off period for firearms, add in a requirement for the FTer to request access to OMNI and only grant it X number of days after the request has been made by a member meeting the qualification requirements. Of course this opens up the door to another problem that would exist in the absence of an ability and willingness to grandfather in current OMNI users.

I have forgotten. Wasn't opening OMNI to everyone a decision Randy enacted on his own without a TB vote? Or was this an IB decision? Or was it something else?

Well I've been an active member for about 11 years and the history of OMNI has been pretty chequered. And often controversial. :cool:

It has been totally closed down for a couple of times at least, as some folks could not play nice.

For a while it was only for members with X posts (100 or so IIRC).

For a while Randy decreed that post counts there did not count to member post totals. (Something I did then and do strongly now, agree with.)

There were riots in the streets from the handful of folks who'd got their post count up to 20,000 or whatever, never making a travel or helpful post but COULD apparently count backwards from 100,000. :rolleyes:

IIRC Randy later changed that policy. I do not know if that remains the case, as I never visit the Forum.

When I was on Talkboard I recall we had at least one vote, indeed more than one as I recall on various aspects on OMNI - others might recall what they were.

It does not matter really, as Randy's POV on them was made clear at the time. :)

However I must say Randy was SOLE moderator there for quite a long burst. By his choice -- which must have chewed up hours a day, and that always surprised me he'd bother.

There were others who at various times he appointed to help out .. ScottC, skofarrell, Cholula are handles I seem to recall were among them over the years.

In my 30,0000 posts here I doubt more than a few were made in OMNI.

FT is a travel board and if it stayed tightly focused on that, it would long term benefit from that. IMHO.

My hunch is that posting stats were what convinced Randy and IB to keep it, and keep it open to all.

More stats = higher Alexa rating, and higher ad rake in. Simple economics.

My argument was that if posting numbers were all that was of interest to owners, opening new forums on Abortion Debate, Gun Control Debate, homosexual issues debate, Muslim debate, Jewish debate, Anti Republican Debate, Anti Democrat debate etc would triple posting numbers in weeks.

None have anything whatever to do with Miles and Points of course, but hey the ads would sell for more!

So my personal view in that money and post numbers is the reason OMNI has been retained in recent years. And asking IB to restrict access to making money has zero chance of getting approved. IMHO. :cool:

Glen

FWIW - the Omni opening happened shortly after IB acquiring FT. In my mind it's not a coincidence it got opened given IB is in the 'click' bizness.

Cheers.

Well your definition of "shortly" and mine vary wildly it seems Sharon. :p

It was Randy's call entirely, and done years before the IB sale IIRC.

{removed} duplicate post

As with most other members, I would be in favor of a TOTAL ban on posting for members under (I think even a week would be effective).

I always get a bit annoyed when I see people asking questions (often without doing searches or reading the new member threads) just to get quick answers before disappearing and not contributing to the FT community.

So my personal view in that money and post numbers is the reason OMNI has been retained in recent years.

Indeed. As Woodward and Bernstein taught us, "follow the money."

And asking IB to restrict access to making money has zero chance of getting approved. IMHO. :cool:

Good OMNI analysis.

Your OMNI history review was pretty much my recollection as well.

Things change around here daily but IB, thus far, has shown little interest in the decisions that TB has made.

So if by some odd chance we would pass a motion to restrict access to OMNI, I'd be surprised if IB jumped in with an objection.

But then again I'm continually surprised by things around here. :)

I'd be willing to consider both a minimum time/post count for Omni access or a logged-in requirement.

Me also - perhaps we can have a discussion with the Mods down in OMNI to see whether they have any views. They may have identified trends we haven't seen.

I'd support minimum post count & time on FT and would prefer it if OMNI posts did not count towards post counts...

I'd support minimum post count & time on FT and would prefer it if OMNI posts did not count towards post counts...

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s113/ozstamps/Album%20TWO/5-140.jpg

Well give it an airing and make a motion. :p

Lot of water under the bridge over 5 years! :cool:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions/563745-motion-failed-dont-count-omni-posts-towards-post-count-going-forward.html

I'd support minimum post count & time on FT and would prefer it if OMNI posts did not count towards post counts...

Omni posts (at least those made in the past few years) are not included in post counts. When I was on TB I made a motion to disallow them retroactively but it touched off such a fury that the motion was defeated.

Excellent idea. The justification for opening it was never very convincing, imo.
+1000

I'd be willing to consider both a minimum time/post count for Omni access or a logged-in requirement.
Please do make this happen. The sooner, the better. Thank you.

Minimum post count and time on FT couldn't happen fast enough.

So many people have simply stopped posting there because it was opened without warning.

I'd support minimum post count & time on FT and would prefer it if OMNI posts did not count towards post counts...

Retroactive as well as going forward?
Would we remove Titles if this was retroactive?

I'd be in favor of that.

