http://flyertalk.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=629

I'm going off my previous experience as a moderator - which I was on and off for quite a while in Community, American AAdvantage, and Women Travelers at various times.

I can recall receiving less than a half dozen complaints about signatures during my tenure as a mod and unless my my memory escapes me, every complaint came from AA and had to do with member signatures referencing suspensions, other members, or other verboten topics. Now I guess someone could post photos of a suspended member and that might violate the TOS, but its a stretch.

I recall ONE other complaint about signatures that I received as a mod and that was a member who had posted a link to a site where he stood to have personal gain. Again, I guess someone could post a picture of something for personal gain, but I don't see that being a pervasive issue.

Finally, on the recollection front, since I was a moderator until very recently, I have pretty strong recall of topics discussed privately among moderators both in privleged exchanges and at moderator DOs, and I do not recall signatures being anywhere near the top of the list of problem areas that moderators had to deal with. Conversely, I seem to recall that the preferred method for dealing with problem signatures was to email the member and ask them to change the signature and barring cooperation, a senior moderator deleted it for them. Given that mod tools allow for editing of posts or temporarily deleting a post - and given that some members are QUITE fond of using the Report Bad Post option anytime they find anything whatsoever that they find questionable, I have a hard time believing that this is going to be a major time drain for moderators, but again, I'm going off my own experiences.

That's not an assumption. That's experience. One tends to get that after running a major IBB for a few years. FT seems to have issues with features other IBBs don't. Remember the 'Reputation' fiasco? I do.

I stick by my accusation. If some of the same suggestions punki made were instead made by member_x, I honesty think several of them would be given greater consideration. (Bad idea for separate moderator teams excluded).

Humm, I wish there was a smilie that could better express a reply to that comment.

Excellent points about the AA seats where pictures set the record straight.

In regards to users having to rely on 3rd party sites for links, photos, etc. I've always wondered why FT and now IB let so many "click" go off site when keeping it all "in-house" would generate revenue, better user experience and of course cut down on security risks, spam risks.

so if I understand your point: you reject the entire concept of avatars, etc, with it's feature to turn off YOUR viewing of images knowing that it will deny me and others who OPT-IN the ability enhance OUR user experience?

I'm confused. FT has a photo gallery. For most sites that allow in-line photo images the images are hosted elsewhere. It is much easier for me to link to an image contained on my personal website anyway.

The issue isn't site functionality, it is the technical expertise of the users.

I rather look at it the other way around.

I'm happy with the set of images we have today. You want to deny me their use by forcing me to turn them off if I dislike the new set.

In addition, like it or not, smilies are part of the "text". Turning them off means losing part of the conversation.

That is why I leave them on in the other fora I frequent, even though their presence is a continual low level of annoyance.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and conjecture. However, if Randy had solicited feedback on the idea of avatars and photos, *my* opinions would have been as vigorously argued as they are now. This discussion isn't about personalities; it's about the soundness of the ideas put forth. So far, members are resoundingly unfavorable toward images. They just are -- nothing more to it than that.

Embedded photos are enabled in Trip Reports, right? How would that not satisfy members' needs in the case of future threads like the AA seat thread?

(Let's leave the revenue discussion to IB, should JohnMcG decide to weigh in. That's not really what's on the table for discussion at the moment.) "Better user experience" is a stretch of an argument because we have no mechanism in place measure it, and therefore no basis for comparison between better and worse. Flyertalk is not now, and never will be, all things to all people.


As some have already tried (perhaps in vain) to point out, what may seem an enhancement on your end will require time and energy to monitor. General members and even some TB members may not fully realize how much time that can be. One may say, "But it's worth it!" I ask, "How much is it worth?"

The seat issue came up weeks (if not months) before the first plane came out of conversion. To post photos in Trip Reports in a case like that would alter the scope of that forum which would then be "Trip Reports or Any Other Travel-Related Subject on FT Requiring Photographic Support"

Well, TB may alter the scope of discussion if they wish, of course.

"Requiring" photographic support? This makes no sense. We have no such requirement now nor is it being suggested.

Nice twist of definition.

The subtopic you replied to was about a thread on the AA forum about new J seats that went on for weeks (and pages and pages). Getting a couple of photos in the mix helped clear up a lot of questions/mispostings. And so yes, that thread "required" photographic support to get a point across concisely.

Nowhere are we talking about the TOS or any other kind of "requirement" so maybe it would please the philosopher if I rephrased that as "Trip Reports or Any Other Travel-Related Subject on FT Where Photographic Support Increases Understanding or Knowledge of the Subject Matter at Hand"

So now maybe you want to split that hair?

There seems to be some bickering between FT'ers, on this thread. It's best if comments are directed at the community as a whole, versus an individual.

This is not saying people should avoid disputing another's point, but lets do it in an entirely friendly manner. 'Nuff said...

sounds like you and I are in agreement.

based on your other comments I'm not sure why you'd turn them off as the "new" set most of us seem to suggest are an evolution of the current ones: not a wholesale change. No flashing, no animating, no counters, etc. just some travel specific ones as well as a few to represent current buzzwords. You seem far too rational to turn off smilies just because a handful of additional smilies that complement the current ones would be added.

I like to think that FlyerTalk is different than every other large BB. If not being cluttered with useless fluff differentiates us from the pack, I consider that a big plus.