schley

After consistently hearing from moderators that TalkBoard has no influence over CC whatsoever it is nice to see a critical issue involving CC being decided by Talkboard.

My opinion is the requirement of 180 days and 180 posts is very good, anything to increase it is welcomed.

Great suggestion that I hope comes to fruition.

njx9

And yet, you say:

From the sound of it, you'd rather the requirements be high enough that only a tiny minority of FT users could ever hope to meet them. This flies directly in the face of "extremely minimal commitment". Further, that "extremely minimal commitment", as BurBunny and catharsis pointed out, is meaningless. I could go get into a few fights in POS or recline or kids in premium sections threads and have 180 posts tomorrow. Does that actually mean I've contributed *anything* to FT?

Again, I understand that CC is different. Because it involves a sort of marketplace (as far as my understanding goes), there needs to be some level of trust in those posting. If you let brand new accounts jump in, I can see how that could cause problems, and I'm not asking for or suggesting that be the change. However, by increasing a meaningless factor (post count), and by suggesting that it should be high enough that the vast majority of FT users would never be able to reach it, you're telling me one of two things. Either that my posts don't matter, because they're never 'good enough' (or, as the case may be, just 'enough') for *your* standards, or that my posts are so thoroughly worthless that I just need to mindlessly hit submit a few hundred times. No matter what content is being submitted.

The overly dramatic language notwithstanding, no one's suggested that you are asking for my first born. I've suggested that you're sending a terrible message to any other user in my general post count range, specifically in the posts you've made in this thread.

craz

+1

amazing how once a person hits # 90 all of a sudden they start posting on CC. True it may also hapen at # 180 but also having to wait 180 days should remove any # of people from following thru if their only point is to gain CC access

Now if the T&Cs of CC can be changed to where a person cant post Make Me an Offer but Must specify exactly what they want to receive as the buyer or seller CC would be a much better place as well

Cholula

Let me re-state my position slightly then.

If folks come to FlyerTalk to lurk and read, fine. That's their choice.

But this site is dependent on those who build content via their posts. It's pretty obvious that if everybody just lurked and read and averaged less than two posts a month, there wouldn't be anything of substance to read here.

CC and OMNI are for those who have committed to building content here. Nothing more complex or sinister than that.

And, yes, I would be in favor of regularly increasing the number of posts required for entry to encourage folks who finally qualify to continue to contribute to the core miles and points forums here.

I'd stick with the 180 day requirement as that seems sufficient. But I'd like to see an annual increase, however small, in the number of posts required for admittance so folks don't just hit the 180 post requirement and then just decide to live in OMNI or Coupon Connection.

But that's something for another day perhaps. Right now the discussion is on the 180/180 proposal.

dhammer53

I wouldn't mind seeing 'oldtimers' grandfathered in. @:-)

I know of many club members that have been taken by other club members. High post count isn't a guarantee of a successful trade.

Agreed.

Compromise. @:-)
Lots of longtime posters here who do contribute, but have low post counts.

dh

nsx

It's 90 posts AND 90 days. Most members do take more than 90 days to reach 90 posts. Same for 180. I would guess that most members who become highly engaged accelerate their posting some weeks or months after they first join FT rather than immediately posting heavily.

Most members also make no use of Coupon Connection. I don't see a problem with limited it to highly engaged members. They have more investment in their FT reputation, therefore a greater incentive to play fair on CC.

ramolnar

I disagree strongly. The key phrase is "ADD to the Discussion." This should not include +1s, lounge posts, off-topic comments, the 24th report about a credit card approval, and so forth. Right now, those count. If anything, I'd like to see a posting MAXIMUM of say five per day. Then people might keep threads shorter.

My average right now is 0.48 posts per day, and I think I talk a lot. I just scanned through my last 75 posts. I considered about 9 of them the "me too" variety, and another 6 or 7 could have been answered through PM. Therefore, I make about 0.4 substantive posts per day. 1.0 substantive posts per day would be a huge increase. That is NOT an extremely minimal commitment.