I'd like to at least see some minimal post count/days-as-a-member standard for entry.Me as well: 5 years or 5000 posts.
Or even better:- just dump OMNI

Retroactive as well as going forward?
Would we remove Titles if this was retroactive? Yeah like all the titled members want to give up their status! If it is retro-active to the beginning, many evangelists would lose their titles....and you should also include the posts from the lounge threads too!

Yeah like all the titled members want to give up their status! If it is retro-active to the beginning, many evangelists would lose their titles....and you should also include the posts from the lounge threads too!
I have to say, I've never understood why a post in a lounge thread is considered more valuable than a post in OMNI :confused:

Retroactive as well as going forward?
Would we remove Titles if this was retroactive? It might be worth nothing that currently, posts in OMNI don't count and have not done so for quite some time. Some members have already lost a chunk of posts, which you'd risk taking off them again (myefre would probably go into negative posts at that point ;)) if you were to strip out posts made when OMNI counted between those then and now.

Yeah like all the titled members want to give up their status! If it is retro-active to the beginning, many evangelists would lose their titles....and you should also include the posts from the lounge threads too!

No, many would not. Personally, I wouldn't care -- in fact, I would like to see all titles disappear. The only exceptions I would make would be for moderators and TalkBoard members when they are posting in the official capacities.

I support OP's proposal but also believe it is unlikely we can turn back the clock on the issue.

I would recommend using the same criteria we have for Coupon Connection... 90 posts AND 90 days as the minimum starting point... I think OMNI access used to be 180/180... but could be mistaken.

This would certainly eliminate the quick hitters that come into OMNI PR and wreak havic... when they have less than 10 posts outside OMNI and OMNI PR.

Well, it appears the folks in Omni P/R have learned about the hit and run zero count posters and started ignoring them. That only makes them go in to the M&P forums to get a few posts before trolling :)

90/90 is a good start. I think the 180/180 was better. Omni should be an earned priveldge.

Or, simply put the restrictions on P/R. It seems that Omni fluffy is pretty well behaved these days.

Retroactive as well as going forward?
Would we remove Titles if this was retroactive?

It should be retroactive, certainly. There isn't a single argument that makes sense that says otherwise.

Better yet, simply count all posts in all forums. I mean, if posts count in all the lounge threads or in those "Randy contests" from the past few years, why not OMNI, too?

But OMNI should go back to the 180/180 restriction.

Min. time and post count for OMNI access makes perfect sense to me. And I agree that folks should have to be logged in to see those posts.

Since this request comes from a star (get it?) moderator and is seconded by one of our excellent OMNI mods, I give it enough weight to tip me off the fence.

Although I may regret writing this, I believe it would be best to attempt to resolve all the OMNI issues in one proposal if possible. Those subjects where we cannot find consensus would have to be dropped, but I hope we can avoid that.

As to post count, I honestly don't care about the issue. I'll be the 6th vote for anything on that portion. Let the user concoct his own post count for all I care. The whole thing is so middle schoolish. Post count means nothing and it can't be transformed into anything meaningful either, except possibly that ultra-high post counts indicate you are probably annoying other members excessively. :p

For keeping Google out, a robots.txt file would do that invisibly, IIRC. However I like the idea of also fencing non-members out via a login requirement.

As to minimum post count and membership tenure, I'll be the 6th vote for anything 5 other members will agree to. That's not a deal breaker for me anywhere from 0 to 100 posts.

I'd like to know what everybody prefers:

1. Let's start with minimum post count for access to OMNI. Zero? 50? 100? (If it's not zero, we have already answered the login question.)

2. Minimum tenure: Zero? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? (Again, if it's not zero, login will be required)

If we establish a minimum post count for OMNI access, then displaying post becomes necessary. So then we have to face the issue (ugh) of how to count posts:

3. Status quo (everything counts)? Exclude OMNI from the count going forward? Additionally attempt to subtract out past OMNI posts from the count (and I don't even know if that's possible)?

Let's hear your preferences on this thread, and any other ideas or concerns you have.

I'd like to know what everybody prefers:

1. Let's start with minimum post count for access to OMNI. Zero? 50? 100? (If it's not zero, we have already answered the login question.)At least 100 (which, I believe, is what it used to be). I also think there should be "substantive contribution" requirement, though I'm not sure how that could be automated. Someone shouldn't get access by posting 100 "Me, too" posts, or by hanging out in the Lounge threads.

2. Minimum tenure: Zero? 1 month? 3 months? 6 months? (Again, if it's not zero, login will be required)1 year. OMNI used to be about being part of the community. By the time someone got to post there, we all knew them from their participation in the substantive aspects of FT.

3. Status quo (everything counts)? Exclude OMNI from the count going forward? Additionally attempt to subtract out past OMNI posts from the count (and I don't even know if that's possible)?Don't count OMNI, Lounge or Coupon Connection. I don't know if prior posts could be backed out -- I don't care either way.

