BlondeBomber

As the Bob Dylan song goes, "I'm liberal but to a degree, I want everybody to be free, but if you think I'd let Barry Goldwater move in next door or marry my daughter, you must think I'm crazy!"

I am for minimal regulation and tidying up the most egregious acts, with deft handling of borderline issues before they get out of control. So far so good, so kudos to you--I am happy with what you are doing! I won't try to persuade you one way or the other (other than to keep on doing what you are doing.)

I am sure you don't want to create a lot of extra drudgery for yourself!

Adam Smith

The thread is only ~2.5 years old, so for ~8.5 years or so, you have a good excuse for not knowing why it was there

It was created after @24left pointed out the very large number of threads on the topic of MRs and how repetitive they were - see the OP of the thread.

I'm going to quote some stuff out of sequence because it fits together thematically...

I would actually say there's a fair amount of discussion in there about what people liked, what meals they could expect on certain routes...

I guess we should step back a bit and try to figure out what is the purpose of the thread? Presumably it's because people who are going to fly AC want to see what meals might be available, while others may want to share information on the meals they've had. But it seems to me that information gets stale very quickly, because menus only last something like a month or two (let's set aside the weird COVID times). Someone flying YYZ-LHR next month is probably not going to get much value out of knowing what was available on that route, or YUL-BRU, or YVR-NRT, six months ago.

So if we had tightly focused meal threads (e.g. International PY meals is one thread, North America J meals is another thread, etc, and we renew those at least once a year) that contained both information and discussion, would this not be the easiest way for people to find information?

(This is not a rhetorical question, I'm trying to understand what you're seeking from these threads and what's of value to you - and the question is open to anyone else who wants to chime in)

I think this is a really interesting concept and would really help people understand what it's like to sit at a given seat

For the purposes of a seating guide, I think we could do without the information I've put in red strikethrough, since a 77W is a 77W regardless of whether it's flying YYZ-HND or YVR-LHR, and AC's fleet is pretty uniform in layouts - off the top of my head, the only mainline aircraft I can think of that has more than one layout is the 77W, which has a 28J version and a 40J version (assuming the 333s will all have been refurbed by the time they resume passenger service).

I'm not sure how technically feasible that is to implement on FT though (I think you're talking about something like what SeatGuru has, where you can hover over or click a seat and get more info, but with links to photos?). We could certainly add a list of seats with photos and links to those posts in either the wiki or one of the first few posts of a thread - kind of like in the wiki of the thread you linked to, although with links. Someone with more IT expertise than me will have to tell us whether it's possible to take an image of the seat map from an AC flight and somehow have links depending where on the image you click, within the confines of what vBulletin can handle. Anyone? Can we do this?

I think that some of what has been requested in terms of better organization implies that people want that (since more moderation is necessary to implement some of what has been asked for), but I don't think anyone has explicitly said that until now

There were actually three mini RTW threads:

• The Complete Newbie Guide/FAQ to the Air Canada Aeroplan Mini-RTW
• Mini RTW Questions
• FAQ: List of valid and booked mini-RTW itineraries version 2.0 (post-"enhancement")

I appreciate that you felt they were kept in fairly good order, but I do think if you were to go through them closely, you would see a lot of crossover between them, and I see them as being far from the pure information/discussion split that you've requested. So are those truly good examples of the concept?

I guess one of the things I struggle with when it comes to this is that it's very hard to change human behaviour. Someone asked upthread about whether we (the mods) were trying to change the culture of the board, and my response was that we were trying to see how we could change the way the board worked to better suit the culture of the members. I have no issue with editing/moving/deleting posts that really need it - posts that are clearly off topic, attacks on other members, etc. And I don't mind doing some housekeeping work moving posts around, merging threads, or splitting them, where appropriate. But I'm reminded of a phrase a friend of mine likes to use regarding her kids when it comes to things like travel - she asks how she can "set them up for success". If they're normally very hard to get moving early in the morning, maybe don't book flights departing before 9AM, for example, rather than trying to force them to get up at the crack of dawn for a 6AM departure.

