TalkBoard Topics - Should login be required for access to Mistake Fares?

FT members have long been concerned about airlines using information posted on FT against FT members. This may have occurred after the recent Korean Airlines mistake fare to Palau.

The US Department of Transportation (DOT) has noted that blogs (presumably including FT) spread news of the fare, that it's impossible to distinguish innocent victims from canny exploiters, and that this circumstance makes a DOT court case against Korean Airlines unwinnable. In other words, if it's posted on FT the DOT will not pursue the airline to honor its fare. This recent DOT decision strengthens the long-running argument in favor of hiding the hottest deals.

Furthermore, Korean Airlines may have attempted to identify FT members by comparing their posted itineraries with actual ticket purchases. That might be legal, but it would be a bannable violation of FT rules if a member did it.

Because of the suspected attempt to identify FT members, which may or may not have occurred but is always a possibility, I am leaning toward proposing recommending a login requirement for access to mistake fares and other ultra-hot deals. Logging in requires membership, and membership requires acceptance of the rule against trying to identify or stalk other members. It also hides information from search engines and prevents hyperlinking to these FT posts.

The login restriction might apply to a new forum, it might be a new subforum under Mileage Run Deals, or it might even include all of Mileage Run Deals and Mileage Run Discussion.

I would like to discuss pros and cons of implementing an access restriction at all, and of the various options to implement it.

I am aware from the previous discussion (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html) that most RSS readers will be blocked by a login requirement. I am very interested in posts of information about how to get RSS feeds to function correctly by supplying the FT handle and password one time only.

Last year a majority of the TalkBoard voted to require a login for Mileage Run, but due to unclear wording we rescinded that recommendation. Then the TalkBoard could not agree on what to do. I hope to resolve that situation this year and find a consensus for a particular change or for the status quo.

Thank you very much for bringing this topic up again.

Personally, I'd be more in favor of a 180/180 restriction than just being logged in.

Thank you very much for bringing this topic up again.

Personally, I'd be more in favor of a 180/180 restriction than just being logged in.

^

I'm not supportive of this. FlyerTalk is about the sharing of information.

Things like this help turn lurkers to members.

You win some, you lose some.

Having someone logged in or not logged in isn't going to help the problem (assuming you believe there is a problem, I don't).

At this time, I don't support anything that makes FT more restrictive. I don't believe that was in the interest of the founding principles of FlyerTalk.

Things like this help turn lurkers to members.

Agreed. What's the downside?

Agreed. What's the downside?

Sorry - wasn't clear...

By having things like mistake fares (and pretty much all other fares, etc) available to the public, lurkers become members and they stick around which helps grow FT and bring in new people and new perspectives - which is a good thing, IMHO...that's what brought & kept me here, anyways...

***

On another note - how would this sort of thing be implemented? There isn't a "Mistake Fare" forum - only a Mileage Run Deals and Hotel Deals forum. I wouldn't support creating a "Mistake Fares Forum" because it's just not necessary & wouldn't have volume, IMHO.

Also, a logged in requirement is "security theater" - I can guarantee you that most airlines & hotels have logins (hell, we've got "Company Representatives" at titles now).

This idea doesn't really solve anything, IMHO.

Not that there's anything to solve...

I know this will be a hotly debated issue, but since you asked the question:

I agree with PVDtoDEL. I have been and still am in favor of both a login requirement and a seasoning requirement for access to the Mileage Run forums. I'm less concerned about whether the seasoning is 90/90 or 180/180; I'm only concerned that there is some such requirement.

I understand this would break many RSS readers. I acknowledge that FT is about sharing information. And I agree that lack of access to MR-related forums might discourage lurkers from becoming members -- but I could also argue the reverse, that other lurkers might finally have a good reason to register and post. These arguments have been made before.

There are certainly many trade-offs to this decision, and in spite of the disadvantages noted by bhatnasx, I absolutely support requiring login (and account seasoning) for access to mistake fares.

I'm not supportive of this. FlyerTalk is about the sharing of information.

Things like this help turn lurkers to members.

You win some, you lose some.

Having someone logged in or not logged in isn't going to help the problem (assuming you believe there is a problem, I don't).

At this time, I don't support anything that makes FT more restrictive. I don't believe that was in the interest of the founding principles of FlyerTalk.

Agreed. ^

We've had this discussion before. Here's a reminder for those that may not remember... noobs are the ones that often times bring us the mistake fare. :eek:

If FT has some sort of requirement, then the entire community misses out on whatever deal there is.

If the Korean error noted above is true, it's an exception.

There is a simple solution to that:

Allow "Mileage Run Discussion" to be viewed by the public, and have the 180/180 requirement to view Mileage Run Deals. Then move the "Good Deals" threads to the Discussion forum, as a megathread. When a deal is posted there with sufficiently low CPM, then it can be moved to Mileage Run Deals. That way people can still bring good fares, but once fares are out there, they won't be wide open for the public to see.