180 and 180 was the previous requirement before Randy dropped it.

I'd say go back to that.

As "Coupon Connection" runners have found, the moderators are extremely good about spotting post-padding and remonstrating with such posters in an unexpected (to them, anyway) fashion. ;)

If we establish a minimum post count for OMNI access, then displaying post becomes necessary.Two thoughts.

Is it possible to drop the post count display from the profile listed shown with each post, but keep it for Statistics tab of the user's profile page? If so, then we could drop if from sight for the most part, but if someone is trying to track if they are close to meeting the OMNI requirements they still can easily do so. Would that satisfy those who think showing the post count is more of a detriment rather than an enhancement of their FT experience?

My second thought is that someone should be able to get at least a rough estimate of their posts just by doing a search of their posts. So they would be able to see if they are close to 100, 180 or whatever minimum post count. With that, then there would be no reason we would "have" to display a post count. (That would leave the question as one of preference, not a requirement.)

Two thoughts.

Is it possible to drop the post count display from the profile listed shown with each post, but keep it for Statistics tab of the user's profile page? If so, then we could drop if from sight for the most part, but if someone is trying to track if they are close to meeting the OMNI requirements they still can easily do so. Would that satisfy those who think showing the post count is more of a detriment rather than an enhancement of their FT experience?

Good idea. I could vote for that version too.

Good idea. I could vote for that version too.I think the post count should be publicly displayed because it is a rough indicator of credibility (I believe that about all web forums that I visit, not just FT).

Omni is a place to waste time. That said, might as well close it. If posters would spend more time adding their comments to various miles and points threads, Flyertalk would be a better, well informed place. If the hardcore Omni regulars didn't like it, who cares. Many spend their time in Omni anyway.

Isn't Flyertalk about miles and points. Omni was the only mistake the former owner ever made.

dh

Randy convinced me that OMNI was needed as a place for members to take their off-topic conversations. Without that outlet the regular forums would suffer from attempts to have those conversations.

I ask Talk Board to considered once again making Omni a private forum and establishing guidelines for entry.

I support this as well. I would make the post count requirement fairly high(1000+) to discourage OMNI-only posters.

Randy convinced me that OMNI was needed as a place for members to take their off-topic conversations. Without that outlet the regular forums would suffer from attempts to have those conversations.

Then why does pretty well each major forum have it's own "off-topic lounge" thread? Is there a need for both? Is there a need for either? And why should posters be rewarded for posting drivel?

I support this as well. I would make the post count requirement fairly high(1000+) to discourage OMNI-only posters. As it stands now, one could easily post in the lounge threads to gain the appropriate status !

And why should posters be rewarded for posting drivel?

You characterization that all posts in lounge threads are drivel is curious given you've posted 119 times in the Air Canada Lounge Thread. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-canada-aeroplan/328373-air-canada-forum-lounge-thread.html?highlight=lounge)

And why should posters be rewarded for posting drivel?

What "reward" do the posters get other than a higher post count?

Last time I tried to buy groceries or fill up my car with my post count I was out of luck.

So I'm having a hard time understanding what the reward is here.

You characterization that all posts in lounge threads are drivel is curious given you've posted 119 times in the Air Canada Lounge Thread. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/air-canada-aeroplan/328373-air-canada-forum-lounge-thread.html?highlight=lounge) They are drivel.......and they should not count towards post totals. BTW, what about your 173 posts in the same thread?

What "reward" do the posters get other than a higher post count?

Last time I tried to buy groceries or fill up my car with my post count I was out of luck.

So I'm having a hard time understanding what the reward is here. Cholula, you know what they get! It's that feeling of being in a special group:rolleyes:! FT has over time developed a caste system and the post count has everything to do with it !

They are drivel.......and they should not count towards post totals. BTW, what about your 173 posts in the same thread?

Yes but unlike yours mine aren't all drivel. :p But that's beside the point as I wasn't the one arguing that those posts shouldn't count as you are.

IMHO once you have some many exclusions to which posts count and which don't you might as well do away with post counts altogether along with titles as you've advocated on another TB Forum thread.

.

IMHO once you have some many exclusions to which posts count and which don't you might as well do away with post counts altogether along with titles as you've advocated on another TB Forum thread.

Start with the titles first ;) ! Baby steps......

Start with the titles first ;) ! Baby steps......

Sorry but to me it's all or nothing; if you're out to outlaw titles then IMHO you might as well ban post count and join date as those can be seen as milemarkers as I mentioned on your other thread on that topic.

Getting this topic back to what is up for debate here, I have no troubles with newbies possibly playing by the current rules to gain access to OMNI were there to be a minimum post count and time on FT. Since that's a mantra of the whole FFM game, maximizing your return within the rules, it seems somehow appropriate for FT. MHO is to go ahead and recommend to IB the adoption of OMNI access with a min. post count and length of time on FT and not get overly technical with posts only in certain threads on most forums counting.

