Kween Karen's woes and CC policy

[CanCruzer]

I'm a relatively newcomer to this forum and have only recently caught up on Kween Karen's woes with her travel agency. With not too much sleuthing, I was able to figure out the agency in question.

 

I am tech-savvy so this was fairly easy for me to do, but I expect much less so for many others. CC is a service to us all. We learn a lot from contributors. I can't understand why we are prevented from pro/con reviews of our TA experiences. If there are good ones, we want to know about it. If there are bad ones, that is just as (if not more) important! As it is, we share all of our other good/bad experiences with everyone and name names. What's the difference?

 

I doubt this post will get any policy change but wanted to let out a bit of steam after reading KK's horrible plight, as well as those of others.

 

A couple of good things have come of this. For those "in the know" we know who not to book through :eek:! And perhaps more significant is that KK and many of us reading her story have learned there are many caring people out there. :D

 

I wish Kween Karen a safe and fantastic journey and will look forward to following her blog.

 

Jonathan

[lazey1]

I am not "teck savvy" and have been unable to figure out the agency involved. I also would like to be able to see reviews of good and bad agencys.

[catl331]

You can get pro/con discussions of TAs on Trip Advisor, which owns Cruise Critic.

[K&RCurt]

I am a volunteer administrator on an internet site that offers personal profiles, forum and other "community" type interactions.

 

The one thing we constantly struggle with is people's perceptions that they have the "right" to discuss what they wish, post what they wish, put up whatever photos they wish, etc.

 

This site, as well as 99% of the others out there, is privatly owned and operated. The site owner makes the rules. We are permitted to play here for free. We have no "rights" other than those granted by the site owner.

 

My guess is that in order to avoid every TA in the world setting up profiles and promoting themselves via complimentary posts, the boards are kept "cleaner" by just eliminating the possibility by having no mention of specific TAs. If talk of specific TAs was permitted administering these boards would be a nightmare if it were attempted to keep out self promotion and spurious reviews of TAs designed to drum up business.

[CanCruzer]

You can get pro/con discussions of TAs on Trip Advisor, which owns Cruise Critic.

 

While I read that was the case, I couldn't find such a discussion.

[CanCruzer]

I am a volunteer administrator on an internet site that offers personal profiles, forum and other "community" type interactions.

 

The one thing we constantly struggle with is people's perceptions that they have the "right" to discuss what they wish, post what they wish, put up whatever photos they wish, etc.

 

This site, as well as 99% of the others out there, is privatly owned and operated. The site owner makes the rules. We are permitted to play here for free. We have no "rights" other than those granted by the site owner.

 

My guess is that in order to avoid every TA in the world setting up profiles and promoting themselves via complimentary posts, the boards are kept "cleaner" by just eliminating the possibility by having no mention of specific TAs. If talk of specific TAs was permitted administering these boards would be a nightmare if it were attempted to keep out self promotion and spurious reviews of TAs designed to drum up business.

 

I can't disagree with anything you have said. I just find it odd that we can name and bash a cruise line for a bad experience (which tend to be relatively minor customer service annoyances) but we can't name a TA (that has practices bordering on fraud).

[TMWeddle]

You can get pro/con discussions of TAs on Trip Advisor, which owns Cruise Critic.

 

It is not clear to me why they allow the company to be named on one of their sites - Trip Advisor, but not here.

[catl331]

maybe it is on the advice of their lawyers or liability insurance company?

[Rossey]

I haven't checked the boards for a while. What's the story behind KK's woes?

 

Thanks.

[momatibm]

I haven't checked the boards for a while. What's the story behind KK's woes?

 

Thanks.

 

Suffice it to say there was a HUGE payment issue.

[hammybee]

It is not clear to me why they allow the company to be named on one of their sites - Trip Advisor, but not here.

 

It's called sponsorship. Companies pay to advertize.

 

Expedia owns Trip Advisor who operates Cruise Critic.

 

Poster K&R Kurt has it right. The owners/operators determine the rules of the board.

[CanCruzer]

It's called sponsorship. Companies pay to advertize.

 

Expedia owns Trip Advisor who operates Cruise Critic.

 

Poster K&R Kurt has it right. The owners/operators determine the rules of the board.

 

Yes companies pay to advertise their services, but that isn't what we are talking about here. This is a case where contributors like you and me are allowed to posted the name of this BAD travel agent on Trip Advisor, but not on CC.

 

I don't think the company in question has paid anything to anyone to post their name on Trip Advisor. If anything, they'd be wanting to pay someone to REMOVE their name from all of the BAD PRESS on Trip Advisor!

[K&RCurt]

Yes companies pay to advertise their services, but that isn't what we are talking about here. This is a case where contributors like you and me are allowed to posted the name of this BAD travel agent on Trip Advisor, but not on CC.

 

I don't think the company in question has paid anything to anyone to post their name on Trip Advisor. If anything, they'd be wanting to pay someone to REMOVE their name from all of the BAD PRESS on Trip Advisor!

 

 

I agree with your premise but it's not as simple as that.

