I, for one, very much appreciate the moderators approach here. Allowing FTers to give feedback, even if we disagree with the moderators wisdom, is valuable to all parties, IMO.

+1 to all of the posts in this thread.

Isn't it high time we all stopped pretending and came to grips with the reality that UACO is real?

What better time to begin to learn from each other. We should be interested in what's going on over at the other side. I'm now reading THREE forums when one would do just fine.

Just dump us all together and be done with it. This is the case over at MP and we're all playing very well together.

I do that a lot, but there's rarely if ever a response and the thread often isn't moved.

Why not just dump them all in the same forum already and lock old threads?

Seems like the time to take user feedback would be before the switch happened, not after, when there's no going back.

Some users attempted to do this in the TalkBoard forum, but I guess the moderators were not interested in a dialog at that point.

Agree. What's frustrating here is that instead of actually addressing the substantive complaint, the response from the moderators is simple and wholly nonsubstantive i.e., that the moderators spent a long time discussing this. Therefore, implicitly they got it right. There is no other argument. The other response is to say that those raising concerns do not represent the entire community. While the latter point is tautological, I think it is suprising that only one routinely contrarian member has come forward to laud the new system and everyone else who has bothered to post has been opposed to the new system. But as you say, since nothing is going to be changed -- after all the moderators spent along time discussing this issue, the point is rather moot.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I frequently disagree with poster gawhite411. In fact, I almost always disagree with said poster. ;)

HOWEVER, on this issue, he/she is, IMO, 100% correct. I don't like having to try to figure out where a given post will reside. It is annoying, frustrating, and leads me to spend time on other areas of FT.

It is what it is, I suppose. :( That's a shame.
Dave

I haven't lauded it; just pointed out that I do not find it so hard to determine if a question or comment is about the old carriers or the new one. Sorry that is so complicated for so many folks; it seems pretty simple to me. I could also live if it were one big forum overall, though I do think that typical thread naming habits would make it quite difficult in some cases to figure out what is being discussed (moreso than usual) and having the current layout helps in that effort.

Beyond that, there are a few dozen threads and a few thousand posts in the new forum, all of which seem to have found the correct home without too much trouble. Can that not be taken as evidence that perhaps not everyone finds it so confusing? Or does that require that a member register a "no" vote in this thread? :confused:

If we had no interest in hearing how this impacts the members this thread wouldn't be here. @:-)

Instead, we are reading your concerns, paying attention and giving thought to what best serves you, the members who use these forums. I think I can speak for all of us in saying our goal was not to make this difficult and confusing.

It's only been a few days since we've had this set up. Keep your thoughtful comments and suggestions coming.

bmvaughn: I will get the threads you've alerted us to moved over.

l'etoile
UA co-moderator

I don't find it confusing at all -- I certainly understand the theory about what goes where. So I do not disagree with you on that point.

But I do find it to be cumbersome.

And while it is true that people's tendencies to post vague thread titles would not mesh well with a single unitary forum, instead of investing time moving threads, the moderators could simply modify thread titles in the single forum as necessary, where appropriate, to demark UA Specific or CO Specific topics, with all other topics being universal. That would still have the benefit of being less effort to navigate than three forums, with no more work on the part of the moderators.

I appreciate this sentiment but I have to say that I view your post as the first comment by a moderator that is anywhere close to an admission that there might be a better way or that such an alternative is under serious consideration for implementation in the near future. Other comments have borne more than a whiff of the "we know what's best for you, we spent a long time discussing it -- we will merge further when we have decided it's good for you" paternalism that I, for one, find particularly galling.

And just to stay in character, I will add the following nonhelpful postscript: I, of course, find it galling because you guys were wrong in the first instance.

Is it really that confusing?
 

My main focus has been on UA forum and it is actually easier for me to identify the threads by pre and post merger. I do not care much about the CO forum and never been there. To those with other ideas, I would have to say that a megaforum would be confusing to me with with CO specific issues mingled with UA specific issues. So a well done to the moderators.^

I do not find the setup confusing at all; in fact, it actually (from a confusion perspective,) is a lot easier to post than before. Previously, I never knew where to post about post-merger issues...now, I have a thread.
That being said, I do find it more annoying, having 3 threads as opposed to 1. I agree with ZenFlyer in his/her initial post, about one thread, with people posting what the issue relates to. I'm interested in UA threads as I'm more likely to fly them post-merger, and I'm obviously interested in post-merger threads, as well as CO threads.

The LX sub-forum has an interesting thing that allows you to choose a header (somewhat) to your thread; you address it as: Newbie Question, to LX Lurker... That would help alleviate issues, allowing people to post:

• Pre-merger UA Issue
• Pre-merger CO Issue
• Post-merger Issue

Also, this forum is known as "United Airline Mileage Plus." Does that indicate that they've officially chosen Mileage Plus as the merged FFP going forward, or have they not, and it's simply because that's UA's current FFP?

Quite possibly that is where we are at.

It is the wrong decision IMHO, despite the time spent making it, well meaning tho it might have been.

And will lessen even more the visitors to these 3 forums, not increase them.

Wasn't the camel the result of a Committee set on designing a horse? Or was that the Kangaroo? :p

Lump them all in together, and the dust will soon settle.

It is one beast pretty much, whether we like it or not. And the bits that are different, will VERY soon be the same, and looking them up in 3 places is madness.

.

I'll jump in with the chorus and say that having the extra forum is confusing as well. I'd say that there should be the old UA and CO forums or just lump them together into one forum right now.

My take on this is... while it's certainly not confusing to me, it's annoying. The merger hasn't even completed yet; the programs are still separate; and it's just too early. From what I remember, the DL and NW forums weren't merged until after the merger completed.

I do like the idea of an consolidated forum where members can post questions specifically pertaining to the merger (e.g: Will there be Chapter 9 after the merger: Speculation), but it gets confusing and the line becomes blurred.

My personal preference would be to keep both forums separate (UA and CO) until after the merger has completed, the programs are one, and CO officially doesn't exist anymore.

I hope you rethink this decision. No offense meant at all - I do appreciate the effort. :)