I'd hope that if a newbie brings a deal that is good enough to be posted in Mileage Run Deals, someone will be courteous enough to tell them...

Personally I would be very strongly in favour of a 180/180.

The downside to sharing publicly is that certain individuals don't intend on reciprocating this generosity, and therefore ruin it for the rest of us.

I've always felt that posters should be signed in to view this forum if for no other reason than to keep it away from the search bots.

I'm wondering if this point isn't even moot. I can't recall the last time a really good mistake fare was posted.

Quoting myself from the private TB forum:

"I don't have a problem with registered/log-in. And if you do a search in the public forum, this was discussed previously in a long thread. Also, the 180/180. So current & new TB members might want to read the discussions in both the private & public TB forums. IIRC it was a hot button topic, & had a lot of pro/con on both sides.

I was supportive of log-in then & would be supportive of it now.

I don't think it's a hardship to be registered/logged in, and eliminates the alledged elitism of the 180/180/keeping newbies out because, like the walking through snow 20 miles with no shoes story, it seems that everyone knows one newbie who posted something valuable in MR."

Cheers.

I'm wondering if this point isn't even moot. I can't recall the last time a really good mistake fare was posted.

Thing is, by the time a mistake fare is posted on FT, either in a restricted forum or not, the ship has pretty much sailed. Mistake fares are better fodder for listservs, imho.

That said, sure, why not create a restricted forum for them....although of course there are long-time FTers who work for the companies that set fares and formulas so would be perfectly eligible to hang out in even the most restricted forums...@:-)

I've always felt that posters should be signed in to view this forum if for no other reason than to keep it away from the search bots.

I agree with this point. Even just to sign-in to view the forum will keep crawlers from placing it on all the search engines.
I am in for the login, but in regards to a 90/90 or 180/180 that is still up in the air, though I do believe there should be some sort of min posts/days registered. This keeps people active in other parts of FT, not just the mistake fares.
FT is to help the frequent flyer, to earn miles, to gain status, not just to exploit mistake fares only to turn around and book the ticket then call up the airline and inform them of their mistake.

I'm wondering if this point isn't even moot. I can't recall the last time a really good mistake fare was posted.

If so, one of the reasons might be the lack of protection from search engines. Adding protection might attract more valuable posts.

I think the real reason is to keep airline/hotel lurkers from spotting the mistake and fixing it too quickly. When the mistakes started disappearing shortly after being posted on FT the posting of them went underground.

I wonder if "Company Representatives" automatically get Coupon Connection access after the 180/180.

I'm amazed that anyone is against the login requirement. The argument that mistake fares making lurkers into members is simply false. If I can get all the information as a lurker and I have no intend to post, I'm not going to become a member; if I intend to post, I'm going to become a member anyway. The odds of someone randomly landing on the mileage run forum on FT, finding a mistake fare and registering because of it are low. The odds of someone who is interested in MR registering in order to have access to such a forum are high in today's world, they'll just keep lurking and might never register.

The 90/90 or 180/180 discussion has merit in my view. While I understand the downside of such a restriction, I believe that the overall benefits to the contributing members outwight the downside to the new or non-regularly contributing members. I also think that "Company Representatives" should be kept out of such a forum - there is nothing to prevent the individuals from creating a personal account and gain access to such a forum using the personal account.

I'm amazed that anyone is against the login requirement. The argument that mistake fares making lurkers into members is simply false. If I can get all the information as a lurker and I have no intend to post, I'm not going to become a member; if I intend to post, I'm going to become a member anyway. The odds of someone randomly landing on the mileage run forum on FT, finding a mistake fare and registering because of it are low. The odds of someone who is interested in MR registering in order to have access to such a forum are high in today's world, they'll just keep lurking and might never register.

The 90/90 or 180/180 discussion has merit in my view. While I understand the downside of such a restriction, I believe that the overall benefits to the contributing members outwight the downside to the new or non-regularly contributing members. I also think that "Company Representatives" should be kept out of such a forum - there is nothing to prevent the individuals from creating a personal account and gain access to such a forum using the personal account.

+1

+1

+2.

A no brainer to me.

Just one more point: FT's openness has forced the creation of vibrant private communities with stunning deals. A lot of the stunning deals, if they're killable, have moved to these gated communities. By gating, FT can regain a portion of those deals.

Edited to add one more point: By gating, we'd avoid posts like "aah! Help (and 16,000) EQMs needed! Travel Dec 9th-18th" in the MR Deals forum instead of the MR Discussion forum.

So what is the login requirement going to achieve?

- the DOT not seeing that 'canny exploiters' are on to the mistake fare?
The DOT can ask for the records if an airline mentions it during a hearing.

- the airlines/ travel providers not seeing the mistake fare?
Give me a break the majors are all signed up as company representatives and even have 180+ posts, so they could even subscribe to the forum to get minute by minute updates from FT itself

With the plethora of bloggers today a 'secret' deal will be spread within minutes since they want to show that they know what others don't :) All for a few clicks on a (credit card) ad.

BTW, any decent airline has a daily report for each market that reports all newly filed fares in major GDS that deviate by more than x % from the previous version. A contact at LH showed me the table he had and my eyes started popping and he must have noticed my raised heartbeat when he showed me all the deviations of the day. I remember a ABQ-PAR C fare that had dropped by 1000$ over at AA due to some bug.

Bottom line I would say the deals have become rarer because the airlines are now getting better with the advent of online booking portals that cannot we voided retroactively like it was 10 years ago by threatening a TA with an ADM.

BTW, any decent airline has a daily report for each market that reports all newly filed fares in major GDS that deviate by more than x % from the previous version. A contact at LH showed me the table he had and my eyes started popping and he must have noticed my raised heartbeat when he showed me all the deviations of the day. I remember a ABQ-PAR C fare that had dropped by 1000$ over at AA due to some bug.

Bottom line I would say the deals have become rarer because the airlines are now getting better with the advent of online booking portals that cannot we voided retroactively like it was 10 years ago by threatening a TA with an ADM.

Yet despite all the technology mistakes and mistake fares still occur, though with less frequency which may have made FT a victim of its own success.

I've never thought a log in requirement too high a barrier to access the one forum that draws many to FT.

My point was that we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that airlines log in to the MR forum to see whats currently mistakenly filed: they trust their reports far more. The potential time consumed to filter all the chatter in FT down to what is relevant to them is not worth it.

Of course once 000s have booked a mistake fare and take them to court for cancelling the tickets (if that ever happens) they (with some research) can pull some screenshots from FT to prove the authorities that some here ganged up to book this fare en masse and the story that its just some innocent customer 'who planned the trip anyway and just happened to see the low price from CMB to NYC x3 return on orbitz with 15 hops and 3 fuel dumps' will unwind quickly. :p

I'm amazed that anyone is against the login requirement. The argument that mistake fares making lurkers into members is simply false. If I can get all the information as a lurker and I have no intend to post, I'm not going to become a member; if I intend to post, I'm going to become a member anyway. The odds of someone randomly landing on the mileage run forum on FT, finding a mistake fare and registering because of it are low. The odds of someone who is interested in MR registering in order to have access to such a forum are high in today's world, they'll just keep lurking and might never register.

The 90/90 or 180/180 discussion has merit in my view. While I understand the downside of such a restriction, I believe that the overall benefits to the contributing members outwight the downside to the new or non-regularly contributing members. I also think that "Company Representatives" should be kept out of such a forum - there is nothing to prevent the individuals from creating a personal account and gain access to such a forum using the personal account.

+1 ( I think that's +3 now)

I'm amazed that anyone is against the login requirement. The argument that mistake fares making lurkers into members is simply false. If I can get all the information as a lurker and I have no intend to post, I'm not going to become a member; if I intend to post, I'm going to become a member anyway. The odds of someone randomly landing on the mileage run forum on FT, finding a mistake fare and registering because of it are low. The odds of someone who is interested in MR registering in order to have access to such a forum are high in today's world, they'll just keep lurking and might never register.

The 90/90 or 180/180 discussion has merit in my view. While I understand the downside of such a restriction, I believe that the overall benefits to the contributing members outwight the downside to the new or non-regularly contributing members. I also think that "Company Representatives" should be kept out of such a forum - there is nothing to prevent the individuals from creating a personal account and gain access to such a forum using the personal account.Bolding mine:I agree with everything you said except for the bolded part as, imho, the company reps are here doing us a service and do dis-allow them access to forums simply because they are company reps is simply not right as (and again, imho) they might perceive that as being not completely welcome and could choose to no longer participate in their official capacity. The goal/premise of having an entry requirement (i.e. 180/180) is to (perhaps) keep lurkers from "spilling the beans" but that needs to apply to all members and that's as far as it goes in my book. If a company rep has the required criteria for access, then so be it and they are free to peruse or not peruse any forum they choose (and if that happens to be the M/R forums, then so be it as well)

FT members have long been concerned about airlines using information posted on FT against FT members. This may have occurred after the recent Korean Airlines mistake fare to Palau.

...

I am aware from the previous discussion (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1080180-request-2nd-sub-forum-mileage-run-criterias-similar-coupon-connection.html) that most RSS readers will be blocked by a login requirement. I am very interested in posts of information about how to get RSS feeds to function correctly by supplying the FT handle and password one time only.

Last year a majority of the TalkBoard voted to require a login for Mileage Run, but due to unclear wording we rescinded that recommendation. Then the TalkBoard could not agree on what to do. I hope to resolve that situation this year and find a consensus for a particular change or for the status quo.

This one debate, if TalkBoard members can understand and vote on the issues raised by FTers, would be a very, very useful debate.

This new information you note above will be one additional, important consideration. There are other issues, often discussed in the MR Discussion forum, so I will try to bring some of these points across.

I fear that once again, there may not be a vote on the issue, but rather some objections to the concept of access restrictions to any FT forums or threads.

