Proposal: This House believes WE NEED MORE MILES! So why is this forum public?
Mar 17, 2013, 7:03 am
#46
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,107
I am also a newbie so take my 2 cents for what it is worth but access based solely on quantity does little to ensure quality IMHO
We all know folks who post and talk up a storm but possibly that person that only posts when they have something of real substance to add is the more valuable contributor. I have been somewhat hesitant to post often because of some of the harsh responses others have received but as Kobe says its time to put my big boy pants on and dive in😄
Looking forward to getting to know you all and engaging more on this site!
We all know folks who post and talk up a storm but possibly that person that only posts when they have something of real substance to add is the more valuable contributor. I have been somewhat hesitant to post often because of some of the harsh responses others have received but as Kobe says its time to put my big boy pants on and dive in😄
Looking forward to getting to know you all and engaging more on this site!
Cheers.
Mar 19, 2013, 2:01 pm
#47
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United Arab Emirates & Arizona, USA
Programs: UA MM/1P, EK Au, QR, TK, Marriott Life Ti, Hilton Dia, IC Dia, Hyatt Glob, Accor Pt, Shangri-La
Posts: 4,525
The problem (or more precisely: the catalyst) is that FT has two indicators next to every post: The date you joined and your post count. This seems to occasionally cause a bit of an awkward personality shift (uppity?) among several (certainly not all) posters with a high post count and/or long-time membership. The hardcore people even bother to look up your "posts per day" ratio as possible means to discredit everything you say, in a committed effort to prove how ridiculous this can get if they try hard enough.
Just consider for a second that in your office you had a colleague who has worked in your firm or industry for over fifteen years and has earned his fair share of experience and acknowledgement (of which you might not know but then it's none of your business). Now, this guy, he transferred to your department about two years ago, even though you didn't get to talk to him all that much because you were working on different projects. Now, suddenly, you find yourself in a meeting with him, trying to solve a problem together:
Never in a thousand years would you dream of dismissing his contributions solely on the basis that he has been in your department "for only two years" and you have only "talked to him 15 times".
I mean, you might do that of course but if you have a good manager who knows how to organise an effective group of people that gets results he will notice and you will not be reviewed as a productive member of your team. Ultimately, that's -> out for you, and nobody will care about your years of service or how much you have "talked per day").
So, as always on the intertubes, it's the old problem of people who are probably insecure or harbour anger for some reason or other, hiding behind their nicknames and perceived status (post count (not content) and time of membership) and dismissing each and every one who they perceive as being "below" them on the basis of the two parameters next to their posts. That's not how people normally behave in a social environment and it is a peculiar appearance on the web but that doesn't make it any more okay or helpful.
That's all I have to say about that... and the thread lin821 linked to (I guess, as a wake-up call?) actually saddens me. Such meta-discussions and ad hominem arguments in full disregard of the actual topic or problem are neither productive nor conducive to a community that wants to prosper and accomplish something.
Just consider for a second that in your office you had a colleague who has worked in your firm or industry for over fifteen years and has earned his fair share of experience and acknowledgement (of which you might not know but then it's none of your business). Now, this guy, he transferred to your department about two years ago, even though you didn't get to talk to him all that much because you were working on different projects. Now, suddenly, you find yourself in a meeting with him, trying to solve a problem together:
Never in a thousand years would you dream of dismissing his contributions solely on the basis that he has been in your department "for only two years" and you have only "talked to him 15 times".
I mean, you might do that of course but if you have a good manager who knows how to organise an effective group of people that gets results he will notice and you will not be reviewed as a productive member of your team. Ultimately, that's -> out for you, and nobody will care about your years of service or how much you have "talked per day").
So, as always on the intertubes, it's the old problem of people who are probably insecure or harbour anger for some reason or other, hiding behind their nicknames and perceived status (post count (not content) and time of membership) and dismissing each and every one who they perceive as being "below" them on the basis of the two parameters next to their posts. That's not how people normally behave in a social environment and it is a peculiar appearance on the web but that doesn't make it any more okay or helpful.
That's all I have to say about that... and the thread lin821 linked to (I guess, as a wake-up call?) actually saddens me. Such meta-discussions and ad hominem arguments in full disregard of the actual topic or problem are neither productive nor conducive to a community that wants to prosper and accomplish something.
That is very true! The number of page impressions made by a teasing blog post exploiting a thread on FT are absolutely worthless, both for the community and for ad revenue.