As it stands now, one could easily post in the lounge threads to gain the appropriate status !

If Omni were to gain similar entrance requirements to those of Coupon Connection (something I support), it would take x posts AND y amount of time before someone is able to post/view it. The current protocol for Coupon Connection is 90 posts AND 90 days of membership, and while I can't speak about moderation, let's just say there are ways to prevent garbage posts from leading to access at the 90 post mark.

1. Status quo (everything counts)? The status quo is not everything counts. To repeat again, OMNI post counts don't count currently. This has been said at least twice now in this thread. It would be more productive if TB members actually read the comments from members who are more au fait with the situation with OMNI.

If they are unsure about this, they should go into OMNI and try out a post themselves, to see if post counts increase after posting. They'll find they won't because they don't count. Its why we see zero post count posters in OMNI posting away.

Omni is a place to waste time. That said, might as well close it. If posters would spend more time adding their comments to various miles and points threads, Flyertalk would be a better, well informed place. If the hardcore Omni regulars didn't like it, who cares. Many spend their time in Omni anyway.

Isn't Flyertalk about miles and points. Omni was the only mistake the former owner ever made.

dh

Hard to disagree with this assessment. OMNI does seem awfully out-of-place given the purpose of this site.

The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, the OMNI's are far and away the most popular destination on FT. The number of threads in the OMNI's equals those at even the biggest airlines and hotel forums.

And the number of OMNI posts are 30+% greater than the largest hotel and airline forums.

So there is a group on FT for whom OMNI is a very important destination.

Closing it is a non-starter IMO. Setting up a minimum threshold for posting in OMNI is much more reasonable.

180 and 180 was the previous requirement before Randy dropped it.

I'd say go back to that.

As "Coupon Connection" runners have found, the moderators are extremely good about spotting post-padding and remonstrating with such posters in an unexpected (to them, anyway) fashion. ;)

Agree with this.

So there is a group on FT for whom OMNI is a very important destination.

Closing it is a non-starter IMO. Setting up a minimum threshold for posting in OMNI is much more reasonable.

I don't think it should be closed (where would I get the advice on my stoo-pid basement, pipes & furnace :p :D), but do think a minimum threshold is reasonable.

One question - if there are already people who are posting in it & wouldn't meet the new min threshold, do they get locked out or are they grandfathered in?

Cheers.

IMHO, they should be locked out. Omni shouldn't be their primary destination. Plus, IMO, some of these low post members only posted in the M&P forums to gain some credibility, since zero counters started being ignored.

I also haven't seen any major BB with a focused area of discussion not have an off topic area - that's what keeps people interested and coming back, and what also builds community.

Now, I also think the lounge threads should be shut down because they fragment the sense of community - but that's another discussion :)

IMHO, they should be locked out.
I agree. It can be and had been done.

IIRC, CC was an open water when I was mint new on FT. I got "locked out" of CC when the 90/90 rules were put in place shortly after I registered. I eventually earned my CC "privilege" since I was/am hooked up with FT.

I assume the same can apply to OMNI if the said 180/180 rules are reactivated?

FWIW, this is being discussed by the TB as well currently. I'm traveling over the next few days & will have limited access to FT - however, I'm supportive of the overwhelming majority of posters who would like to see some restricitons in place. The only thing I'd like to remind folks of is that even if TB makes a recommendation to the Community Director and IB, it's not enforceable - it's a recommendation. My thought is that this change was done initially to drive revenue & if that's the case, the true powers that be may not be as supportive of such a measure.

With that said, I'm in support of the OP's proposal.

FWIW, this is being discussed by the TB as well currently.
Thanks for the progress report. ^

The only thing I'd like to remind folks of is that even if TB makes a recommendation to the Community Director and IB, it's not enforceable - it's a recommendation. My thought is that this change was done initially to drive revenue & if that's the case, the true powers that be may not be as supportive of such a measure.
If that's the case, we would have known better how and what to expect from TBers from that point on, wouldn't we? ;)

I agree that if the TB recommends, it's not likely IB is going to go for it. I never really believed Randy when he said it was his idea after talking to a member at a Do. Omni was opened up on a Friday afternoon without any warning at all. The google bots started in almost immediately. That's why people were furiously deleting posts that they thought would remain out of the public domain. I know I spend a decent amount of time deleting some stuff.

Omni is a money maker for IB, and they need to make more money :)

I agree that if the TB recommends, it's not likely IB is going to go for it. I never really believed Randy when he said it was his idea after talking to a member at a Do. Omni was opened up on a Friday afternoon without any warning at all. The google bots started in almost immediately. That's why people were furiously deleting posts that they thought would remain out of the public domain. I know I spend a decent amount of time deleting some stuff...Again, let's keep separate issues separate. It's trivial to keep Google and other reputable search engines (which includes all the ones that matter economically) from searching OMNI without restricting access in any way. Do a web search for "robots.txt," or see www.robotstxt.org, for specifics.