Please be aware of this, so that the issue you note above, can be discussed on its merits.

I hope that the consensus-building, issue-focused TalkBoard members can progress the debate to a vote on the issue this time.

Sincere thanks!

BB

Bolding mine:I agree with everything you said except for the bolded part as, imho, the company reps are here doing us a service and do dis-allow them access to forums simply because they are company reps is simply not right as (and again, imho) they might perceive that as being not completely welcome and could choose to no longer participate in their official capacity. The goal/premise of having an entry requirement (i.e. 180/180) is to (perhaps) keep lurkers from "spilling the beans" but that needs to apply to all members and that's as far as it goes in my book. If a company rep has the required criteria for access, then so be it and they are free to peruse or not peruse any forum they choose (and if that happens to be the M/R forums, then so be it as well)

Fair enough. If that is the only objection, leave this out and let's move forward.

Low hanging fruit ripe for the picking.. the general concern is the good deal gets posted, and gets fixed asap by the company..

Is there merit that good deals under a cloak of secrecy will last longer.. I would say so.

What format that looks like, is up for debate..

people seem to be missing this >

In other words, if it's posted on FT the DOT will not pursue the airline to honor its fare.

"Should login be required for access to Mistake Fares?"

No.


If the idea were to try to protect deals posted on FT from being shut down by companies offering the deals, it's ineffective in a variety of ways. For example, company representatives, including those solicited by FT "management" types, already are present as members on FT; and there are company apologists who would have access anyway as is the case already and wouldn't necessarily work toward keeping the deal alive. Then there are the bloggers who have access in one or more ways.

If the idea is something else, still my answer remains "no" to the thread's headline question.

There are plenty of airline deals posted on FT which the DOT could take issue with if if not honored, but given the DOT is such an industry patsy, whether or not the deal is posted on FT doesn't absolutely make or break matters in a regulatory or legal sense.

So what is the login requirement going to achieve?

- the DOT not seeing that 'canny exploiters' are on to the mistake fare?
The DOT can ask for the records if an airline mentions it during a hearing.

- the airlines/ travel providers not seeing the mistake fare?
Give me a break the majors are all signed up as company representatives and even have 180+ posts, so they could even subscribe to the forum to get minute by minute updates from FT itself

With the plethora of bloggers today a 'secret' deal will be spread within minutes since they want to show that they know what others don't :) All for a few clicks on a (credit card) ad.

BTW, any decent airline has a daily report for each market that reports all newly filed fares in major GDS that deviate by more than x % from the previous version. A contact at LH showed me the table he had and my eyes started popping and he must have noticed my raised heartbeat when he showed me all the deviations of the day. I remember a ABQ-PAR C fare that had dropped by 1000$ over at AA due to some bug.

Bottom line I would say the deals have become rarer because the airlines are now getting better with the advent of online booking portals that cannot we voided retroactively like it was 10 years ago by threatening a TA with an ADM.

Airlines indeed have more tools to spot extraordinary price swings and they have also been empowered to shut down deals faster as re-filing of fares with greater expediency is part of the picture now in a way that was not true a few years ago.

What this means is that FTers have to get faster to get in on a deal rather than hope an FT deal forum being restricted to search bots or what not is going to make a substantial difference.

US DOT is not my concern as they have bigger things with which to be concerned when it comes to fares than what gets posted in public on FT or not.

"Should login be required for access to Mistake Fares?"

No.


If the idea were to try to protect deals posted on FT from being shut down by companies offering the deals, it's ineffective in a variety of ways. For example, company representatives, including those solicited by FT "management" types, already are present as members on FT; and there are company apologists who would have access anyway as is the case already and wouldn't necessarily work toward keeping the deal alive. Then there are the bloggers who have access in one or more ways.

If the idea is something else, still my answer remains "no" to the thread's headline question.

There are plenty of airline deals posted on FT which the DOT could take issue with if if not honored, but given the DOT is such an industry patsy, whether or not the deal is posted on FT doesn't absolutely make or break matters in a regulatory or legal sense.

I was thinking more along the lines of why CC is blocked - to encourage active participation. MR Deals is a privilege, when you come down to it.

That said, I agree that it will likely have minimal effect on DOT/Airlines/etc.

I was thinking more along the lines of why CC is blocked - to encourage active participation. MR Deals is a privilege, when you come down to it.


If MR deals were locked off the way CC and/or OMNI are, I'd have been a poorer person for it.

Some of the best travel deals and information fundamental to travel deals I've gotten from FT are due to those FT members whom wouldn't have had CC access then or even still. I won't go into this aspect of it more than that, but I see nothing for me to gain from MR Deals being restricted like CC and/or OMNI.

I say this from the vantage point of having no doubt that there are not many on FT whom have gained as much as I have from the "mistake fares" posted on FT.

I would hope we would not restrict access for our members to those forums.

I believe they are what bring many new members to our board, who decide to stay.

