GUWonder

Thanks as it will help others also understand situations like this from the MR Deals forum a minute ago:

Sagy

Apologies if I'm missing the obvious

1. How does being logged in impact one's being stalked, it is not like there is a way someone can force communicate with me on FT? Are they going to some how track what threads I read?
2. Isn't there a way to be logged in and block others from seeing that?
3. If one is being stalked on FT, would the power at be allow the user to have a different handle?

but please ignore all of the above. Aren't we missing the much bigger issue? Shouldn't the stalking issue be addressed, is someone being stalked really concerned about being able to view MR without being logged in?

Back to the subject at hand, and argument of the type "I have a really good reason, but I can tell you" is not very convincing. "I won't go into the backgroung behind that" is very close to that example.

Again, I do appreciate the theoretical argument; I'm asking for a real-life example where this requirement is a real hardship.

Prospero

Thank you gentlemen for helping me understand this better. So in summary, this proposal is to introduce a first line of defense ie. to prevent search engines from mining information and indexing on their databases. So in practice, if I enter "site: flyertalk.com aa fare error" into google, the search will not reveal new threads relating to AA fare errors posted in the Mileage Run forum, because search engines will not be able to collect and index new information. Correct?

This does leave information exposed in other ways. It will still be possible to obtain information posted in MR via:
- Flyertalk's own index/search function
- Logging in and reading the forum
- Leakage/duplicate information posted on blog sites and other IBBs

Also, airlines and booking agencies will continue to monitor their own distribution systems for abnormal activity and close fare deals/loopholes as they see fit.

Is that a fair summary?

HansGolden

My, aren't we quick on our feet this morning?

I believe so.

Prospero

Thank you HansGolden,

So the objective is to introduce some breathing space before deals are discovered and closed. Sounds reasonable in theory. I'm not sure if in practice it will result in anything more than a placebo but it's worth trialling.

HansGolden

I'm at the same conclusion. I'm not sure what actual impact it will have, but it's a step in the right direction. 180/180 should be a minimum for a Mistake Fares forum. I'd love to see a Mistake Fares forum as a sub of MR Deals. MF would be 180/180 and MR Deals would be logged in. There's no reason that domestic $180 a/i transcons should have much restriction. However, the problem with leaving MR Deals at logged in only is that people make posting mistakes all the time to the wrong forum, whether it's posting a request for help in MR Deals or posting a Trick. But at least the damage would not be cached by Google in the hour before a mod can move it.

My vision (and I know I'm not alone in this and conversely I know that many that support login don't support my vision) would be for FT to further vertically integrate up the secrecy/privacy ladder. It doesn't mean closing off existing forums, but rather providing new, more restricted venues to air things that are currently being discussed outside of FT. I don't have a major horse in the race because if FT doesn't vertically integrate, they will simply lose that chunk of the market entirely. It would be handy to do a lot of stuff at one place, but I can do it elsewhere too. Maybe my hopes are vain and FT will never be the appropriate place for some of that more restricted stuff. Dunno.

DeaconFlyer

Well, my answer is yes. Your line of questioning has convinced me that people shouldn't be able to register for FT unless they have 100 posts.

GUWonder

And how will people come around to acknowledging it's a placebo without the benefit of a proverbial placebo effect? Trial period it won't be, unless there is a calculable determination of what is success and what is failure in terms of "protecting" deals and there is upfront acknowledgement of what will be considered success and failure and how that will be determined.

If that was part of this motion and support for it, I'd probably be more in favor of this motion.

Cholula

Over the years, TB has brought up the 180/180 or whatever higher threshold it should be issue for a Mistake Fares forum or sub-forum.

And invariably folks point out that some of the best Mistake Fares ever posted on FT....and maybe somebody remembers which ones for example...were posted by relatively new members with single digit or low double digit post counts.

So I think a 180/180 threshold might have a hard time passing TB. But that's just my two cents.

DeaconFlyer

Success can be measured by the change in the number of non-contributing guests that are found in the MR forums.