I had a conversation this week at work about how a proposed new rule looked correct, but solved the wrong problem. This applies here. Post counts don't indicate quality. If the board wants quality, institute a karma system like Slashdot, or a limited "like" system where one gets a small amount of currency to give to good posts. Or require one to apply for CC access.
If CC scams are a problem, then require real names to post there. That'd be fine with me, as it would also keep everything above board. One could still be anonymous everywhere else.

ckpeter

I am going to point out a pair of likely unintended consequences of limiting CC qualifications: lack of liquidity and high trading cost.

Like any exchange, CC is depending on having a critical mass of participants to make it work. I understand that that the intention of CC qualification is to "reward" core community participants. However, by limiting entries, you are potentially punishing those very same core community members, by making their trade prospect tougher.

The "spread" in a illiquid exchange is usually high, which is to say, the next time you need 120K AA miles, you will have to offer 140K UA miles (because an even ratio, while a fair price logically, is not attractive to enough people in a smaller exchange). You will also see less "rare items" posted, because not enough people are there to have some interest. More items will expire before traded, because of a lack of participants (particularly if the item is not "popular" such as a rare hotel certificate).

I support the desire and interest of every community to define itself. However, care should be taken to ensure that we don't unintentionally injure the group that we are trying to serve. I know that the CC moderators are doing a fine job keeping posting-runners, so there may not be a need to do a blanket membership prune, just because of a small visible group of abusers.

Personally, I have noticed quite a good amount of growth in CC since I have gained access. I took it as a very valuable trend. A few years ago, the recent items only fill the first page. Now, the recent listing are into the second and third pages, as a result, more trades are done and more people are enjoying flexibility in travel coupons (both core "desirable" members and the "undesirable" low-post-count members).

We must be careful.

United747

I totally agree with this change. I believe that it will encourage people like me, with small post counts, to post more. And not just post padding but good advice and information.


Delta747

bhatnasx

Good dialogue, everyone! Please keep the discussions coming! ^

tom911

I'm surprised we've only had comments from two members with less than the 180 posts called for in this vote, being that they're the target group. Most posters in this thread, including me, are not impacted at all.

jtalstad

Wish you meant that.

But what you're saying to me, a low-post-count lurker, and everyone else like me is that I / (we) haven't posted anything of substance.

Horrid eugenicist sentiment

Here's mine: Do you all like it and think it's great when the airlines increase the mileage requirements for an award? FT is an addiction. You pushers are asking too much. Have mercy on the old time lurkers, please.

travelkid

This "sin" is far more common for FT/CC veterans in my perception.

With lurkers on board and current t&c in the different programs, this is of course totally out of the question.

Absolutely. The proposal will have clear negative aspects for most poster due to this.

Excactly. As its safe to assume the majority of posters on FT have less than 180 posts, its also safe to say the motion is not member driven, but elitist motivated.

I see the practical motive of not having different thresholds (OMNI/CC), but that is in MHO only an argument of reducing the OMNI requirement.

For those trying to say a poster with more than 180 posts is a potential more trustworty trading partner (must be the right word even though I on a different thread on talkboard topics, where I dared to call CC a market place, was knocked down for using such words) than one with only 90, I would say; Use more caution. New CC "members" should be willing to "pay" first etc.
Clearly better to trade with a 90-poster, calculating any risks, than not finding trading partners.

IMO CC is the absolute holy cow of FT, and I wont even dare to share my ideas for development. Its clear how it will be treated, by a rather marginal elite of FT. Even the "radical" Koko, seemingly (based on my extensive/limited- based on how you define- lurking) hasnt challenged any of the CC policies.

B747-437B

This is a disgraceful move by the TalkBoard and is indicative trend for FlyerTalk to become a closed clique rather than a growing community. It makes me sick.



Access restrictions to Coupon Connection and OMNI should be done away with completely. If the moderators claim that this creates too much work for them, we should find new moderators or get rid of the forums entirely.

Another sad day for FlyerTalk and another nail in the coffin of a once thriving community.

cblaisd

Oh, please.

Is a sad day worse than a dark day?

I would add a :thumbsdown" but the store was sold out.