 

How do you determine what are "legitimate" complaints vs. "under cover" competitors posting negative reports against one TA or another? Permitting posts regarding specific TAs would be a nightmare to administer for the Hosts here on CC. They would spend 98% of their time checking out the veracity of various posts. Not to mention the potential conflict of interests between administering the forums and not offending the TAs who advertise with CC.

 

It is far easier for CC to eliminate the issue entirely by not permitting the discussion of specific TAs.

[Pettifogger]

I agree with K&R Curt. As it is, I sometimes wonder about posts that suggest the poster has an undisclosed interest in the subject, whatever that may be. We don't need more of that.

[RedmondCruiser]

Travel agencies are not to be mentioned on CC for good reason. Though some situations may merit an open discussion, the mentioning of TAs is ripe for misuse. People, without scruples, could provide faults information on a competitor for selfish reasons. Also CC has some legal responsibilites to avoid liable. Its a rule that is best left in place.

Also it should be noted that last year, when a very large online TA went under it was discussed at great length, and it was beneficial for those who still had money tied up with this organization.

[catl331]

How do you determine what are "legitimate" complaints vs. "under cover" competitors posting negative reports against one TA or another?

Though some situations may merit an open discussion, the mentioning of TAs is ripe for misuse. People, without scruples, could provide faults information on a competitor for selfish reasons.

This is exactly the reason that everything on Trip Advisor has to be taken with a grain of salt. You can't tell what is bogus praise or what is bogus condemnation.

[CanCruzer]

Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but there seems to be a double standard here.

 

We can mention a bad experience with cruiseline A, B or C, but not with TA X, Y or Z. Why is that?

[RuthC]

CanCruzer, perhaps you would get a better explanation by e-mailing the moderators. This is a private operation, and they get to make the rules---we only get to play by them.

[IRL_Joanie]

The rules and reasonings for TA's and other, like myself who erred are here:

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/community/guide.cfm#5

[K&RCurt]

Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but there seems to be a double standard here.

 

We can mention a bad experience with cruiseline A, B or C, but not with TA X, Y or Z. Why is that?

 

I would think it's because the likelyhood of Stein Kruse, Richard Fein or Micky Arison creating CC accounts and secretly bashing their competitors is slim and none.

 

Not so with the tens of thousands of 1 or 2 person TAs possibly trolling for customers.

[Tamaracboy]

I am a volunteer administrator on an internet site that offers personal profiles, forum and other "community" type interactions.

 

The one thing we constantly struggle with is people's perceptions that they have the "right" to discuss what they wish, post what they wish, put up whatever photos they wish, etc.

 

This site, as well as 99% of the others out there, is privatly owned and operated. The site owner makes the rules. We are permitted to play here for free. We have no "rights" other than those granted by the site owner.

 

My guess is that in order to avoid every TA in the world setting up profiles and promoting themselves via complimentary posts, the boards are kept "cleaner" by just eliminating the possibility by having no mention of specific TAs. If talk of specific TAs was permitted administering these boards would be a nightmare if it were attempted to keep out self promotion and spurious reviews of TAs designed to drum up business.

 

K&RCurt:

 

Then you should know that there is technology (impartial, electronic) that can trace each post. And if too many negative (or positive) posts come through about one TA or another, then that IP address or individual computer can be blocked. Getting around this would just be too laborious to work around on a regular basis. To the point that with the total number of users and posts on CC, the ultimate effect of any un-caught malignant posts would be negligible.

Not to mention that the removal of posts and posters that are caught could be accompanied with a matter of fact explanation as to why.

 

YET, the potential good for all CC users would be significant.

 

Simple math, simple balance, simple justice = Simple Decision

[Tamaracboy]

I haven't checked the boards for a while. What's the story behind KK's woes?

 

Thanks.

 

Rossey,

 

Here is the link to Kween Karen's thread:

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1025166

 

It is now closed with 629 posts. You can shortcut the reading by just reading her posts.

 

It is perfect evidence of why we should be allowed to name names !

 

Wouldn't you like the information before hand ??

[serendipity1499]

I agree with your premise but it's not as simple as that.

 

How do you determine what are "legitimate" complaints vs. "under cover" competitors posting negative reports against one TA or another? Permitting posts regarding specific TAs would be a nightmare to administer for the Hosts here on CC. They would spend 98% of their time checking out the veracity of various posts. Not to mention the potential conflict of interests between administering the forums and not offending the TAs who advertise with CC.

 

It is far easier for CC to eliminate the issue entirely by not permitting the discussion of specific TAs.

 

Travel agencies are not to be mentioned on CC for good reason. Though some situations may merit an open discussion, the mentioning of TAs is ripe for misuse. People, without scruples, could provide faults information on a competitor for selfish reasons. Also CC has some legal responsibilites to avoid liable. Its a rule that is best left in place.

 

Also it should be noted that last year, when a very large online TA went under it was discussed at great length, and it was beneficial for those who still had money tied up with this organization.

 

CanCruzer, perhaps you would get a better explanation by e-mailing the moderators. This is a private operation, and they get to make the rules---we only get to play by them.