In addition, several "newer" members have posted great deals that I have taken advantage of... and for that I say "THANK YOU".

I could see requiring members to be logged in to see the forum... if that is possible. But, I do not think we should restrict "core" forums from our members. I believe that the MR forums are different than CC and OMNI.

"Should login be required for access to Mistake Fares?"

No.


If the idea were to try to protect deals posted on FT from being shut down by companies offering the deals, it's ineffective in a variety of ways. For example, company representatives, including those solicited by FT "management" types, already are present as members on FT; and there are company apologists who would have access anyway as is the case already and wouldn't necessarily work toward keeping the deal alive. Then there are the bloggers who have access in one or more ways.

If the idea is something else, still my answer remains "no" to the thread's headline question.

There are plenty of airline deals posted on FT which the DOT could take issue with if if not honored, but given the DOT is such an industry patsy, whether or not the deal is posted on FT doesn't absolutely make or break matters in a regulatory or legal sense.

I'm thinking there are additional problems to restricting access.. like how would the mistake fare get posted in the first place? Alot of the deals are posted by those who can login and have quick easy access to navigate.. sometimes before prior to logging in.

The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking that FT will have to adjust to the new reality.. trasnparency is norm and key, good or bad.. We shouldn't be restricting information from flowing.. Especially the deals that appear regularly here on FT.:)

I'm thinking there are additional problems to restricting access.. like how would the mistake fare get posted in the first place?

I think you're confusing two distinct ideas; a.) requiring members be signed in to view MR Deals forum and b.) possibly having a new rule that members must meet posting criteria before getting access to that forum. I support a.) but not b.)

I think you're confusing two distinct ideas; a.) requiring members be signed in to view MR Deals forum and b.) possibly having a new rule that members must meet posting criteria before getting access to that forum. I support a.) but not b.)

To clarify.. I'm not saying that the posting criteria should be met..

Its getting the deal posted in the first place, and the public and/or FT member finding the forum would impose a layer of difficulty getting the deal deposited and posted onto the forum for the viewing members (and to the correct place).

If there is a public member wanting to post a deal.. and don't know about the hidden forum.. it would be less likely that the deal would be posted.. This would be the difficulty of adding access to the deal.. is simply getting the deals to where its accessible..

User friendliness goes a long ways.. I suppose there could be 24/7 mods viewing deal postings.. when a juicy fruit one appears.. off it goes to the secret forum.. but how maneagable would that be?

To clarify.. I'm not saying that the posting criteria should be met..

Its getting the deal posted in the first place, and the public and/or FT member finding the forum would impose a layer of difficulty getting the deal deposited and posted onto the forum for the viewing members (and to the correct place).

If there is a public member wanting to post a deal.. and don't know about the hidden forum.. it would be less likely that the deal would be posted.. This would be the difficulty of adding access to the deal.. is simply getting the deals to where its accessible..

User friendliness goes a long ways.. I suppose there could be 24/7 mods viewing deal postings.. when a juicy fruit one appears.. off it goes to the secret forum.. but how maneagable would that be?

I don't think it's a hardship to be registered/logged in. And do you really think that the 5 seconds it takes is really going to delay a deal getting posted? FWIW - I think FT members who are interested in mileage runs already know how to find the forum & probably have it bookmarked in "My Flyertalk" ;)

I do think sagy makes a valid point.

"I'm amazed that anyone is against the login requirement. The argument that mistake fares making lurkers into members is simply false. If I can get all the information as a lurker and I have no intend to post, I'm not going to become a member; if I intend to post, I'm going to become a member anyway. The odds of someone randomly landing on the mileage run forum on FT, finding a mistake fare and registering because of it are low. The odds of someone who is interested in MR registering in order to have access to such a forum are high in today's world, they'll just keep lurking and might never register."

Cheers.

I could see requiring members to be logged in to see the forum... if that is possible.

Is there a way the forum could be visible to those not logged in, but the actual thread titles and content masked?

Is there a way the forum could be visible to those not logged in, but the actual thread titles and content masked?

Just a guess, but I doubt the software allows/can handle that. But worth asking the IB IT guys.

Cheers.

Just a guess, but I doubt the software allows/can handle that. But worth asking the IB IT guys.

Cheers.

What would the point of that be? The forum would be empty. I think that would have a worse effect: unregistered people would believe there's a place to post that information on FT--but nobody is. At that point, it seems better to just make the entire forum hidden.

I don't think it's a hardship to be registered/logged in. And do you really think that the 5 seconds it takes is really going to delay a deal getting posted? FWIW - I think FT members who are interested in mileage runs already know how to find the forum & probably have it bookmarked in "My Flyertalk" ;)

I do think sagy makes a valid point.

"I'm amazed that anyone is against the login requirement. The argument that mistake fares making lurkers into members is simply false. If I can get all the information as a lurker and I have no intend to post, I'm not going to become a member; if I intend to post, I'm going to become a member anyway. The odds of someone randomly landing on the mileage run forum on FT, finding a mistake fare and registering because of it are low. The odds of someone who is interested in MR registering in order to have access to such a forum are high in today's world, they'll just keep lurking and might never register."

