squeakr

I support this motion.
As do I.


All we're asking are two extremely easy steps that all of us have already taken.

Register a handle with FT and log-in.

That's it. Thirty seconds of your time. No mumbo jumbo, smoke, mirrors or parlor tricks involved.

Search bots can't log-in and if the folks who are looking to glean what information that our fellow FT'ers share and can't be bothered to make themselves known, tough luck IMO.

I'm supporting this proposal to the max unless I see overwhelming arguments to the contrary.
(and to add, no rocket science either )

RichMSN

I've voted yes to this proposal.

jaws3

I support motion

Pegasus23

Yes! I encourage the TB members to support this measure with their vote.

GUWonder

This motion already has enough TB support to pass. I doubt that there is any argument that will be accepted by the supporters of this motion, so there really is no use in trying to note that the "search engine" shut-down is a canard given that the FT milleage run deals are in the main not going to be f protected by sort of restricting access to auto-bot search engines. Too bad: as it's not always possible for everyone to log in to FT as browser cookie use isn't always practical/ideal; and as the Mileage Run deals will still not be restricted to FT or protected reliably by such attempted closing of the barn doors after the horses have already left. Given the presence of company reps, email list users (which are done by FTers), blogs and twitter feeds from FTers, search engine blocking attempts are ineffective if the goal is to try to protect fare deals. And with automated and manual fare finders working for the airlines and ATPCO having speed up its game, such attempt at fare deal salvation is not going to substantially prolong an airfare deal.

If the idea is to attract more FTers by shutting off viewability to "unregistered"/non-logged-in FTers, then all i can say is that shutting off viewability of the forum being used to attempt to attract more is a questionable approach at best given something unseen is not something that is going to reliably attract people as much as more open viewability. Not that these opinions matter.

Cholula

Attracting more folks to sign up for FT is not my main reason for supporting this although that would be a good thing IMO. I don't have any financial interest in FT or IB so the number of eyeballs viewing the forums isn't something I dwell on very much.

What I do want to see is that people who want to view these deals at least register a handle and log-in.

The current system is vaguely akin to someone peeping through the windows into your house IMO. I'd not be too crazy about that. But knock on the door, tell me your name and the chances are pretty good I'll let you in to look around*. I've got nothing to hide but I just want to know who I'm dealing with.

*Unless you looked like jackal and then I'd probably call the cops.

Pegasus23

If the TB members have voted already then what you say has merit. However, most hang back...Sure they may say how they are leaning at the time, and that can be discouraging to the process of listening to FT Members voicing opinions later near the voting date. It's the TB process and they get to individually choose how & when to vote.

DeaconFlyer

I agree.

tom911

Hopefully the Talk Board members will vote immediately, then, and not drag this discussion out a full two weeks.

HansGolden

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You're the one pretending to be interested (while dismissively not expecting it) in serious arguments against your position, but studiously ignoring several posters who have done so.

Your last sentence is the flash of honesty we've been waiting for. Everyone knows that restricting access will most likely sometime, somewhere prolong a deal, but of course it's impossible to scientifically measure how much. I respect your opinion that it won't help much. However, please refrain from calling the search engine privacy issue a canard. It in and of itself is not a canard. I believe you're trying to say that restricting MR Deals from SEs will "in the main not going to be f protected". That along with saying "such attempt at fare deal salvation is not going to substantially prolong an airfare deal" communicates that in fact restricting SEs from MR Deals is the exact opposite of a canard. The word you're searching for is "overblown" or some such. I respect your right to have the opinion that the change will be small, but please don't call the opposing side purveyors of canards ("unfounded rumor or story"). Name-calling doesn't help your case.

Actually, if there are any canards floating about, it's that cookie thing. Have you ever actually gone into the settings to disable cookies and tried to browse FT logged in? Or are you just passing along "unfounded rumors and stories"?

See, I know a thing or two about cookies. I do some work in PHP, am a LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP) server admin, admin a forum, and admin a number of WordPress blogs. What you were saying struck me as odd as most modern PHP software (and vbulletin is one of the finest specimens of PHP software out there, in my experience) has workarounds for obstinate folk that disable their cookies. So I tried three different experiments with increasing levels of cookie-busting powers, all of which simulate typical cookie-averse users:

1. Entered Google Chrome's Incognito mode. Now this doesn't actually block cookies. It accepts cookies, but erases them as soon as you exit the browser window. If it's privacy you're looking for, Incognito mode in Chrome (and equivalent features in all the other major browsers) will accomplish it and allow you to login to FT without any problems.
2. I went to a personal copy of PHP Proxy which I host on my server in order to access blocked sites in countries that censor the internet or for websites that geo-block certain users or misc other times I need a proxy. This is a very popular web-based proxy which lots of people use (hosted on sites other than my own server, of course) to browse. There's an option to accept cookies. If you select that, FT works fine. (Even if you don't, it works fine as you will see by the next test.)
3. This test was less scenario-based (i.e. common scenarios where FT might not work because of privacy or other concerns) and more tech-based. I simply went into my browser settings and selected the option to block cookies. I went to FT and logged in and voila! I was able to browse and post as normal. The secret was the automatic addition of a little query string on the end of the FT url after a "?" which was my session ID which allows vbulletin to track my session without cookies.

So my dear FlyerTalk Posting Legend, I'm afraid it is you that are peddling canards, not the fine folks that are in support of this motion.

Craig6z

Speaking as a member (not this forum's moderator), I too support this.

GUWonder

There is no name-calling in my post. The use of canard as a term above is a reference to the canard of an argument, not a reference to an individual. Suggestions opposite that are a canard.

There is no rumor or story involved in mentioning that logging into FT is not always ideal/practical even when using FT and the user is an FTer.

Not that these items in my post matter, as there are enough TBers in favor already to make this a fait accompli.

HansGolden

Some would feel that being accused of peddling rumors when it has been admitted by said person that they aren't really rumors would fall under name-calling, but to each their own.

You are correct, though that's different than what you said earlier:

[emphasis added]

--

ETA:

You keep saying that as if it absolves you of responsibility to carefully and logically making the case to back up your beliefs. It doesn't.

BryanIAH

I support this proposal.

Prospero

I'd appreciate it if one of our experts here could explain (in layperson's language please ) what it is search engines, such as Google, do to mine information from open forums and how this information is churned to the detriment of FT members?