If we want to restrict access, fine, but let's discuss that on its merits. Let's not keep dragging the searchability red herring into it.

I have to disagree. It's not a red herring. I believe it was part of the decision to open it up and probably the single reason many people deleted their posts AND stopped posting altogether. Instead of making it a friendly place to visit, as Randy had said, it made it a less friendly place, IMHO.

But closing it up would also restrict search engines, so, I'll just leave it at that :)

FWIW, this is being discussed by the TB as well currently. I'm traveling over the next few days & will have limited access to FT - however, I'm supportive of the overwhelming majority of posters who would like to see some restricitons in place. The only thing I'd like to remind folks of is that even if TB makes a recommendation to the Community Director and IB, it's not enforceable - it's a recommendation. My thought is that this change was done initially to drive revenue & if that's the case, the true powers that be may not be as supportive of such a measure.

With that said, I'm in support of the OP's proposal.

Recommendations shouldn't be withheld just because TB members feel they won't be enacted by IB. At least we'd know where everyone (including IB) stands on this.

I am in favor of anything that will keep search engines out of OMNI. I do not want FT to be known for OMNI but for the primary purpose of FT. OMNI has a good and valuable purpose for FTers, but one that would or could lead to a seriously warped external view of FT.

Please do whatever it takes to keep the search engines out.

I am in favor of anything that will keep search engines out of OMNI. I do not want FT to be known for OMNI but for the primary purpose of FT. OMNI has a good and valuable purpose for FTers, but one that would or could lead to a seriously warped external view of FT.

Please do whatever it takes to keep the search engines out.Hear, hear! ^^^^^^

Recommendations shouldn't be withheld just because TB members feel they won't be enacted by IB. At least we'd know where everyone (including IB) stands on this.

I am in complete, 100%, agreement with this. TB is elected by the membership, not by IB. It should make whatever recommendations it thinks are in the membership's interests and whether or not it believes whether IB will be willing to accept them should be completely immaterial.

I am in complete, 100%, agreement with this. TB is elected by the membership, not by IB. It should make whatever recommendations it thinks are in the membership's interests and whether or not it believes whether IB will be willing to accept them should be completely immaterial.

I agree that TB should not be silent out of fear the recommendation will be rejected. However if it's possible to shade the recommendation to reduce the probability of rejection, that's a possibility worth discussing.

In this case I think any access restrictions have approximately the same probability of rejection. For example, IMHO 90 posts and 90 days has almost the same chance of rejection by IB as 180 posts and 180 days. If anyone here thinks I'm wrong on that, please correct me now.

I have to disagree. It's not a red herring. I believe it was part of the decision to open it up and probably the single reason many people deleted their posts AND stopped posting altogether. Instead of making it a friendly place to visit, as Randy had said, it made it a less friendly place, IMHO.

But closing it up would also restrict search engines, so, I'll just leave it at that :)If they didn't know how to keep out search engines without closing the forum at the time, that's irrelevant. We know how now. Therefore, in terms of this discussion, it's a red herring.

If we want to keep search engines out, and I agree that that's a good idea, let's keep search engines out. If we want to keep FTers below a certain seniority out, let's keep them out. That will have the side effect of keeping search engines out as well, but imposing access restrictions solely for that reason is letting the tail wag the dog.

(Example: I can pave my lawn if I want. That will get rid of the dandelions. However, if all I want to do is get rid of the dandelions, there are less drastic approaches that won't surround my house with concrete.)

If they didn't know how to keep out search engines without closing the forum at the time, that's irrelevant. We know how now. Therefore, in terms of this discussion, it's a red herring.Sure they did. I even remember someone telling the FT admins and Randy about editing the robots.txt file you mention above. Some franticly asking it be done before it was too late.

If we want to keep search engines out, and I agree that that's a good idea, let's keep search engines out. If we want to keep FTers below a certain seniority out, let's keep them out. That will have the side effect of keeping search engines out as well, but imposing access restrictions solely for that reason is letting the tail wag the dog.

(Example: I can pave my lawn if I want. That will get rid of the dandelions. However, if all I want to do is get rid of the dandelions, there are less drastic approaches that won't surround my house with concrete.)Agree, but the OP mentioned the google bots in the proposal to close up Omni citing it as a reason many people left.

I am in complete, 100%, agreement with this. TB is elected by the membership, not by IB. It should make whatever recommendations it thinks are in the membership's interests and whether or not it believes whether IB will be willing to accept them should be completely immaterial.

Well put.

I continue to think the simplest thing to do would be to reinstate the immediately previous requirements of 180 posts and 180 days. The reason that those were dropped is no longer germane.