By expecting people to stick to extremely narrow confines in these threads, are we doing the opposite, and setting them up for failure? If the population of this board has demonstrated a history, in the few examples of this type of thread that we have, of consistently being unable or unwilling to stick within those very tight boundaries, should the moderators busy ourselves with constantly trying to redirect discussions, or should we aim to go with the flow more?

That being said, I am willing to accept some Sisyphean labour, if it's of value to the community. Clearly you would like this approach (and maybe @canopus27 too), but I would love to hear from some of the others on the board what they find useful. I acknowledge that the consensus has trended towards having more topics and fewer very long threads, and that splitting some discussions in to information and discussion threads (theoretically) fits with that philosophy, but would it actually make those threads more useful? (And for the sake of this question, let's assume that if we do combine information and discussion in the same thread, thread size would be controlled by time (e.g. new threads ever year, 6 months, 2 years... whatever ends up being a sensible timeframe), so there will be no more >4,000 post thread on North America J meals to sift through.) It seems like creating such a fine distinction on where to post on what's essentially the same topic might actually frustrate people who aren't sure where to post, or who have to flip back and forth between the two threads to get the information they want.

I'm not super familiar with Reddit, so I don't really know what that means. But feel free to suggest it in the Technical Support and Feedback forum, which is monitored by reps from Internet Brands (the company that owns FlyerTalk)

canadiancow

I'm just trying to prove your point here, but there's NA J, there's NA PLH, and there's NA Signature.

They're all different.

Then there's Q1 eastbound, Q1 westbound, Q2 eastbound, Q2 westbound, etc.

I love "eUps from Nov 2020 onward".

I hate the idea of any specific meal thread. Not because I don't want to know the information. Not because I can't contribute. But because there is just too much noise.

Outside of desserts, I'm not sure I've ever been able to easily obtain useful information from meal threads. Because YYC-YYZ on an E90 is a completely different catering than YYC-YYZ on a 320, which is also completely different than YYC-YYZ on a 789.

Before I get a "but but that doesn't exist any more" response, I don't think we have sufficient YYC-YYZ 220 PLH experience to really know if my one route example is still two or three catering options.

Meals are hard. And I have yet to see a suggestion that I think would be "useful". You know what would be useful? If someone from AC posted (here, or better yet, on AC.com) the menus for the next six months. Or three months. Or whatever. Or just some sufficient period that there would be no point in a thread with a title like "what am I going to be served on my flight from ABC-DEF?"

aeroman380

Adam Smith Love your enthusiasm and glad you are serious about feedback implementation. I can't respond to everything now though want to say My main concern isn't really about meals and meal threads but it was just a reference to the info vs discussion threads. Personally, I just like to take a break from reality/work sometimes and look at what people had on their flight and judge their use of silverware/glass position. So having a quick pic reference guide (info) vs sifting through discussion was a benchmark for some other threads (info vs discussion).

Yes, people are reluctant to change, but I like that you are involving and putting out feelers which is a step in the right direction. I think a common misconception is that threads have to be one way with absolute no crossover, but not every thread is so black and white.. Just like some topics should have a seasonal/yearly timeframe.

Listen, just my feedback and I know that it probably isn't majority but glad you listened. I know mods don't get the appreciation they deserve but if you need help with some things let me know. I don't always have time might be able to help if possible

Jagboi

As an idea for discussion, another forum I'm on ( non-airline) has a "no tomb raiding" rule. If a thread is older than 2 years, don't add to it, start a new one. The idea is smaller, more current threads, as opposed to a few large threads that can last decades. I'm not sure that one is necessarily better than the other, and probably very content specific. I can see meals needed up to date threads but some aspects of AC are just a relevant now as they were 10 years ago (no doubt Ken Hamer can cite many). It comes down to whether members feel that many, short and short lived threads are better than few, long lived in-depth threads.

canadiancow

Due to Amadeus and the new Aeroplan, I think RIGHT NOW, there aren't many 2+ year old threads that should be kept open.

