Fare Error Membership Qualification
 

I fear discussion on this may grow heated, but I think the suggestion is worth making anyway.

I think there is a case to be made for fare errors only being visible to users with a certain time / post qualification (like Coupon Connection and Omni). This would hopefully mean that such fares were available for a longer period of time, and would benefit more FTers so would be in the interests of the wider membership of FT. Currently, there is the potential for some new posters to exploit such errors in a manner which is against the interests of the wider membership. Naturally, there's nothing to stop a more established memeber doing that, although I think it would be less likely.

Obviously, Mileage Run itself should have no viewing qualification. So I'm suggesting that fare errors should have a sub-forum within MR or their own forum so that the qualification thing would work.

I think that's a great idea. I would definitely support this idea, and I would also suggest that the special sub-forum for error fares or extraordinarily low fares should prohibit those users who have access to it from re-posting these fares to mailing lists.

I think Wingnut's suggestion makes sense because the reasoning is the same as with, e.g., the CouponConnection - restrict the benefits of Flyertalk somewhat to those members of the community who have shown over a period of time that they have contributed to it. This goal cannot be reached as well if more people (who might not even be registered at Flyertalk) have access to these error fares/extraordinarily low fares - either by being lurkers or mailing list members. Another argument in favor of Wingnut's suggestion is that airline/hotel lurkers might take longer to spot the error fares, so that more members of the community who have contributed might benefit from them.

Re the mailing lists: I don't think anything the TB does could or should affect things that happen "off-board". I specifically didn't mention mailing lists in my first post for that very reason. Might I respectfully ask that if others want to have a discussion of non-FT mailing lists they do so on a different thread, as I'd prefer it if this one didn't get shut down.

To refine my idea a little: I think it should be sub-forum of MR. If a member who doesn't meet whatever the qualification is posts a new error (which is not already posted in the hidden forum) that thread should be left to stand where it is. If the error is already posted, the thread should be deleted and the OP PM'd in explanation.

Only fares which are suspected of being errors should be in the sub-forum. Regular deals and sales should stay visible to all.

The only drawback to Wingnut's suggestion I can see is that some error fares might be spotted by users who do not fulfill the qualification for the error fare sub-forum. However, I think this could easily be solved - once a user like that (e.g., a user with a relatively low post count or newly registered user) posts a fare like that to the general mileage run forum, the moderator could move the post to the error fare sub-forum and grant that user access to that forum.

This would also mean that there would be an additional incentive for users to spot fares for the benefit of other Flyertalk members who have contributed.

Part of the qualification criteria for being allowed to the sub-forum could for instance be that only those users who have signed up for the ad-free version of Flyertalk by subscribing to one of Randy's publications would have access to the error-fare forum. Then one could really ensure that only users who, at least in some way, have contributed to Flyertalk (and if only monetarily) will have access to those error fares.

In my personal opinion, having signed up for the premium version of Flyertalk should only be one of the criteria, not the only one though, because otherwise it would be too easy for the airline/hotel lurkers to get access to that error fare forum.

The reason I added the part about the users of the error fare forum being obligated not to re-post the error fares to mailing lists is simply the same why I think the error fare forum would be good in the first place - so that only those should primarily benefit from such fares who have in some way previously contributed to Flyertalk - either by paying for premium Flyertalk or (and) by fulfilling certain other criteria (like, e.g., having made other Flyertalk users aware of a great fare themselves). Of course, once a user who is allowed to read the error fare sub-forum would re-post the deal to a mailing list, the benefit of the error fare sub-forum would be gone in an instant, so I think it is only logical to make it a requirement for users of that forum not to re-post these fares to mailing lists.

Again, I think wingnut's idea is fantastic.

Your suggestion for dealing with this scenario is better than mine.

As to the ad-free FT qualification, I personally have no problem with that providing that as you suggest it's not the only qualification. However, I think that this might make the proposal more controversial to some.

Once again, the mailing list thing really is not relevant, if for no other reason that the TB / RP / FT shouldn't make rules they can't enforce.

Wingnut, I typed my last post while you were typing the one I am quoting now. I think I explained my reasoning for why I would suggest to make it a requirement for users of that forum not to re-post these error fares to mailing lists in my previous post. I don't see why that should lead to the thread being shut down.

Again, I believe the two things are related:

If you say then a sub-forum will not help at all if a minute after something appears in the sub-forum, someone re-posts it to a mailing list with tens of thousands of users - then you might as well not have the sub-forum.

I am saying this in a completely non-confrontational way and only picking up your logic.

What someone does outside of FT is their own decision, I agree with you on that. But FT could certainly make rules for the use of that sub-forum, and requiring users not to re-post what they see there to other websites or to mailing lists could easily be one of those rules.

We're replying to each other at the same time.

The most important thing in terms of my logic is the not making rules you can't enforce bit. As such, I think discussion of non-FT mailing lists is a distraction, and one which historically has caused some angst on this board. That's why I'd like to avoid it.

I'm not sure that our host would start a new forum for a topic that would have very few threads.

It would be very interesting to see how many of these 'errors' were started by posters with <100 threads and/or < 12 months on FT.

Dan

I'm not sure its in Randy's interests to restrict this particular topic since it is great publicity for his organization and also attracts a lot of new people to Flyertalk.

It would be interesting to see (not sure its possible) how many new people are attracted to Flyertalk by these "fare errors" and their retention rate.

Interesting points...

It would also be interesting to see how much the people who are attracted by these fare errors later contribute to Flyertalk themselves... if someone is a pure bargain hunter and not interested in contributing something to a community, they might as well just sign up for a list where nothing is to be contributed...

Also, how much PR does Flyertalk actually get from the fare errors and how much PR goes to entities which use info from Flyertalk, but are not Flyertalk?

As one of the moderators of this forum, let me ask that people keep on topic to Wingnut's suggestion.

Veiled or outright attacks on other members is not acceptable.

William

In general, I am against this proposal.

This is a community where we need to encourage participation... not discourage it all.

If you check the forums, you will find that many "errors" and "deals" have been brought forward by relatively new members. In fact, many of them appear to provide much more to this community than some established members.

For example, if you look at yesterday's Tokyo and Osaka hotel errors, both were posted by members who just joined this year. Other recent errors were posted by a member who joined in 2003 but has only 60+posts, so are they a new member? They have not added many posts to Flyertalk, but I would say the quality is outstanding.

In regards to letting people post their deals to a general forum and gaining access if a moderator moves the thread is not appropriate. First, our TOS states that you should be posting to the appropriate forums... that suggestion just encourages people to violate the TOS. Second, that would place the moderator in the position of determining whether the "value" of the post warrants admission to the secret club. Finally, only Randy and his team currently can grant exceptions to the CC and SPAM requirements... not the moderators. I see no reason to add that to their plate.

So, I am against any changes to the way access is granted to the errors. This question seems to come up everytime a major "error" occurs.... and some jump on the bandwagon - in my opinion - because they did not see the error quickly enough.

William

The TOS could be adapted to reflect that exception. Here is a suggestion:

"Error fares are to be posted in the error fare forum. If a user does not yet have acess to the error fare forum but believes he has found an error fare, he may post this fare in the mileage run forum. Should a moderator consider the fare to fit the requirements for the error fare forum, the post will be moved to the error fare forum and the user will be granted access to the error fare forum."

Bingo. "Problem" solved.

Moderators make judgment calls all the time (and almost all of them show very good judgment almost all the time). So whom to trust more with determining whether a post belongs in a forum or not than our highly esteemed moderator corps? :)

I think Wingnut has made a very good case and explained the reason.