For example, IMHO 90 posts and 90 days has almost the same chance of rejection by IB as 180 posts and 180 days. If anyone here thinks I'm wrong on that, please correct me now.

IB has never gotten involved with a TB decision AFAIK. They've been about as hands-off as one could wish for.

Of course that could change tomorrow but I think we just decide the best course of action for the members of FT and run it up the flagpole for a yea or a nay as we always do.

It's up to the FT Host/Community Director, as always, to make the final decision. But I'd say TB has a .950 or better batting average of Yea's vs. Nay's over the years that I've been involved.

As it stands now, one could easily post in the lounge threads to gain the appropriate status !

True, but in my opinion the lounge threads shouldnt exist in the airline forums. The mods need to delete or move them to OMNI.

Would the Talk Board have a better chance at success if they proposed an entirely new forum outside either of the existing OMNI forums with a completely different title and entry requirements? Have any of the Talk Board members thought about going that route as an alternative?

Recommendations shouldn't be withheld just because TB members feel they won't be enacted by IB. At least we'd know where everyone (including IB) stands on this.

I agree as well. I'm just sharing the facts. I don't have any reason not to make a recommendation - I'm here for the members & by the members and intend on continuing that way.

I agree as well. I'm just sharing the facts. I don't have any reason not to make a recommendation - I'm here for the members & by the members and intend on continuing that way.

Absolutely correct. This thread has raised expectations and they must be satisfied by a TB vote.

True, but in my opinion the lounge threads shouldnt exist in the airline forums. The mods need to delete or move them to OMNI. Yep, and then that would solve the post padding for status conundrum as the posts would not count ! Of course making this retro-active would be even better!^

I agree the lounge threads should all be moved to Omni Fluffy. As well, if the posts in Omni aren't going to count, I also would like to see that happen retroactively.

I'll bet there will be a bunch of people losing their evangelist titles from the lounge threads alone. A few more from Omni - myself included.

I agree the lounge threads should all be moved to Omni Fluffy. As well, if the posts in Omni aren't going to count, I also would like to see that happen retroactively.

I'll bet there will be a bunch of people losing their evangelist titles from the lounge threads alone. A few more from Omni - myself included.

I don't care a whit if lounge posts count or not but I don't want them removed from their own forums. I can practically guarantee that if the Delta Lounge is moved into Omni, it will die an early death an early death and its members will all be on MilePoint.

Dov... do you realize just how exclusionary those lounge threads are? Instead of fostering commuity they are fragmented it.

If they existed years ago there are many people I never would have met, because some people never leave their program-of-choice forum since the social aspect is also taken care of within that forum.

Oh, they already are on milepoint, again, posting in their own forum and community. :D :D :D If I don't fly Delta, I'll never see a word any of them posts.

Oh, they already are on milepoint, again, posting in their own forum and community. :D :D :D If I don't fly Delta, I'll never see a word any of them posts.

You never see Cholula, Canarsie, or me? All three of us post in the Lounge thread.

Dov... do you realize just how exclusionary those lounge threads are? Instead of fostering commuity they are fragmented it.

If they existed years ago there are many people I never would have met, because some people never leave their program-of-choice forum since the social aspect is also taken care of within that forum.

Oh, they already are on milepoint, again, posting in their own forum and community. :D :D :D If I don't fly Delta, I'll never see a word any of them posts.

For those who want fragmentation, why take that away from them?

You never see Cholula, Canarsie, or me? All three of us post in the Lounge thread.If I wanted to.. I'll bet I can find more than 3 people posting exclusively in Delta and in the lounge thread.

Ditto for CO and their lounge thread.

These threads belong in Omni.

For those who want fragmentation, why take that away from them?
Because in most cases, they're posting "good morning" and getting a post count for it. Yet people posting real, helpful information in Omni are considered the lowest form of life.

Either count off-topic posts everywhere or don't count them anywhere.

Either count off-topic posts everywhere or don't count them anywhere.

After seeing thousands of posts count in recent Community contest threads (6-8,000 posts for some members), I'm inclined to agree with you. I'd go as far now as saying it's time to count every single post in every single forum or just turn post counts off entirely. They're pretty much meaningless now in calculating how much any of us here contribute to the travel side of FT (the majority of my posts being in those forums).

If the Talk Board can determine some way to recognize members who consistently contribute information about miles and points that would be spectacular, but I suspect there's no way to break out those points from those who rack up thousands of posts in contests in Community or lounge threads saying "good morning" multiple times throughout the week.


Tom in Dublin, Ireland

I ask Talk Board to considered once again making Omni a private forum and establishing guidelines for entry.

Been over two weeks now since this topic started. Can any of the Talk Board members advise if there will be resolution anytime soon?

Been over two weeks now since this topic started. Can any of the Talk Board members advise if there will be resolution anytime soon?

I just drafted something for discussion among the TB for the next 2 days. We want to get it right the first time. I expect a vote to begin this week.

