Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Community > TalkBoard Topics
Reload this Page >

Proposal: This House believes WE NEED MORE MILES! So why is this forum public?

Proposal: This House believes WE NEED MORE MILES! So why is this forum public?

 

Old Feb 15, 13, 9:11 am
  #16  
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador: World of Hyatt
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NJ
Programs: Hyatt Diamond, Fairmont Lifetime Plat, UA Silver, dirt elsewhere
Posts: 44,158
Originally Posted by Fawlty Tower :-O View Post
Is that really true? Or are you just saying that because you are equally disillusioned with the whole thing, like me? I mean that would make Flyertalk no better than our "good friends", the bloggers, who steal ideas to publish them for clicks/views (which ultimately define their ad revenue).
FT is a profit making business. It was sold in by the founder in 2009 to internet brands, which is a publicly held company.

More clicks=more revenue. I doubt there will be any kind of an argument to hide any popular forums to keep the secrets within. That's what private groups off FT are for
Mary2e is offline  
Old Feb 15, 13, 10:00 am
  #17  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: Gold, plat, diamond and more
Posts: 3,360
Originally Posted by Fawlty Tower :-O View Post
Thanks lin, that's certainly interesting. But what exactly would you like me to learn from that? That a motion can fail even if it absolutely makes sense, is frankly necessary and even has the overwhelming support of the community?

If I may quote one contributor (Sagy) from there:


If anything, that's disheartening to say the least.

This notwithstanding, that thread makes a number of excellent points and noteworthy contributions from the likes of HansGolden. I especially like his "interdependent levels" statement which really shows that a community like this can really work, even without shutting out curious newbies who are willing to learn.
You are quoting two great posters. Speaking of which I hope to see that thread revitalized, and things to start moving
travelkid is offline  
Old Feb 15, 13, 3:15 pm
  #18  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marriott or Hilton hot tub with a big drink <glub> Beverage: To-Go Bag™ DYKWIA: SSSS /rolleyes ☈ Date Night: Costco
Programs: Sea Shell Lounge Platinum, TSA Pre✓ Refusnik Diamond, PWP Gold, FT subset of the subset
Posts: 12,473
So what would be the criteria for seeing the forum; 180 posts / 180 days of membership? That would lock out the OP, and the first person that replied in this thread that agreed with him.
N965VJ is offline  
Old Feb 15, 13, 3:45 pm
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 30,828
I'm against this proposal for the same reason I was against locking Mileage Run Deals: some of those less than 180/180 posters do contribute, and by putting restrictions on the forum you take away their opportunity to contribute let alone read the forum. We don't need any additional restricted forums here.

Originally Posted by Fawlty Tower :-O View Post
So I wonder: Why bother at all with this forum? I for one will never share either my time-tested or any of my new-found routines to get miles as long as every person can find them via Google and every blogger can just copy them and use them to get ad revenue for his blog. I mean, with no due respect, this is not the "blogger welfare" forum here, is it?
As you've contributed less than a post a month since you've been on FT, I don't think we're going to miss you sharing your material if you go elsewhere. There's plenty of other members here that are willing to share.
tom911 is online now  
Old Feb 15, 13, 5:04 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: Gold, plat, diamond and more
Posts: 3,360
Originally Posted by tom911 View Post
I'm against this proposal for the same reason I was against locking Mileage Run Deals: some of those less than 180/180 posters do contribute, and by putting restrictions on the forum you take away their opportunity to contribute let alone read the forum. We don't need any additional restricted forums here.



As you've contributed less than a post a month since you've been on FT, I don't think we're going to miss you sharing your material if you go elsewhere. There's plenty of other members here that are willing to share.
tom, do you want to open CC and OMNI?
travelkid is offline  
Old Feb 15, 13, 5:26 pm
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 30,828
Originally Posted by travelkid View Post
tom, do you want to open CC and OMNI?
That would be fine with me. I remember OMNI not having any restrictions. Just as the AA forum is open to everyone, I think every forum here should be open. I don't buy into the argument that those forums are rewards for contributing 180 posts and need to be locked down. I'd just as soon have every forum open to everyone and not have to lock down a single one.
tom911 is online now  
Old Feb 15, 13, 5:59 pm
  #22  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 37,488
Anyone that thinks that locking it down will stop companies from just posting a bunch so they can get in is nuts. Any company interested enough in what happens here will get in the forum.
ScottC is offline  
Old Feb 15, 13, 6:32 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 4,863
Originally Posted by ScottC View Post
Anyone that thinks that locking it down will stop companies from just posting a bunch so they can get in is nuts. Any company interested enough in what happens here will get in the forum.
Exactly. It's not tough for someone to work their way in - it's not like this is a top secret, ultra-secure secret society.

What would help the most is people having some restraint and discretion...but being human, there's always someone who can't.

I'm not creative enough to come up with any new methods but if I did, I would only share privately with a few trusted people. Even then I'm sure it wouldn't last forever.
84fiero is offline  
Old Feb 15, 13, 11:42 pm
  #24  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Atherton, CA
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP; Owner, Green Bay Packers
Posts: 21,690
Someone with 15 posts is proposing this? LOL

Certainly has chutzpah.
Doc Savage is offline  
Old Feb 16, 13, 4:29 am
  #25  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Home
Programs: AA, Delta, UA & thanks to FTers for my PC Gold!
Posts: 7,623
Another legend thread that carries the reoccurring themes:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...ies-blogs.html
lin821 is offline  
Old Feb 16, 13, 1:00 pm
  #26  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by lin821 View Post
Another legend thread that carries the reoccurring themes:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...ies-blogs.html
The problem (or more precisely: the catalyst) is that FT has two indicators next to every post: The date you joined and your post count. This seems to occasionally cause a bit of an awkward personality shift (uppity?) among several (certainly not all) posters with a high post count and/or long-time membership. The hardcore people even bother to look up your "posts per day" ratio as possible means to discredit everything you say, in a committed effort to prove how ridiculous this can get if they try hard enough.

