Thank you. I didn't know about this feature. All I ever used was "list subscribed threads" I never thought I could move those threads into another folder.

Thank you.

Well, IMHO, it just seems like there are a bunch of stubborn people who refuse to adapt. I'm sure this is not the first thing in their life that has changed and caused them grief. It's particularly surprising because this is an internet chat board, and presumably everyone here is computer literate. I'm sure none of these folks miss the old MS-DOS command prompt. :rolleyes:

Many of us have tried to be helpful, but our advice is falling on deaf ears. C'est la vie.

We've got a winner here IMHO. :)

That's silly. When Microsoft goes from MS-DOS command prompts to Windows they do testing. They do research. They have beta versions. The final product reflects a refined and tortured process that account for user expectations and requirements.pu

Here IB apparently asked a couple moderators what they thought and then pulled the trigger.

Not exactly the same process.

I'm sure that the testing sample size here was not disproportionate to the FT user base as compared to Microsoft's testing vis-a-vis the Windows-using universe.

That said, how do you explain Windows Vista? :D

I was going to ignore this but instead I'll post one more time and then unsubscribe from this thread as I find the recent posts similar to a brainwashing on the order of the Borg that we must agree, we must conform. NOT!!

First the comment that I am very disappointed with some of the posts belonging to those that are not only posters, but also moderators, in this thread -- sbm12 went off calling posters in this thread liars and ignorant with an attitude that from anyone else would've been tagged as unacceptable, and you don't think someone can disagree and think this was a crap upgrade that hurts THEIR experience without being stubborn .... are you kidding me?

I'm really sorry that you don't get that this is MY USAGE I post about, not yours. Your experience and habits are not mine, so why would you loving it mean that I must too? :confused:

Enjoy the "enhancement" that YOU like - I don't, and from what I've seen it's unlikely I will. Name calling or anything else save for changes to the implementation approach won't change MY impressions or experiences with the board.

Bad focus groups! :)

When I said I didn't understand what those of you who don't like the change didn't like about it, I was serious. I actually do want to understand.

But even though I've mentioned a couple of what should be perfect workarounds to bring back the old functionality, no one has directly addressed my posts with a clear description of why my proposed workarounds do not work for him/her, so the only conclusion I could make was that my posts were being lost in the lengthy discussion in this thread--hence my repetition. (I was also repeating what I said earlier because new people had joined the discussion and perhaps had missed some of the earlier proposed solutions.) In fact, to date (excepting your post above), only one person--roger--has directly replied to one of my posts and his second reply to me seemed to indicate my advice was helpful. No other acknowledgment of my suggestions has been made.

So, I didn't mean to repeat myself so often as to convince others by Borg-style brainwashing--I simply felt like my [what I thought was helpful] advice was being missed.

So, all that said, I would very much appreciate it if someone who prefers the old method were to follow the suggestions made in my last post and were to explain why they do not work to mimic the old functionality. Not only would it make me happy, it might serve to further the discussion and help us figure out perhaps some other solutions. :)

Since you mention me, I feel duty bound to respond.

When I looked into it, I found that the suggested solution was not right for me. What's happened is this. I have to use the system as is, which of course was always the case even though 'as is' changed. I don't like the need to mark all messages read in particular forums even when they're not. It means at least two more actions, more in fast moving forums.

The result is that I make less use of FlyerTalk, which is sad given I'm approaching my 10th anniversary as an FTer. FT has been very valuable to me and I won't give it up, just make less use of it.

The single advantage is that if I need to look at a particular forum, I can do so without risking the read/unread status of other forums. This does not make up for the disbenefits IMO.

It would have been good if we had been advised of the changes, instead of them being imposed without notice and having to find out about them in forums such as this.

Upon further review of the conversation above, it should be noted that roger's situation is different from GoingAway's. roger had never used the subscribed threads feature of MyFlyerTalk, and my suggestion to him was to set FT to automatically subscribe him (sans email) to threads he has replied to so they would appear in MyFlyerTalk. That suggestion is different than the one I was mentioning to GoingAway et al and is the one to which he initially responded with interest.

roger--reading your response, I am still unclear on how the new change is not solved by the suggestions I mentioned to GoingAway et al. The key is that you need to click the "Mark All Forums Read" button at the END of your FlyerTalk session, and then everything will be just as you are used to (i.e. the previous behavior) the NEXT time you open FlyerTalk. If you forget to click the Mark All Forums Read link, then your older unread threads will still appear unread.

For ease of use, you can copy the link from the "Mark All Forums Read" button (or from my link above) and save it as a bookmark on your bookmarks bar. That would make it a one-click thing.

I really believe this will restore for you the original behavior of FlyerTalk and leave you satisfied. The LAST thing I want for you to do is make less use of this awesome, invaluable resource and community!

New problem
 

The new problem for today...

>>> the 'back' button doesn't work. I've never had this problem before. If I read a thread in the UA forum, I have to go back to the forum via another entry. When I click the 'back' button, I just go back to the page I was on. I can do that multiple times, and I'm still on the same page.

Note: With all this aggrevation, and now the back button issue, I'm only logging on to Flyertalk twice a day (with maybe an exception or 2).

I wonder if the IB folks can track that. I'm getting worn down by all this aggrevation. Just my 2 cents.

dhammer53 the back issue is related to facebook connect.

As somebody who is facebookless, I'm puzzled. I have the same problem. I thought it was because I'm currently remote using a mobile internet dongle.

I found that clicking Return and clicking it again a second or third time usually but not always gets me back to the previous page.

jackal: thanks for explaining. I'll have a look when I get back.

Kiwi Flyer is indicating that the problem is related to IBs release of the Facebook connect tab ... yet another poorly tested implementation

Yes, and thanks for clarifying Going Away.