Been over two weeks now since this topic started. Can any of the Talk Board members advise if there will be resolution anytime soon?

As mentioned earlier in this thread, we've been discussing this on the private TB forum. The US Bank holiday (Prez Weekend) probably delayed things a bit. Heck I'm still trying to get home & delayed a day due to Midwest waiver & still not sure I'll make it back tonight!

I just drafted something for discussion among the TB for the next 2 days. We want to get it right the first time. I expect a vote to begin this week.

What he said.

Cheers.

I'd be willing to consider both a minimum time/post count for Omni access or a logged-in requirement.

+1

180 and 180 was the previous requirement before Randy dropped it.

I'd say go back to that.


Well put.

I continue to think the simplest thing to do would be to reinstate the immediately previous requirements of 180 posts and 180 days. The reason that those were dropped is no longer germane.

+1

A 180/180 requirement would make sense. I'd also be happy if that requirement is applied only to OMNI P/R. The other, calmer, tamer OMNI tends to be a good source of discussion across varied topics and can be left accessible to all FTers.

I think the post count should be publicly displayed because it is a rough indicator of credibility (I believe that about all web forums that I visit, not just FT).

I concur. Often but not always, a poster's post count, and how long they've been a member for, adds to the credibility of their advice. In an otherwise anonymous forum, post count is one of the better ways of assessing a posters credibility and I believe should be displayed for all to see.

Maybe IB can add an option in the "settings" to allow users to hide their post count if they so wish (or the other way around, making it optional for posters to display their post count).

I'm a little late to this party, and I apologize, but I'm chiming in with my opinion anyway. :)

I tend to favor the 180/180 requirement that was in place for quite a while. It was a nice filter, because you were required to meet both the 180 posts, and 180 days, so even if you wanted to pad your post count to get there, the time restriction was in place.

I'd suggest this option at least for OMNI/PR. Your non-political, non-religious OMNI, not as much.

OMNI helped me build a sense of community once I was finally allowed to enter, from reading what's going with others, answering questions on various topics, figuring out others' views on various things. I'm not saying that newbies don't deserve the same, but those who join FT just to post in OMNI/PR don't really help to build the same sense of community.

I was one of those who posted certain things in OMNI, when it had a post/days requirement that was not happy when it was opened, and it meant that anyone could read my threads. I didn't spend a ton of time deleting posts, but I do think there are probably some there that if they were pulled up, would probably leave me with some explaining to do.

As far as the lounge threads in the different forums, I think I've posted in a few, but for the most part, I just ignore them. It's like the people that post there have their own little things, and I don't have the patience to read thousands of posts just to figure out some of the jokes and such, or to fiugre out how to jump into the thread.

Most of the other forums to which I'm a member have an off-topic board. It's in those types of boards that I've learned so much about others and have really felt connected to them.

As a newbie, I didn't even discover OMNI for a month or maybe more (I'd have to check my posts to be sure). I didn't know what it was and I didn't think it had anything for me. So I ignored it. Instead I only contributed to what I thought applied to me. Most people don't search for OMNI they go to Yahoo! Answers instead. The people, who end up here, came here because they searched from some travel information.

I suspect there would be some upset if OMNI were to be closed to people without enough stats who'd already posted there. If it were closed to me, I'd probably take my business over to milepoint rather than make-up fake questions or add extra posts to already "answered" threads in the travel forums. The latter would make FT really annoying and might drive regulars batty.

To avoid fake posting you'd have to either grandfather current members or not close OMNI. You can't miss what you never had.

In an otherwise anonymous forum, post count is one of the better ways of assessing a posters credibility and I believe should be displayed for all to see.

That's just not the case on FT and hasn't been for some time. We have one poster with over 30,000 posts counting numbers when OMNI and the game threads there were added into post count. We have other posters with 6-8,000 post counts repetitively entering a contest in the Community section of FT. You need to research a poster's history, or be here enough on a regular basis, to know where the high post members come from and what sections of FT they post in. At the very least do a search on the poster to see where their last 500 posts have been.

If someone posted 500 times in a contest thread, would that give them credibility? Those numbers just don't mean anything any longer when they're accumulated in such a manner.

I concur with this proposal. Next, let's make the OMNI and OMNI/PR threads invisible to search engines as they used to be a few years ago.

That's just not the case on FT and hasn't been for some time. We have one poster with over 30,000 posts counting numbers when OMNI and the game threads there were added into post count. We have other posters with 6-8,000 post counts repetitively entering a contest in the Community section of FT. You need to research a poster's history, or be here enough on a regular basis, to know where the high post members come from and what sections of FT they post in. At the very least do a search on the poster to see where their last 500 posts have been.

If someone posted 500 times in a contest thread, would that give them credibility? Those numbers just don't mean anything any longer when they're accumulated in such a manner.