Just consider for a second that in your office you had a colleague who has worked in your firm or industry for over fifteen years and has earned his fair share of experience and acknowledgement (of which you might not know but then it's none of your business). Now, this guy, he transferred to your department about two years ago, even though you didn't get to talk to him all that much because you were working on different projects. Now, suddenly, you find yourself in a meeting with him, trying to solve a problem together:
Never in a thousand years would you dream of dismissing his contributions solely on the basis that he has been in your department "for only two years" and you have only "talked to him 15 times".

I mean, you might do that of course but if you have a good manager who knows how to organise an effective group of people that gets results he will notice and you will not be reviewed as a productive member of your team. Ultimately, that's -> out for you, and nobody will care about your years of service or how much you have "talked per day").

So, as always on the intertubes, it's the old problem of people who are probably insecure or harbour anger for some reason or other, hiding behind their nicknames and perceived status (post count (not content) and time of membership) and dismissing each and every one who they perceive as being "below" them on the basis of the two parameters next to their posts. That's not how people normally behave in a social environment and it is a peculiar appearance on the web but that doesn't make it any more okay or helpful.

That's all I have to say about that... and the thread lin821 linked to (I guess, as a wake-up call?) actually saddens me. Such meta-discussions and ad hominem arguments in full disregard of the actual topic or problem are neither productive nor conducive to a community that wants to prosper and accomplish something.

Last edited by Fawlty Tower :-O; Feb 16, 13 at 1:10 pm
Fawlty Tower :-O is offline  
Old Feb 16, 13, 2:50 pm
  #27  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 30,828
One parameter you should consider is the lack of Talk Board members posting to support your position. Those are the folks you need to win over.
tom911 is online now  
Old Feb 16, 13, 4:46 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: Gold, plat, diamond and more
Posts: 3,360
Originally Posted by Fawlty Tower :-O View Post
The problem (or more precisely: the catalyst) is that FT has two indicators next to every post: The date you joined and your post count. This seems to occasionally cause a bit of an awkward personality shift (uppity?) among several (certainly not all) posters with a high post count and/or long-time membership. The hardcore people even bother to look up your "posts per day" ratio as possible means to discredit everything you say, in a committed effort to prove how ridiculous this can get if they try hard enough.

Just consider for a second that in your office you had a colleague who has worked in your firm or industry for over fifteen years and has earned his fair share of experience and acknowledgement (of which you might not know but then it's none of your business). Now, this guy, he transferred to your department about two years ago, even though you didn't get to talk to him all that much because you were working on different projects. Now, suddenly, you find yourself in a meeting with him, trying to solve a problem together:
Never in a thousand years would you dream of dismissing his contributions solely on the basis that he has been in your department "for only two years" and you have only "talked to him 15 times".

I mean, you might do that of course but if you have a good manager who knows how to organise an effective group of people that gets results he will notice and you will not be reviewed as a productive member of your team. Ultimately, that's -> out for you, and nobody will care about your years of service or how much you have "talked per day").

So, as always on the intertubes, it's the old problem of people who are probably insecure or harbour anger for some reason or other, hiding behind their nicknames and perceived status (post count (not content) and time of membership) and dismissing each and every one who they perceive as being "below" them on the basis of the two parameters next to their posts. That's not how people normally behave in a social environment and it is a peculiar appearance on the web but that doesn't make it any more okay or helpful.

That's all I have to say about that... and the thread lin821 linked to (I guess, as a wake-up call?) actually saddens me. Such meta-discussions and ad hominem arguments in full disregard of the actual topic or problem are neither productive nor conducive to a community that wants to prosper and accomplish something.
Great post I dont get the idea that someones opinion is superior to another based on post padding or length of membership. FT is so cliquish that a few influential posters can turn suggestions just as they want.
travelkid is offline  
Old Feb 16, 13, 5:52 pm
  #29  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by travelkid View Post
Great post I dont get the idea that someones opinion is superior to another based on post padding or length of membership. FT is so cliquish that a few influential posters can turn suggestions just as they want.
I'm new to this site and this activity (I'm sure there is another term for it but I am new enough not to know the term). I'm not new to forums of course and participate in a few. This is by far the most active and "information focused" forum that I've sever seen.

My opinion means nothing at this point but here it is anyway: Please keep the OMNI section the way it is. As someone starting out I can tell you I have plenty to do and learn for 180 days/posts that future goodies don't need to be exposed... Something to look forward to
TailSpin is offline  
Old Feb 16, 13, 7:03 pm
  #30  
nsx
Moderator: Southwest Airlines
2019 FlyerTalk Awards
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN CP & A-list preferred, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, Hotwire, Priceline, tent
Posts: 19,313
Originally Posted by neuro0 View Post
Because FT is here to make money from advertisements. The more traffic it can get, the better.
The TalkBoard has never given any weight to that argument.

Originally Posted by Stubtify View Post
Login access stops who from seeing things?
Searchbots.

Originally Posted by brettalb View Post
Surely login access only seems reasonable. I can think of only one reason why not to do that.
I tend to agree with this for MR Deals and Manufactured Spending.
nsx is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread