I would like to chime in my 2 cents worth:

As doc so eloquently and succintly stated, I'm all for moderation in moderating.

Here is a scenario.

Someone discovers ANYONE can make Exec. Platinum on AA for a few $100 and a few days of flying in Guatemala on some regional airline. All 100% legit, and you get the It'l upgrades etc and all the EP benefits once you are done. Half of FT would be at least INTERESTED to learn the details. I sure would.

These moderators have now posted saying that one would need to read the AA board to now learn about it. Or the Mileage Run board. I have never read either. Of COURSE such an amazing sleuth deal should be posted on The Buzz. If the moderator reads the Baht Pass there is a stream of FT'ers who have and still are flying to Thailand to get their 1K card and handful of Systemwide upgrades due to this weird but 100% legal loophole.

Even to get to Star Gold or Premier Executive, and double miles etc on UA requires only 6 days flying and $500 or less. DOUBLE MILES on United. For the next year. Isn't that a 100% perfect MILES Buzz topic? But no longer will we see those threads there it seems. Hmm.

What if in the past these folks had never flown UA? Would they have discovered the loophole? Almost certainly NOT as they would not have any reason to read the UA Forum. Isn't such a thread and idea a "BUZZ" ?????

I agree with others above that the effective banishment of the General Travel Talk forum to a quiet and not often visited corner of FT is why so much posting now takes place on Miles Buzz.

And the faceless, unnamed Moderator above advises us a quote "Politburo" of a dozen more are on their way. Hmmm.

Most of us, it would seem, would likely prefer to know who an individual is - given the choice!

Of course, that's easy for me, because I simply prefer not to be a moderator!

It's a very demanding job, IMHO!

If I were, however, as Dorian states/suggests, I would reveal my name! And, of course, that's just me, but it would not be for pride, but rather for transparency and my own personal comfort! I could not easily be two people, no less simultaneously. And btw, though admittedly very outgoing, I'm also a rather private individual.

Again, I absolutely respect the choice of moderators here on FT to do as they wish within the established rules/ guidelines!

And does anyone else think that perhaps the move of "Gen Trav Talk" to the separate new FT Travel Board has produced an increase in the number of "NON-buzzworthty" posts in the BUZZ?

Just a thought, but one that had occurred to me personally and that also had been expressed to me in emails from a few other FTers!

Lastly,


Perhaps this could be ever so slightly amended to say:

...B. Topic-starting posts that are [manifestly but not marginally] placed in an inappropriate forum....

Just a suggestion! In time, I'm sure things will improve!

No attempt to make a political statement with the term Politburo. Just trying to add a little levity. Let's not let the subject of moderation get everyone too worked up, at least yet. We are essentially on day two of this new FT phase. This is a work in progress.

FT is suppose to be a site that all users enjoy visiting. Moderation was added by the hosts due to requests by the users. Users have a voice that will be listened to.

---

Thanks for the response(s) and your tremendous efforts(s) and sacrifice of time here!

Yet please remember that users were largely split, almost literally 50:50, over employing moderators and it was not the particular problem of misplaced threads, as I recall, that was at issue!

FWIW, "slow but sure" is best, IMHO! "If it ain't broke, then don't fix it" and so on...

Thanks again for listening!

I guess if everyone in society thought like this, Judges in courts would preside wearing balaclavas or hoods over their faces.

In ALL democratic countries Judges are clearly named, and transparent to all, and stand firmly behind their actions and decisions, and the Community still tends to hold them in high regard for their great wisdom and guidance.

we all appreciate randy's kind effort for offering us such a community.
we voice our concern because we care, and we would like this site to be a business success for randy as well.

our suggestions here are consistent with all research about online behavior.
once the site becomes too fragmented and users find it difficult to nevigate and hard to use, the community dies out and so will the site.

people are reluctant to change and tend to be lazy. and we dont want to check multiple forum if possible.
research shows that there is an optimal number of forum one would check into, and i don't think this number is more than 10 --most likely les than 5. (3-4 for myself unless i am very bored, like at this moment)

ken said all about what works best for most of us. ideally the thread should be archived at where the moderators put but appears at multiple forum + buzz, just like the forum OMIN is on all 4 categories but at the thread level. however, i am not sure if the software at this version is capable of doing this. (it surely should be the goal for the next version)

in between, can we have a "free speech forum" as ken suggested?

i hope this makes sense to you -- moderators and randy?

[This message has been edited by pegasus8228 (edited 07-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by pegasus8228 (edited 07-22-2001).]

I think it's a two-way street -- as in, I'm pretty sure he benefits by the vast numbers of us who visit here regularly.

And please don't misunderstand me... I'm not annoyed at anyone and made my previous comments with the hope that FT would improve as a result. I just think we (you?) took something that worked pretty well, and 'dun fixed it reeel good.' In fact, fixed it more than it needed to be.

As to moderators and who they are -- I'm happy as long as the moderation is transparent. That is, decisions and acts are made publicly, and explained. I presume that there is no hidden agenda on the part of moderators, but if it was ever found to be the case, I suspect moderation would suddenly become tarred as the worst thing that ever happened to FT. It's an important job, and it needs to be done carefully. Very carefully.

Otherwise, I don't really care who they are.

I've just done a quick and dirty survey of the last 75 posts (5 days worth) in "The Buzz." Using a very liberal interpretation of the current "rules" only 9, or 12%, actually qualify. Using a strict interpretation of the rules would probably result in 6 or fewer posts qualifying.

Coincidentally, there are 2 posts generally about US federal employees collecting FF miles. One is intact, the other has been moved. Strangely, the one that has been moved is about these employees being able to earn and keep FF miles. I would have thought that if any post would qualify, one about hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of employees being allowed to collect FF miles on every airline in the world, would be it. But apparently not.

In any case, my question is -- If the 500 miles for the US survey should be moved, what about the other 88% of 58,242 posts (51,250, give or take a few)? Even if you just moved posts since the new scheme took place, you're still looking at 100 or more posts (based on my 12%/88% figure above) that are 'out of place.'

And in other news... This seems unlikely. It hasn't been a problem yet, even with all the non-miles posts in The Buzz. I think if all the non-miles posts were stripped out, you could probably off load the miles-only Buzz on to an old 386 computer, and have computing horsepower to spare. That's certainly true, but unless the users find it convenient, usable, and useful, it will all be for naught. It's a symbiotic relationship, and realistically, the user's will eventually decide how it's run, one way or another.

BTW, I love the word "fragmentation." It perfectly describes my feelings. I wish I'd thought of using that word.

Yep!

For me, it's a relatively "simple" benefit versus risk analysis issue!

Enormous benefit with little risk, than we do it!

Otherwise we don't!

Thanks!

Here's yet another infrequent USAirways flyer who doesn't visit that forum but was delighted to read about and take advantage of the survey. While I've often wondered why off-topic threads like "where should I stay in...?" are there, I've benefited from several similar tips in the Buzz over the last couple of years for programs in which I participate but am not sufficiently active to spend the time to monitor their forums. I'd hate to see that disappear.

>>and he spend a remarkable amount of money annually for this site.<<

Yes, but this site doesnt exist for his health either. I dont think Randy is sacrificing heat & food to keep Flyertalk up!

He's a smart man...I would doubt seriously that this is a money-losing venture.

Count me among those in favor of "moderators in moderation."

Consistency in moderation would be a nice attribute as well.

please dont get us wrong, moderators.
we are not arguing what the right way to classify a thread is.

all we are saying is that:
1. there is an optimal number of forum the mode of Ft'er would check day by day. (i said 3-5, but i dont know what that number is)
2. perhaps my number or the number for the new FT version (i believe it means 20 for me if the buzz threads were moved around according to strict taxonomy) are both wrong. i am just proposing let the people determine where they want to post/response.
-- take a few examples, such as the USAIR bonus thread, which were double posted in US & Buzz. people reply to both according to their preference. and you can see whether more people choose the buzz or US forum (similar stats could be performed if we want to be rogorous) -- IMHO it should be in both
3. we care more about thread moving in Buzz, because this is where people are alerted of info they would never heard of otherwise. and it could even lead people to check forum which they had never visited. (e.g. a post about RTW in Buzz will boost a few reader in the OW/*A forum).
however, we do believe it is ABSOLUTELY appropriate to move a UA thread away from AA forum
4. we all want to make this community bigger and better. it would benefit ourselves, and i believe also our dear randy

[This message has been edited by pegasus8228 (edited 07-23-2001).]