And that is precisely the reason why posts in OMNI and its P/R sibling should not count towards a posters total post county.

Would you still be OK with counting contest threads in Community or lounge threads in the various airline forums? If posters are racking up thousands in those, why should they be treated differently than OMNI?

I used to hold the view that OMNI posts shouldn't count, and then I saw these other non-travel related threads outside OMNI where some members got thousands of posts. My current view is to count everything or count nothing if you're going to allow contests and lounge threads outside OMNI.

Yes, Yes, Yes!

It used to that people came to FT through the common link of flying. Some more than others, but that common bond was there. When OMNI was opened to all, that went out the window, along with a part of that feeling of community. Plus this restriction would have the added benefit of weeding out some sock puppets who seem to slip through (or at least they'd have to work for their OMNI privileges :p)

Would you still be OK with counting contest threads in Community or lounge threads in the various airline forums? If posters are racking up thousands in those, why should they be treated differently than OMNI?

I used to hold the view that OMNI posts shouldn't count, and then I saw these other non-travel related threads outside OMNI where some members got thousands of posts. My current view is to count everything or count nothing if you're going to allow contests and lounge threads outside OMNI.

If a thread is, in some way, related to flying and/or travel (which is what this community is primarily about - and which is what most threads outside of OMNI and OMNI P/R are about) then the posts there in should be counted. As far as posts in the country/region specific lounge forums (as exists in the Airlines of India, and I think, Air Canada forums) I see no harm in not counting the posts there.

OTOH, if posts in COMMUNITY were not counted at all, I'd agree with that too.

Besides, I don't think there's any technical impediment to not counting posts form specific sections or threads within the forum.

People - are we really still getting our panties in a bunch over this?

1) If you posted something on an internet bulletin board, and thought that it would somehow remain private, you are an idiot. :)

2) OMNI was opened to the public, and it did not go down the shidter. What's the problem we are trying to solve here?

Seeking well though-out responses. ^

People - are we really still getting our panties in a bunch over this?

1) If you posted something on an internet bulletin board, and thought that it would somehow remain private, you are an idiot. :)

2) OMNI was opened to the public, and it did not go down the shidter. What's the problem we are trying to solve here?

Seeking well though-out responses. ^

Speaking as a regular FT member:

Re: #1. While people realize the internet is open, because OMNI used to be restricted (180 days/180 posts), people 'earned' their way into it by contributing to the core of FT elsewhere. While what they posted was on the internet & thus somewhat open, it wasn't totally open because it wasn't available to google & caching. And rightly or wrongly, because people earned their way into OMNI, they felt part of a community/family & got to know each other, thus shared things they might not necessarily share w/ the google of the world.

Re: #2. In your opinion. There are many that would disagree with you. We've got folks coming to Omni looking for ideological fights and/or to slam FTers, in addition to those creating new handles if they get suspended or banned from FT. And one of the reasons you don't see the problems you do is because the mods of Omni are kept pretty busy dealing with folk who would put Omni in the toilet & you don't see that.

Cheers.

I'd be in favor of that.

I'd like to at least see some minimal post count/days-as-a-member standard for entry.

What those numbers should be are subject to debate but I do think it should revert back to a forum where you earn entrance based on your miles/points contributions elsewhere on FT.

And one more thing. I would like to see folks logged in for OMNI to be visible. That prevents lurkers, suspended members and maybe even Google bots from reading the content.Hear, hear!Redux, redux ^

Speaking as a regular FT member:

Re: #1. While people realize the internet is open, because OMNI used to be restricted (180 days/180 posts), people 'earned' their way into it by contributing to the core of FT elsewhere. While what they posted was on the internet & thus somewhat open, it wasn't totally open because it wasn't available to google & caching. And rightly or wrongly, because people earned their way into OMNI, they felt part of a community/family & got to know each other, thus shared things they might not necessarily share w/ the google of the world.

Re: #2. In your opinion. There are many that would disagree with you. We've got folks coming to Omni looking for ideological fights and/or to slam FTers, in addition to those creating new handles if they get suspended or banned from FT. And one of the reasons you don't see the problems you do is because the mods of Omni are kept pretty busy dealing with folk who would put Omni in the toilet & you don't see that.

Cheers.
Re: #1. You post it on a public bulletin board, you should know that it's now out in the open. The touchy-feely-community-family explanation is never an excuse.

Re: #2. I'm in OMNI all the time. Nope, we never had a wave of random folks coming to OMNI for ideological fights, or to slam FTers, or to create new handles. Paranoid, ever? ;)

Re: #2. I'm in OMNI all the time. Nope, we never had a wave of random folks coming to OMNI for ideological fights, or to slam FTers, or to create new handles. Paranoid, ever? ;)

Well guess you spend all your time on Omni-lite ;) And since one of the mods of Omni (and he would know) says they're constantly dealing w/ stuff like that, don't think there's any paranoia involved.

Cheers.