But I think in mid 2019, there were a lot of decade old threads that were very relevant. And I think in 3 years, there will be many 4+ year old threads that will be relevant.

I think Adam is definitely smart enough to make that distinction, but I just want to voice my concern about making any blanket rules about threads being "too old".

yyznomad

IMHO, the meal threads are mostly useless because of the lack of a comprehensive and (constantly) updated wiki. I wanted to do something but ran out of "free" time in the past.
Also, because most people just post a picture of the menu rather than typing it out (I used to type all of my menus out, and some other also typed theirs out), it also becomes useless and forces others to wade through tons of posts to find the menu they want.
Even if AC actually posted all of their menus, pics of the actual food in the menu threads are very helpful.

So really, it comes down to a true wiki owner (someone who actually does a good thorough and continuous effort and not simply lazy-ing their way through posting links) for the menu threads to make it truly useful.

Back in the day, before AY was bullied off this forum by some very special harlequins, he would at least post comprehensive info about meal-service types, times, routes, etc. If anything, that is the most useful aside from actual menus.

Adam Smith

In response to feedback in this thread on meal threads, some new threads have been created, as well as a dedicated thread to discuss those threads, what should go in them, etc: New Meal Threads July 2021 (WORK IN PROGRESS) - Input Requested

@aeroman380, thanks for engaging, it has been good to get your thoughts.

It's interesting that you enjoy browsing meal photos just for leisure purposes, essentially. I hadn't really thought of that as a reason people would visit those threads.

I had a look through a bunch of meal threads on this board and other parts of FT, and I think that, at least when it comes to meals, the information/discussion thread is just too hard to maintain. It requires a lot of discipline from posters and/or frequent moderator actions to maintain the distinction, and it seems it mostly comes down to the latter, because people just have a hard time doing things like seeing a menu in one thread then going to another thread to post a question or opinion about what's on the menu, or posting photos of their meal without also commenting on the meal and sparking a discussion of it.

But I've proposed (see the thread linked above) that we do have somewhat of a split to accommodate folks like you and @canopus27, with a lot of the core information contained in the first few posts, and then the wiki reserved for links to posts with menus/photos, so that if you're just looking for photos and not a 10-post discussion about how overdone the steak was, you can just use links from the wiki to hop around, i.e. information should mostly be accessible by reading the first few posts and/or following links in the wiki. It's not the same as the split threads you guys were talking about, but should make it easier to find the "information" posts while not trying to force people to split hairs between what belongs in one thread or the other. If you have any thoughts on that concept, please see the thread discussing those new meal threads (linked above).

For other threads, still open to the information/discussion concept. I do think it's a difficult distinction to maintain as I explained above (including the examples of threads where it wasn't ultimately maintained), but open to trying it. Nothing is set in stone here, and there's nothing wrong with trying different ideas in different places.

You both make valid points. I think the feedback we've gotten via this thread is that the general preference (at least among those who have bothered to post - other opinions are still welcome!) is towards smaller threads with more recent information. But that there should be a distinction between things that go stale quickly (e.g. meals) and those that don't.

So we (the moderators) are going to do our best to balance those. For instance, a lot of the Aeroplan 2020 subjects now have their own threads. I could see the Family Sharing thread, for instance, remaining relevant for several years, assuming AC maintains that program in fairly similar format. But perhaps the one on complex multi-city bookings will need refreshing every year if it becomes mostly people asking about or posting specific itineraries that they want to book or have booked. With a wiki to maintain the information that's permanently relevant. Or maybe it deserves a split between information (rules on booking such itineraries, how to do it, etc) and discussion (can I book this itinerary? I booked this cool itinerary! etc). I don't know, we'll have to see how it evolves, I guess.

There are also some threads that are long-running and much of the old info may not be that useful, but if people are rarely looking past the last few posts, do they really need to be split based on timing? e.g. the scary one near Winnipeg thread or the IT issues thread. Is it useful to just have one dumping ground for those things, even though no one is reading the posts from 5 years ago?