 

Agree with all of the above posts..Back in August, I e-mailed Laura (Community Manager) & asked if we were misinterpreting the CC rule & could we name KK's TA, as so many people on CC have had big financial problems with them..I also asked why the N.J. Agent, which had gone out of business, was named with CC's permission.. This was Laura's answer to me:

Dear XXXXX,

Thanks for writing.

Our guidelines are that you cannot discuss travel agents -- whether your experience is good or bad -- at this time. It simply wouldn't be fair to allow the discussion of travel agents in a negative light, without allowing members to post positively as well. Therefore, we simply do not allow the discussion.

However, if an agency has gone out of business, we will allow the discussion.

LauraS

Cruise Critic

Several times CC has actually pulled a post or deleted a thread, which could be considerd libelous against a Cruise Line...I actually understand why the Hosts & Community Manager don't permit names to be named...

By the same token, also understand how frustrating it is for those who are not as computer savy & able to research TA's on the Internet.. The best thing to do when using a TA is to call the State Attorney's office in the Sate where the TA does business in addition to the BBB..They should be able to tell you if there are complaints against a particular Travel Agent..

It's really necessary for all of us to do our homework when choosing an Agent, in order not to be scammed..And there are many other ways to find the info..

In Florida we call the Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services..

 

Betty

[CanCruzer]

In response to my assertion "We can mention a bad experience with cruiseline A, B or C, but not with TA X, Y or Z. Why is that?", K&RCurt wrote:

 

I would think it's because the likelyhood of Stein Kruse, Richard Fein or Micky Arison creating CC accounts and secretly bashing their competitors is slim and none.

My example of mentioning experiences with cruise lines was just that, an example. I could just have easily used the example of some relatively small tour operator, bar, restaurant, etc where one encounters a particularly good or bad experience. My point about double standards is that we *can* name names in those cases. We just seem to be limited to not being able to name our experiences with TAs. That is a double standard.

 

Originally Posted by RedmondCruiser

Travel agencies are not to be mentioned on CC for good reason. Though some situations may merit an open discussion, the mentioning of TAs is ripe for misuse. People, without scruples, could provide faults information on a competitor for selfish reasons. Also CC has some legal responsibilites to avoid liable. Its a rule that is best left in place.

While I agree, the same can be said about the tour operators on the islands. Any post that names a business is ripe for misuse, yet how many posts have we read indicating we had a wonderful tour with company ABC, how great their guides are, how well they looked after us and ensured we got back to the ship on time, etc.? If that isn't promotion, I don't know what is. There doesn't seem to be any concern about possible misuse (self-promotion or false information) in these cases.

 

I would assert that is it pretty easy to tell what are legitimate posts (due to several CC contributors with similar stories) vs a one-off posting (good or bad).

 

Since this seems to work so well for tour operators (as an example) I don't know what would be any different about TAs.

 

As for any potential liable, while I'm no lawyer, if the BBB can names names and give companies "D" ratings, which is pretty much like shouting "DON'T USE THIS AGENCY", surely a discussion amongst CC members can't be any worse.

 

LauraS from CC provided via another member: "Our guidelines are that you cannot discuss travel agents -- whether your experience is good or bad -- at this time."

The "at this time" indicates there is the possibility of change. This was part of the reason I started this thread. I, and a couple of others, seem to think it would be a service to many of us.

 

She goes on to say" "It simply wouldn't be fair to allow the discussion of travel agents in a negative light, without allowing members to post positively as well. Therefore, we simply do not allow the discussion.

Per my comments above about any other aspect of cruising (tours, shuttle/transfer services, places to shop for supplies before boarding, etc.), we talk about the good and the bad and CC doesn't seem to be concerned about misuse of recommendations in those cases. Nobody is suggesting we only talk about the bad TAs. Many of us would like to hear about people's great experiences and their bad ones!

 

The best thing to do when using a TA is to call the State Attorney's office in the Sate where the TA does business in addition to the BBB..They should be able to tell you if there are complaints against a particular Travel Agent

While I have my doubts about any CC policy change any time soon, the recommendation above is bang on. We come here for recommendations but this doesn't need to be (and perhaps shouldn't be) our only source.

 

Although I don't think the BBB has listings outside of North America, at least any travel agency we are apt to use would most likely be listed. As mentioned somewhere in Kween Karen's agency woes thread, her agency is listed by the BBB and gets what I believe is their lowest rating.

 

For anyone that is concerned about their agency, check the BBB and go with an agency that has an "A" rating.

[ekerr19]

I'm actually surprised this is still being discussed. There are over 600 replies to the original thread and it's been discussed at length.

 

Cruisers should ALWAYS do some due diligence on their TA's... or make a small booking and see how it goes. The amount Karen spent was huge and I think she learned an invaluable lesson, unfortunately the hard way - but it worked out and she is happily on her cruise now.

 

It's not all that difficult to find out who that offending TA was with a little googling. It is in Florida and had a horrible rating on tripadvisor and with the BBB.

 

FYI - tripadvisor can also be hit or miss. It used to be a fairly good source of information, but as with anything else, people should still do their own research rather than relying on the word and experiences of strangers. :)

 

CC sets the tules and guidelines here, and I have no problem following them. :)