magiciansampras

No poll for you! You'll accept the change and you'll like it! Muahhahaahahhahah!!!

blairvanhorn

Indeed, but that really doesn't seem to matter, does it? The "rest of FT has moved on and adapted to the change" and that "says something" ... what it says, I'm not quite sure. Perhaps it's just the willfully ignorant liars with ludicrous ideas who insist upon dwelling on this non-issue?

sbm12

Indeed, I do understand statistical sampling quite well. What you are suggesting above is that everyone who dislikes the change dislikes it. Great tautology there.

A true sample of everyone - not just folks posting in here - would likely show a whole bunch who didn't notice, a few who like it and a few who hate it. Such is life, I suppose.

Again, my point above was that you aren't going to have an influx of people coming into this forum to talk about how great the change is since they don't see it as an "issue" plus people are significantly more likely to comment when they don't like something, not when they do. There are about 10 folks posting in here how awful a change this is and how it make FT unusable. From a membership base of over 240,000 I'd say that's a pretty solid vote of confidence. And I've read well more positive responses elsewhere on FT than the number of negative votes here. So my equally unrealistic and unreliable system of simply counting the posts I've read actually is in favor of the change. Or maybe it is more realistic and reliable since I'm not only counting votes in the thread set up for people to complain that it is broken.

Believe it or not I expressed concerns and reservations, not full-fledged support for the move.

My initial feedback was similar to many of the complaints here, that it would be confusing and that seeing everything as bold would upset some in the community. I also noted that the initial frustration would be outweighed by the long-term benefits that the new system provides in terms of accuracy and consistency.

Did IB listen? I believe so based on the other posts in the thread where it was discussed and based on the PM conversations I've had with a few folks there.

Yes, it was a decision made by IB. But my comment is still accurate. People - namely moderators - were informed that the change was coming before it happened. I am disputing the claims to the contrary and have posted this statement several times. People who continue to insist otherwise after reading my posts - and they have been read since they're being quoted - are simply not telling the truth anymore.

Sorry if that comes across as harsh, but I get particularly frustrated when people continue to repeat something that is demonstrably false in an effort to support their position. All opinion on whether this is a good change or not aside, claims that no one knew in advance are false.

I haven't seen this bug crop up at all; I think it might be a user error. When you are in a forum there are two sets of menus. The top set with the "Quick Links" drop down will mark all forums read. The "Thread Tools" link on the row below will only mark the current forum read. I'm guessing you clicked on the wrong one. Simple enough mistake to make.


What about it is inaccurate? Any thread marked bold is one that you have not read.

The behavior is different than it was two weeks ago. That doesn't necessarily mean it is broken.

This thread has been one of the top five in the Tech Issues forum for over a week now. What searching were you doing?

IB has made plenty of mistakes in their stewardship of the FT community since they took over. There have been plenty of debacles and other disasters. And I've been on their case every single time those have happened, both representing my own views as well as those of the folks posting in the forums I moderate. In this case I don't think they've screwed up nor made a mistake and I fully support the change. To paraphrase a post I made in the thread where this was discussed with mods, "It has caused a bit of , and amongst the members but the long-term and make up for the short-term ." I still firmly believe this to be the case.

Oh, and to the folks who are upset that I'm not responding immediately to every post here (as I was recently informed by PM to be the case), sorry. I've got other things to do as well.

the_happiness_store

Not even close to what I said.

the_happiness_store

Not remotely close to what I said.

Cholula

Count me a someone who very much likes the change.

It better suits the way I read and use FT than the old system.

I especially like that the Subscribed Threads disappear once you've read them rather than just reverting to an "un-bolded" status.

And I like the fact that when I post to a thread that it doesn't show up on my Subscribed Threads list

dhammer53

I'll take a wild guess and say there are lots of people that have:

- noticed something is wrong, just can't seem to get their finger on the issue.
- don't have a clue as to where they can vent (their frustration).
- are letting a few posters do their bidding.
- don't care either way

IB, Reset Flyertalk the way it was. @:-)

GoingAway

Okay folks ... we were called liars and ignorant, but now we're simply stupid for not bowing down and taking sbm12's word as gospel. EXCUSE ME?