What I will say is that the moderators are open to feedback on whether certain threads need to be split (based on subject or time) or merged, so if anyone has suggestions, they're welcome to post them here or contact the moderators privately (PM, e-mail, post reports).

I don't think anyone from AC is coming back to FT anytime soon, and I don't think AC is going to start posting its menus and photos on its website, so the question is what's the best we can do as a community.

I agree with you that poorly maintained wikis lose value. The concept of the wiki "owner" bugs me a bit though. Not that you're wrong in practice - I know that you do the vast majority of work in a bunch of our wikis, and there are a few that I seem to be the main curator of - but I do think wikis work best when they don't have to rely on a single "owner" to keep them going. I acknowledge that there's always going to be a small core of users who drive the content of the wikis, and that's fine, but I would love to figure out how we can engage a somewhat broader user base so that not every wiki requires constant attention from @yyznomad to stay useful

Adam Smith

How much interest is there in a thread dedicated to suspended routes being resumed? Those have been housed to date in the master COVID schedule change/waiver thread, but that's certainly a subject that could get lost in the clutter there.

yyznomad

dont get me wrong, I don't think so either... was just lamenting that a few bad apples (of which 98% of them have been suspended forever... rightfully so) made us all pay



my use of the term "owner" is in the spirit of well-maintained wikis often having a de facto/naturalized owner as the patrons realize that they bring the best value to the wiki. In addition, if there is heavy formatting, people tend to avoid accidentally messing it up.

often, to create and maintain a solid wiki requires combing through the entire thread, on the first sweep, to ensure accuracy, comprehensiveness, and recency. This takes quite a bit of work, especially for threads that have accumulated a whole bunch of clutter. And after that, someone or some people need to ensure it is kept up to date. It's rare to see such quality, and Ft is no different. Even once I comprehensively create a wiki, I find it hard to maintain. Perhaps the "owner" or "true originator" could be attributed to someone who makes it a bonafide wiki...

but yeah, you get no argument from me. It's just that you'll see the trend of the master maker continue to be the de facto owner.

in addition to having centralized and up to date info, a wiki should also be searchable, in other words, needs to be textualized and not simply contain ONLY links and pictures in order to be effective. IMHO.

King Chung Huang

Is there an API for this forum software? I wonder if it'd be possible to generate summary/reference pages for things like meals and seats.

KenHamer

I am shocked, shocked, to find that gambling this discussion is going on in here.

I would have thought the answer was so obvious as to be self-evident: marshal posts, threads and discussions to maximize ad views, ad clicks, and ad revenue.

Adam Smith

This initiative has nothing to do with Internet Brands. I have no idea whether it will increase or decrease their ad revenue and really don't care. Neither I nor @tcook052 receive any salary, commission, bonus, stock options, etc that would incentivize us to care about that.

24left

Suggestion

It would be great if we could have a separate thread for cocktails and other drinks, recipes, tips. There are some great ones posted on the forum and it would be nice to have the recipes in one place. 🍷🍸🍹🍺🍋🍓🍍

We have various food threads, so I thought about a thread for drinks. And for those who are interested, they can post photos of their creations and perhaps food pairings.

"AC FT Cocktails After Dark...It's 5 o'clock somewhere."

Adam Smith

We already have a thread for making AC meals at home. There's also a thread for cocktails you can make on board AC flights. And of course the many threads for discussing on-board meals.

If the thread you envisage is (a) related to AC and (b) somehow distinct from those other threads, okay.
​​​​​​
If you're just thinking of a second forum lounge thread dedicated to food and beverage, I don't see it working. I would reference my comments upthread re the LMU thread and difficulty distinguishing what belongs in which thread. For instance, asking what people are up to for New Year's Eve quickly leads to someone mentioning they're at home making a particular food or cocktails. Someone asks about the food or drink. Photos and recipes get posted. Discussion ensues. Now there are 10 posts in the "general" lounge thread that belong in the "food and beverage" lounge thread, and a moderator has to clean it all up. Or else it becomes like the LMU threads where half the posts in each thread belong in the other thread.