lwildernorva

Case study. Since bloggers get all of their information from FT, how did TPG steal this deal, http://thepointsguy.com/2013/03/amaz...t-in-december/, from FT: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hotel...30-thread.html?

belfordrocks

Because readers are naive enough to feed them the information...

satz

Funny enough, as soon as the Avis free 2 day weekend rental coupon hit the blogs, all the reservations were cancelled soon after. What a coincidence!

goalie

Why?

If a blogger (call them BLOGGER-X) uses BLOGGER-X as their F/t handle then yes, I agree with you but if BLOGGER-X uses an entirely different handle of F/t then I say no, and the blogger is fair game as when they post on F/t, they are posting under their handle and not that of their blogger name.

Now with that, you can see that there is a loophole as if BLOOGER-X knows what they are doing , they use both BLOGGER-X as their blogger name and their F/t handle and thus only their blog & blog post can be commented upon/criticized but not them as a member of F/t.

FlyFasterFlyFarther

It was stealing anyway. A little theft flew under the radar. A big public heist? Not so much.

Starwood usually honors mistake rates like the Phoenician (eg Westin Times Sqaure). Avis? Hard to imagine. And free?

I thought it was interesting which bloggers posted the Avis deal, and which ones didn't. I'd love to know why the ones that didn't made that choice, but some reasons could really have upped my respect for them, such as because there was no way Avis was going to honor it so they chose not to work their readers up into a frenzy for traffic. Of course some of the blogs that did post it might not have been savvy enough to realize it was Fool's Gold.

I did like that MrPickles stated in his blog post (link, hah!)

satz

Well, I'd be more cynical and think that the ones who didn't post them realized that there was no way they could stick affiliate links in (or maybe they could have: "Don't forget that the United card offers primary rental insurance coverage" with a nice fat link)

The other usual sell outs who posted it are just driving more traffic in to get more visits and clicks on their affiliate links in the future.

sbm12

In my case because I was reasonably confident that it wouldn't be honored and because several others had already posted about it.

My personal favorite today is a post asking what the best value is to transfer out 7,000 AmEx MR points. Accompanied by multiple links to enroll in a card which offers those points. ETA: And also links to sign up for Chase cards.

Apparently being an expert in recommending that one get the points doesn't require knowing their value or how to usefully redeem them.

lwildernorva

Then, I guess people who post about stuff here must be naive as well.

Actually, TPG's blog entry would seem to be one little piece of information that could be considered in answering the question originally posed by this thread. If I find information useful to me that I can't find in FT on a particular blog, perhaps that blog is most useful to me (and perhaps others).

Or, are we not trying to answer that question anymore?

kokonutz

What if a blog becomes or is bought by a 'large corporation?'

Randy sold out! Is saying so a TOS violation? His company is pretty big.

Frugal Travel Guy loves affiliates more than information. He is part of a huge corporation. Is saying so a TOS violation?

Why is the size of the commercial points and miles service provider relevant at all?

I know we aren't supposed to talk about moderation. But the standard seems to be getting more subjective rather than more clear.

If I get dinged for a TOS violation again it will be for a long (possibly permanent) time, so I think it's only fair that we understand not just what the subjective rules are but why they are.


In the meantime, back on topic, I see that the more selfish bloggers (I guess I can't say who since I might get dinged for violation the rules) got a $30 fare at the Phonecian killed this morning. Yay.

ThePointsCollector

What are they posting about if that was a "weekend rental" code and first weekend is still a day away. How can they possibly say its honored if no rentals have been rented yet.

84fiero

Not to be pedantic, but the two phrases are linked by "and/or", not "and" - not the same thing and perhaps an important distinction for copyright purposes (which is the heading for that item). But that wasn't really my point....

I'm not questioning any specific action(s) - I have no clue about any specific deleted post content, but am uncertain about the vague "mis-characterization of a blog post" being judged as improper or not. Does this mean that if someone cites an article and states their interpretation of the author's article, thoughts, etc. that this would be disallowed if someone disagrees that it's a valid analysis or summary of the article? That would seem to be a very subjective and slippery slope if so. If you simply mean a blatantly false statement attributed to an author, that's obviously (and proveably) wrong. But whatever it is, it seems some of us would honestly like some elaboration of this point.

What were once one-man blogs are now sometimes still named the same, but are a trademark of a corporation, or may have many different authors writing under the website name. Where an FT'er has a handle with the same name, how does that work when referencing posts on the website - whether authored directly by the FT'er or not? I don't know the answer, but it's a good question.

sbm12

The deal was around before it got published on the blogs. People absolutely did use it and it was honored.

saacman5033

I think we can all keep posts within the TOS if a little effort is made.

Why the need for name-calling whether the person in question is part of a big corporation or not, FTer or not? In any case, it is appropriate to thoughtfully and respectfully disagree with a blog's content or a blogger's point of view but not attack other members. Certainly there will be some grey area, but why not err on the side of respectfulness towards others?

Literally true so no, as stated I don't see that as a TOS violation

As stated, yes I think that violates the TOS as it is defamatory and it challenges a member directly, not their point of view or blog content. I do think the statement could be reworded thoughtfully to convey the intended meaning without attacking the member directly.

I don't see why you couldn't say something along the lines of:

"I can't believe this morning's post on blogger123.com highlighted deal XYZ. Seems like a sure way to kill the deal"

Maybe this seems a little silly in response to a post that could be read as hyperbole but I'm hoping we can keep discussion here respectful in what can be a very touchy subject.

yerffej201

With the Phenoician mistake, we're not sure whether TPG Reader Rob was a member of FT.

So until I see otherwise it was the blogs that had this deal first.

ThePointsCollector

Boom, here comes the boom, ready or not ..

just got this in my email