Let me be the first to point out that I don't know sbm12, have no reason to trust sbm12 and think poorly of this poster's attitude in every post that I've seen in this and related threads. Given all that, why would this individual think that someone would actually take their word for granted, especially when someone many of us respect a great deal, ie Randy, has clearly stated otherwise and has done so after completing research. Oh that's right, it's because I'm stupid and arogant

Canarsie

Perhaps all of us could look at this from a different angle.

Some of us like the change; some of us do not. That is obviously clear.

Let’s say a compromise could be reached. What is it about the way FlyerTalk threads are marked as read that you:

• Like about the former way
• Do not like about the former way
• Like about the new way
• Do not like about the new way

I am not intimately familiar with the technology of the vBulletin bulletin board software that currently powers FlyerTalk, but perhaps a solution could be reached where either a feature could be implemented, or at least have suggestions sent to vBulletin, which Internet Brands now owns, to modify the software for future versions.

What do you think?

violist

How could they not notice? The thing about the posts here is that they are
from people who care about FT (and/or what it provides). it's "likely" a
sad reality that the ones who aren't posting don't care - not just about this
rather small issue but about FT as a whole.

GoingAway

I think its BS that the moderators are suddenly representing FT user as to what they want

I think its cr@p that IB is nowhere to be seen when stuff like this happens and unless that changes, the decline I've seen in the quality of this site will continue. They may get their clicks, but the content will be cr@p

I think that the mods who were called on - in whatever manner, at whatever time - should have been smart to realize that a) they don't represent the user community; b) they use FT in a different manner than the general user community; c) have different reading habits and needs from the user community; and d) as a result, SHOULD HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE USER COMMUNITY and not spoken up for us without any representation whatsoever.

I think the folks mostly speaking positively of the change in this thread are mods, I can only assume in the little, private world that you have for moderators, they are talking about the growing discontent seen in this thread and so reinforcements are being called in.

Oh, and I think its a total and complete waste of our time to represent to a moderator as to what our needs are because you are not appropriate representation for the user community, despite what IB thinks or does. Until IB shows their face, I'm not particularly interested in discussing how to repair it because the half-assed, at best, response would be without any authority or empowerment to actually incur change.

linsj

I do not subscribe to threads or utilize My FT. I open certain forums--not always the same ones.

Like about the former way: I used to see threads bolded that were new/revised since the last time I logged in.

Do not like about the former way: Nothing

Like about the new way: Nothing

Do not like about the new way: Threads are bolded to 3 days ago (the time frame has been changing since this new "improvement" was implemented), not to when I last logged in, so I have to check log-in time to know when to quit looking at bolded threads. Also, when I clear cookies or log out, sometimes no threads are bolded, sometimes all of them back to forever are. Marking forums as read resets my log-in time--and why should I have to mark them as read? That's ridiculous.

Bottom line: I HATE this change.

falconea

Once I'd worked out how to use this change I've decided I love it. Now I can keep a close eye on one thread without resetting my "last read" for everything.

I think there needs to be a bit more user education about the change - I initially came to this thread to work out what had gone wrong!

Please keep it the way it is!

Audrey

GoingAway

How do you get down to watching ONE thread when all those other threads are showing bolded, particularly the ones you never and have no intention of ever visiting?

Canarsie

Come on, GoingAway — you may have only met me once, but I would like to at least think you know me better than that.

Just because I have the title of Moderator does not mean that I am suddenly representing FlyerTalk. I posted what I did in this thread as a FlyerTalk member, purely and simply — not in my official capacity as a moderator.

I am only attempting to be fair here and see what I can do to help out with this issue, as is typically my nature. That is all.

I really did not expect you to react to what I posted the way you did, nor do I believe I deserve it, but perhaps I misunderstood. However, if you believe communicating to me is a “waste (y)our of time,” so be it.