Generally, I think trying to finance websites, especially websites with valuable, original content, through advertising is an outdated model, even more so in times of ....... Plus, Ad Muncher, NoScript & Co. I mean, if Flyertalk holds a fundraising campaign to keep their servers running and cover other costs (just as Wikipedia does once a year) and otherwise caters to the community, not to advertisers, I am sure they would earn a lot more money from thankful FTers than those fractions of cents they make from those people who click on advertising banners by mistake or are mad enough to go on the interwebs without an adblocker in the first place. Various successful projects have shown that, the Wikimedia Foundation is just one of them. Then again, having sponsors for certain things, like the FlyerTalk Awards, is absolutely legitimate and I support that. I just draw the line at "manufacturing clicks and traffic" without keeping in mind the long-term impact on the community (which is kind of ironic, seeing as we're in the "manufacturing miles" forum, but oh well ;-))
Generally, I think trying to finance websites, especially websites with valuable, original content, through advertising is an outdated model, even more so in times of ....... Plus, Ad Muncher, NoScript & Co. I mean, if Flyertalk holds a fundraising campaign to keep their servers running and cover other costs (just as Wikipedia does once a year) and otherwise caters to the community, not to advertisers, I am sure they would earn a lot more money from thankful FTers than those fractions of cents they make from those people who click on advertising banners by mistake or are mad enough to go on the interwebs without an adblocker in the first place. Various successful projects have shown that, the Wikimedia Foundation is just one of them. Then again, having sponsors for certain things, like the FlyerTalk Awards, is absolutely legitimate and I support that. I just draw the line at "manufacturing clicks and traffic" without keeping in mind the long-term impact on the community (which is kind of ironic, seeing as we're in the "manufacturing miles" forum, but oh well ;-))
Although you raise good points, I think that all of this discussion is pointless for one basic reason, as others have pointed out: there is no practical way to shield access from the bloggers, company reps, media, and others who undermine some of the value in the posts. As you mention in the first post of yours that I cited, there is no real way to come up with objective criteria for who should be allowed access to a forum.
I, for one, would be willing to pay a relatively high price for membership to a Mileage Run Deals forum, but, even if that existed, I can't think of any way to deter the information from spreading. Of course handfuls of friends trade the really good deals on FT private messages, but anytime you let in anonymous members, no matter how restrictive the criteria, it is inevitable that the information will become public. I agree that that will erode (and has eroded) the value of FlyerTalk, but that's the trade-off in exchange for sharing information.
Apr 29, 2013, 9:19 am
#48
Join Date: Apr 2013
Programs: UA MPE, BA Blue, AA, IHG Plat Amb, Marriot Silver, HHonors Silver, National Exec, Avis First
Posts: 553
The problem (or more precisely: the catalyst) is that FT has two indicators next to every post: The date you joined and your post count. This seems to occasionally cause a bit of an awkward personality shift (uppity?) among several (certainly not all) posters with a high post count and/or long-time membership. The hardcore people even bother to look up your "posts per day" ratio as possible means to discredit everything you say, in a committed effort to prove how ridiculous this can get if they try hard enough.
Just consider for a second that in your office you had a colleague who has worked in your firm or industry for over fifteen years and has earned his fair share of experience and acknowledgement (of which you might not know but then it's none of your business). Now, this guy, he transferred to your department about two years ago, even though you didn't get to talk to him all that much because you were working on different projects. Now, suddenly, you find yourself in a meeting with him, trying to solve a problem together:
Never in a thousand years would you dream of dismissing his contributions solely on the basis that he has been in your department "for only two years" and you have only "talked to him 15 times".
I mean, you might do that of course but if you have a good manager who knows how to organise an effective group of people that gets results he will notice and you will not be reviewed as a productive member of your team. Ultimately, that's -> out for you, and nobody will care about your years of service or how much you have "talked per day").
So, as always on the intertubes, it's the old problem of people who are probably insecure or harbour anger for some reason or other, hiding behind their nicknames and perceived status (post count (not content) and time of membership) and dismissing each and every one who they perceive as being "below" them on the basis of the two parameters next to their posts. That's not how people normally behave in a social environment and it is a peculiar appearance on the web but that doesn't make it any more okay or helpful.
That's all I have to say about that... and the thread lin821 linked to (I guess, as a wake-up call?) actually saddens me. Such meta-discussions and ad hominem arguments in full disregard of the actual topic or problem are neither productive nor conducive to a community that wants to prosper and accomplish something.
Just consider for a second that in your office you had a colleague who has worked in your firm or industry for over fifteen years and has earned his fair share of experience and acknowledgement (of which you might not know but then it's none of your business). Now, this guy, he transferred to your department about two years ago, even though you didn't get to talk to him all that much because you were working on different projects. Now, suddenly, you find yourself in a meeting with him, trying to solve a problem together:
Never in a thousand years would you dream of dismissing his contributions solely on the basis that he has been in your department "for only two years" and you have only "talked to him 15 times".
I mean, you might do that of course but if you have a good manager who knows how to organise an effective group of people that gets results he will notice and you will not be reviewed as a productive member of your team. Ultimately, that's -> out for you, and nobody will care about your years of service or how much you have "talked per day").
So, as always on the intertubes, it's the old problem of people who are probably insecure or harbour anger for some reason or other, hiding behind their nicknames and perceived status (post count (not content) and time of membership) and dismissing each and every one who they perceive as being "below" them on the basis of the two parameters next to their posts. That's not how people normally behave in a social environment and it is a peculiar appearance on the web but that doesn't make it any more okay or helpful.
That's all I have to say about that... and the thread lin821 linked to (I guess, as a wake-up call?) actually saddens me. Such meta-discussions and ad hominem arguments in full disregard of the actual topic or problem are neither productive nor conducive to a community that wants to prosper and accomplish something.