Cheers.

A login seems reasonable.. but even a login provides that extra bit of barrier that may discourage the person with the deal from posting on FT!

For example, when scanning quickly over the topics, if it takes extra time and research to locate the appropriate forum, i.e. having to login to see the forums.. Than that deal is less likely to get posted..

AFAIK, competition from other travel forums is immense.. so there is merit to offering information unadulterated, to encourage users to come back because FT is easy to use..

Chicken or the egg?

A login seems reasonable.. but even a login provides that extra bit of barrier that may discourage the person with the deal from posting on FT!

For example, when scanning quickly over the topics, if it takes extra time and research to locate the appropriate forum, i.e. having to login to see the forums.. Than that deal is less likely to get posted..

Non sequitur. You need to login to post anyway.

Non sequitur. You need to login to post anyway.

Yes.. but you don't need to login to read..

Someone with a deal could think that their deal isn't relevant to the forum, because its simply not there.. not knowing they have to login to see it..

Yes.. but you don't need to login to read..

Someone with a deal could think that their deal isn't relevant to the forum, because its simply not there.. not knowing they have to login to see it..

I saw one of those kinds of people post a deal in the MR Deals forum just today:

UA/CO cheapest 4 EQS from CLE? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/1288694-ua-co-cheapest-4-eqs-cle.html) (9 hours ago)
Same day would be ideal from DEC 15-20 or DEC 26-27. Thnx much.

8bf18 has a post count of 1. These kinds of deals are the deals we'd miss out on if we make it easy for newbies like him/her to find the MR Deals forum and post to it. Thanks, but no thanks.

Keeping deals from being killed is not the only benefit of this proposal.

I consider it to be a big difference in being helpful to newbies who make a basic effort to use the search function and do a little work on their own vs. newbies that post expecting answers to be handed on a silver platter. To get the short-lived crown jewels of our FT cooperation, a bare minimum of contribution should be demonstrated.

--

Edited to add following examples:
AA: Need 6 segments out of DFW for PLT (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/1288534-aa-need-6-segments-out-dfw-plt.html) - 17 hours ago (author post count of 2)
MR needed from SYR on DL (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/1288095-mr-needed-syr-dl.html) - 2 days ago
UA MR for 4,616 worth it? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/1288007-ua-mr-4-616-worth.html) - 3 days ago (author post count of 1)

Edited to add additional juicy MR Deals posted by newbies (12/9 2:24pm CST):
Cheap short mr from bos needed (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/1289371-cheap-short-mr-bos-needed.html) - 3 hours ago (APC of 55)
AA: NYC to Toronto (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/1289344-aa-nyc-toronto.html) - 4 hours ago (APC of 1)
Need 7,800 MQMs on DL by Dec 31 - help! (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/1289198-need-7-800-mqms-dl-dec-31-help.html) - 9p yesterday (APC of 2; those two posts are identical dupe posts, one posted to MR Deals, one posted to MR Discussion)
Looking for a good long haul out of GSP for the end of the year- Any ideas? (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mileage-run-deals/1289218-looking-good-long-haul-out-gsp-end-year-any-ideas.html) - 10:13p yesterday (APC of 1)

HG,

Well said and great examples. I'm still waiting to see an example of a great deal posted by someone who just happened to stumble on the Mileage Run forum for the first time.

I agree with Saggy's points...

Some lurkers have never any intention of becoming a member

If there was a way IB could make the posts 180/180 rule but with still being able to add the info...i would think that would ideal

If there was a way IB could make the posts 180/180 rule but with still being able to add the info...i would think that would ideal

LOL - I think that's called having your cake & wanting to eat it too.

But it's a moot point. The software doesn't allow a 180/180 restriction but it can be overrided if someone has a good deal to post.

Speaking only for myself I would vote against a 180/180 entry to the forum. However, I would support a registered/logged in entry to the forum.

Cheers.

LOL - I think that's called having your cake & wanting to eat it too.

But it's a moot point. The software doesn't allow a 180/180 restriction but it can be overrided if someone has a good deal to post.

Speaking only for myself I would vote against a 180/180 entry to the forum. However, I would support a registered/logged in entry to the forum.

Cheers.

Ahh well..at least it gave you a smile (I think) :D

Ahh well..at least it gave you a smile (I think) :D

I probably should have posted :D instead of LOL...

With all that being said, is it time to reconsider things again? Is TB happy with the status quo? Are there better solutions?

I apologize for getting distracted with the other subjects the TalkBoard was considering. I hope to find a version of this idea that the TalkBoard can support.

I'd be opposed to restricted Mileage Run and similar forums (or any other forum not currently restricted) to anyone.

This is not what FlyerTalk is about, IMHO.

Difficulty is to determine each deal as a low lying fruit waiting for the pickin's.. let alone directing someone with the low lying fruit for the pickins to the specific forum and posting.. and restricting access so that only the most loyal FT members can take advantage of the deal..

