cruisecritic
 

Ok I just read a thread that said negative remarks about a Crystal cruise were removed from the Crusiecritic web site. Who owns cruise critic? I once heard that an actual agency owns the site? I know agencies advertise on it but just wonder how much bias is on the site.

It depends on the moderator. Even though an even slight negative registers really vicious howls of protest, insults and accusations the moderator always called the first poster the problem and deletes the post and gets the poster kicked off the whole website. Banned forever and not even a warning.

It is the vicious over-reaction of the Cyrstalites that is the problem; not the innocent poster who dares utter something negative or even neutral. It is a website that demands total and slavish loyalty. Others cruise line moderators are not as biased as the Crystal one.

Don't know how moderators are chosen, but mainly it is the over-the-top reactions of the Crystalizers that set up the fire storms and those are the ones who should be getting banned for being so disruptive.

They goad you into a lot of this and then, poof, you become the "problem" and then you are gone. It is like a remake of Lord of the Flies over there.

Once burned; twice shy.

Then as you say, it must be only on Crystal, because I've been on www. Cruisecritic.com for years and have read many, many negative reviews on all the other cruise line threads.

The intensity of the loyalty of many who post on the Crystal threat on CC is astonishing. It is close to a religion as they pat each other on the back for choosing to spend their money on Crystal ships. As competition has come into the market (some from former Crystal employees working for other cruise companies) the defensive attitude has increased.

As I fly on several airlines, I also travel on various cruise ships and take resort vacations. I am not loyal to one cruise company. As I have been told that it takes many, many cruises to have status on Crystal, I know that I will never have any status with that company.

The Crystal WEB site and publications often have photos of people who have made 100 cruises with that company. Work out the numbers. It is astonishing that someone could or would spend so much money with one cruise company.

Trust me, I have been on CC for years and that doesn't just apply to Crystal. Some loyal fans of other lines can border on the neurotic.

CruiseCritic has never been a travel agency site. It originated in the old AOL, now is owned by the same folks who own TripAdvisor.

Tripadvisor and CruiseCritic are owned by Expedia, the online travel agency.

yes
 

and it really shows! I think that's why so many posts get deleted. The cheerleaders get to keep posting.

The press release when they were sold

http://www.cruisecritic.com/aboutus/...=10&pressID=38

It's always amazing how many "independent" boards are actually owned and operated by other companies, including of course FlyerTalk (which is part of a group of 100 or more owned by the same company)

There's always rules to play by when owned by somebody else, and in this case it's never say anything bad about advertising companies (cruise lines) on any of the other owned sites, or it just goes away.

Ultimately one learns from the Crystal CC posters that you really do not want to travel with these folks. They are hardly enducing to enjoying yourself if you have to travel with people like them when choosing Crystal.

All you can say is it is good they have found themselves. May their ship of fools merrily keep sailing away and leave the rest of the cruise lines to those who know better. Crystal Cruise lines is like a grease trap that sucks the undesirables out of the rest of the market and keeps them locked up for good. Good riddance.

The best value for Crystal is if one wants to observe various success possibilities if one is contemplating plastic surgery. It is a living laboratory and you get the opportunity to also see how varying plastic surgery techniques also look in photos, which is often quite alarming compared to the affect natural light.

I used to dabble a bit on a travel forum for the Cayman Islands. One time I responded to another poster's query by recommending a certain restaurant. I was stunned to learn my post was deleted by the moderator.

Turns out the restaurant in question doesn't advertise with the company that owns this "independent" board.

I challenged the moderator, and the credibility of the board in view of such tactics, and was immediately banned from the forum.

Cheers,

were lucky we dont have the same kinds of mod problems here.

i cant imagine its anything other than that.

i dont get the crystal hype. sounds like im glad i did not read the crystal forum on CC. forums for the all-inclusives there are not bad at all.

although i did get more help here on one of my questions than on CC's alaska forum.

Think of Beverly Hills on a boat, and you have Crystal Cruise Lines. They know the price of everything; but the value of nothing.

...and Seat Guru.

I appreciate FT for its relative freedom of opinion. :)

I like FT because you can be honest in your opinions, and not start a meltdown, hissy fit, flame war. People just let other people's opinions stand and not use them as launching pads for personal attacks.

FT is a good place to both vent and praise what we as individuals have found true for ourselves. And posts seem to be taken in that spirit.

Flaming posts like my own relentless attacks on Crystal speak as much for me and my petty-minded vengeful spirit, as they reflect on Crystal itself. The readers here seem to know the difference.

I have gotten such solidly good info on FT. And the Crystal Trolls have not apparently yet discovered it. They show up on other CC cruise line forums stalking anything, anywhere, anytime they perceive as negative to Crystal. And come crashing down on them. A very weird group.

None dare be the child's little voice that claims the King has no clothes without being struck down with their venomous pen. I guess that is just part of their brand protection. Wouldn't it be more productive to actually have a better product, rather than protecting the pretense they have a better product?