Prospero

I don't think it is possible to determine this with any degree of certainty. There are too many variables at play outwith the control of FlyerTalk. Discussion on other IBBs, the proliferation of blogging activity and greater sophistication by airlines in detecting/monitoring "rough" transactions.

I have no real objection to this proposal. As written it's moderate and doesn't deviate from FT's mission.

travelkid

GUWonder, in case you unintentionally missed it I repost. If you intentionally missed it we will quickly know.

Guess you are playing devils advocate. Is there a point throwing such questions if noone actually suggest that. And if you or others suggest it, why dont back it up with arguments?

GUWonder

What are you looking for. If the objective is to "protect" deals, then first share what that means in objective terms. Once that is done, then the first suggestion is not to waste time on ineffective -- perhaps even countereffective -- measures to "protect" deals.


That guess would be wrong. I asked what I did because I want to know why this approach is being taken if it is, according to some, so ineffective for the purpose of "protecting" deals and yet it is not being pursued even further if it is, according to others or even the same, so effective for various purposes mentioned by advocates of this motion. I would also like to know what kind of backing there is for aspects of this motion that may be revised to further restrict things on FT related to MR Deals and other parts of FT. Not all FT "gold" worth "protecting" is limited to MR Deals.

TheBOSman

This is my first time wading commenting on a TB discussion, so I ask for a little slack if I'm too far off base.

I'll start with that I would be strongly opposed to any sort of posting limit for MR. As someone who only recently passed the 180/180 mark so often quoted (sometime within the last week), who has made many posts in MR, started, by my rough guess, half a dozen decent MR threads, and made solid contributions to another at least half dozen, any sort of post limit on posting in that thread would hurt the overall community. I'm fortunate in that I discovered ITA Matrix well before I discovered FT, so I very, very quickly got up to speed with finding MR deals and manipulating them where possible. With a 180/180 limit, I would have not been in that forum until this week. How many people, even once they pass the 180/180 mark, end up visiting OMNI or CC? I would bet a good number of them do not within any short period of time after qualifying to see it. I would also argue that MR is far more directly related to the main goal of FT than OMNI or CC. Those are privileges for contributing members. MR isn't a privilege in the same way to me. MR is a major part of FT, and any major restrictions on it would be far more harmful to the community than it would be without those restrictions.

As for requiring a simple login, the only opposition I can raise is for a member, say at an airline lounge computer or public access point, who may not wish to login with their FT account to assure that their FT login and password are not compromised due to a compromised computer. I personally use a different login and password for FT from any other login/password for this reason, so that even if my account is compromised, nothing else is due to it. The only true way to "protect" a deal is not to publicly post it. The major example of this is the trick it thread, where many things are not publicly posted, and many things are heavily coded. Once someone posts a deal publicly, it is unprotected. When I come across one personally, I first check it against my dates on which I could use it. If it makes sense for me, I book it myself, then post it. If not, I make sure it is bookable somewhere, and then post it. I try to provide as much detail as possible so other members may more easily book it.

I would not say I am opposed to a login requirement for Mileage Run, however I am not sure what the overall effectiveness would be. I feel it may keep deals alive at best 10% longer, maybe a couple of hours at most. A true mistake fare will be seen by enough FTers and posted on a blog quickly, rendering the login requirement useless. The fare would likely disappear before it could be picked up by a Google web crawler or anything like that. As GUWonder said, we may need to define what "protecting" deals consists of. Then we will want to decide if this would help achieve that goal. I am undecided on this personally. I feel it won't hurt to try this, but it might not make a major difference. The key is making sure that it does not negatively affect the community. I honestly do not see a major impact either way. As long as this is not the precursor to a post/time minimum, I would say I am in favor, as I do not see a major negative effect.

travelkid

Should be pretty clear that by protecting deals, it means not having them closed- at least too soon. Feel free to offer your potentially alternative definition. Then Im all ears for your reply to my first question, "What are your suggestions to protect the deals?".

And then pls comment on "Im not sure if you mean the proposal is countereffective? How?

Noone has claimed its effective, but it surely has at least a limited effect, no?"