Sounds like membership would have its priveleges..

I'd be opposed to restricted Mileage Run and similar forums (or any other forum not currently restricted) to anyone.

This is not what FlyerTalk is about, IMHO.

Restricting it to members only is not restricting it. It only takes minutes for a new user to register for FT, after all.

Restricting it to members only is not restricting it. It only takes minutes for a new user to register for FT, after all.

There are times when it is restricting. For example when accessing FT under conditions where browser cookies are blocked or use of them otherwise is inconvenient.

There are times when it is restricting. For example when accessing FT under conditions where browser cookies are blocked or use of them otherwise is inconvenient.

Some examples would be helpful for those of who have less experience with with this.

I apologize for getting distracted with the other subjects the TalkBoard was considering. I hope to find a version of this idea that the TalkBoard can support.

No need to apologize as I forgot about this thread when starting the new one. It is a tricky topic, but I still see this as a relevant issue and would like to see a viable proposal that TB can at least vote on.

Restricting it to members only is not restricting it. It only takes minutes for a new user to register for FT, after all.

So then what's the point of restricting it?

So then what's the point of restricting it?

And what is the form of restriction proposed? A simple log-in.. or with minimal post counts..

I think this is a pretty academic discussion. Most of the really good fares have been moved away from FT to private 'invitation only' forums.

I don't think any amount of restrictions will protect good deals and tricks. Just think about the number of blogs we have these days...all it takes is for one blog to copy a FT thread. Then another blog copies that blog, Slickdeals catches on, etc.

Over the past couple of years I've posted a number of good deals (IMO) in the main MR forum and Trick It thread but lately I've been more reluctant to do so as we have far more lurkers than contributors.

I would be in favor of a login requirement as this prevents Google bots from catching a lot of things. Any post count requirements would be futile based on the amount of post padding I've seen recently.

I think this is a pretty academic discussion. Most of the really good fares have been moved away from FT to private 'invitation only' forums.

+1

I don't think any amount of restrictions will protect good deals and tricks. Just think about the number of blogs we have these days...all it takes is for one blog to copy a FT thread. Then another blog copies that blog, Slickdeals catches on, etc.

Over the past couple of years I've posted a number of good deals (IMO) in the main MR forum and Trick It thread but lately I've been more reluctant to do so as we have far more lurkers than contributors.

I would be in favor of a login requirement as this prevents Google bots from catching a lot of things. Any post count requirements would be futile based on the amount of post padding I've seen recently.



+1

I follow the same sentiment.. I no longer post the juiciest deals necessarily.. good public knowledge ones for reference, but how to completely work a system with the program caught with its pants down.. is reserved to the invitation only group that I'm an administrator of..

I would be in favor of a login requirement as this prevents Google bots from catching a lot of things.

I would not support a day/post entry requirement. I would be more in favor of a log-in requirement for the reason stated above.

Cheers.

I'd be opposed to restricted Mileage Run and similar forums (or any other forum not currently restricted) to anyone.

This is not what FlyerTalk is about, IMHO.

You know, except when you do fully support restricting access to unrestricted parts of the site (or making the access more difficult to obtain). I guess it's not what FT is about sometimes.

You know, except when you do fully support restricting access to unrestricted parts of the site (or making the access more difficult to obtain). I guess it's not what FT is about sometimes.

The key word in my post is "Currently" - I support Coupon Connection restrictions because I look at that as a benefit of being in the community and there is a certain level of trust that is required in that forum. I've made trades that have been valued at thousands of dollars with people whom I've never personally met before due to that trust. As for OMNI, the requirement for posts was presented due to member requests as FlyerTalk's non-elected leadership changed the accessiblity of OMNI - here's the vote if you'd like to see it - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions/1192714-motion-passed-restrict-access-omni-omni-pr.html.

The key word in my post is "Currently" - I support Coupon Connection restrictions because I look at that as a benefit of being in the community and there is a certain level of trust that is required in that forum. I've made trades that have been valued at thousands of dollars with people whom I've never personally met before due to that trust. As for OMNI, the requirement for posts was presented due to member requests as FlyerTalk's non-elected leadership changed the accessiblity of OMNI - here's the vote if you'd like to see it - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions/1192714-motion-passed-restrict-access-omni-omni-pr.html.

I understand and don't intend to rehash either of those threads, as they've already happened, but your saying that 'restricting access is not what FlyerTalk is about' is completely untrue, and not a valid reason for opposing this thread's potential restriction, especially from someone who voted for previous restrictions. I don't see a realistic difference between the reasons for hiding CC and the potential reasons for hiding the Mistake Fares.

I'm a member of a couple of those "invitation only" groups, and the really good deals get yanked pretty fast after being posted on those. The idea that any restriction to access MR Deal will make a significant difference is absurd.

That said, I do support a login requirement, simply because it encourages people to create an account. Once people have an account, they are more likely to contribute to the community...

There are some sites which I used to lurk on, where the fact that I had to create an account/give away my email address was the biggest block in the way of me contributing...

The type of content posted on MR Deals could be a "reward" for joining the site. Something I think is perfectly fair...

The question is who do you want to hide the info from:

- airlines? no need, either the lurker is already a established poster and has access or they noticed thru their GDS scan reports that something is wrong already
- bloggers? same thing, they are members
- newbies? they will just sign up and enrich the long list of dormant FT account

The paranoid among us will stay the same whatever you put in place. :)

How bout and elite FT Club membership where those who are in invited can share their juiciest secrets?

I've got so much to share, I'm bursting at the seams.:cool:

How bout and elite FT Club membership where those who are in invited can share their juiciest secrets?

I've got so much to share, I'm bursting at the seams.:cool:

Already exists...check out CommunityBuzz & build personal relationships with FTers and meet in person...that's where most of us learn our secrets.

Already exists...check out CommunityBuzz & build personal relationships with FTers and meet in person...that's where most of us learn our secrets.

Ok.. thanks for the tips..

I wonder how many juicy details I've been missing over the years?

I wonder how many juicy details I've been missing over the years?
Don't forget to check out all the dirty laundry over OMNI Fluffy. :D

I wonder if "Company Representatives" automatically get Coupon Connection access after the 180/180.

Frankly giving official reps access if we enacted a 180 rule would be counter to one of the main reasons why FT was created to begin with. FT has always been the Mecca for bargain and mistake fares and over the years I have used some of them thanks to the alerts from our fellow members. In addition, if a company rep started a dupe handle and this was discovered they would be subject to FT's TOS. @:-)

I think that the TB should consider a way to make a Mistake Fares type of sub forum more restrictive. ^

Frankly giving official reps access if we enacted a 180 rule would be counter to one of the main reasons why FT was created to begin with. FT has always been the Mecca for bargain and mistake fares and over the years I have used some of them thanks to the alerts from our fellow members. In addition, if a company rep started a dupe handle and this was discovered they would be subject to FT's TOS. @:-)

If a co rep was an official co rep, creating an additional personal account couldn't be contrary to FT rules since multiple co employees could have access to co account--how are they supposed to separate personal feelings from company line otherwise? It's impossible to enforce an FT ban on co employees and would be undesirable to boot. Not every co employee in an unofficial capacity will go tattling to RM when a mistake fare is posted. There are very helpful co employees who are more loyal to FT than their employer.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that trying to keep co reps out of MR Deals is just like gun control: it will only keep the innocent ones out. Anyone serving as an RM mole will be able to create a NOC account and get to 180 without any problems.

Furthermore, surely FT doesn't disallow people who happen to serve as their co's FT rep from creating personal accounts!

I think that the TB should consider a way to make a Mistake Fares type of sub forum more restrictive. ^

Agreed with you there.

If a co rep was an official co rep, creating an additional personal account couldn't be contrary to FT rules since multiple co employees could have access to co account--how are they supposed to separate personal feelings from company line otherwise? It's impossible to enforce an FT ban on co employees and would be undesirable to boot. Not every co employee in an unofficial capacity will go tattling to RM when a mistake fare is posted. There are very helpful co employees who are more loyal to FT than their employer.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that trying to keep co reps out of MR Deals is just like gun control: it will only keep the innocent ones out. Anyone serving as an RM mole will be able to create a NOC account and get to 180 without any problems.

Furthermore, surely FT doesn't disallow people who happen to serve as their co's FT rep from creating personal accounts!


I see your point, however if a dupe handle was created by the official rep to make personal posts they would be subject to the same post padding rules as anyone else. Their posts would have to have some degree of substance.

Don't forget to check out all the dirty laundry over OMNI Fluffy. :D

Been briefly browsing and looking.. hardly any travel stuff. But good discussions going.. especially the rolleyes thread:rolleyes:. I'm getting good at rolling eyes.

Is there a secret underground cavern advertising low lying fruits I'm missing in Omni?

I'm amazed that anyone is against the login requirement. The argument that mistake fares making lurkers into members is simply false. If I can get all the information as a lurker and I have no intend to post, I'm not going to become a member; if I intend to post, I'm going to become a member anyway. The odds of someone randomly landing on the mileage run forum on FT, finding a mistake fare and registering because of it are low. The odds of someone who is interested in MR registering in order to have access to such a forum are high in today's world, they'll just keep lurking and might never register.

The 90/90 or 180/180 discussion has merit in my view. While I understand the downside of such a restriction, I believe that the overall benefits to the contributing members outwight the downside to the new or non-regularly contributing members. I also think that "Company Representatives" should be kept out of such a forum - there is nothing to prevent the individuals from creating a personal account and gain access to such a forum using the personal account.

+1 (think that is 5 or 6)

I know I am not SUPER elite but I would like to be invited to some of these "private community" areas on here. I can't even access OMNI and I have lots of posts.