# We did not how well we had it.



## am1 (Feb 24, 2016)

looks like things have changed today


----------



## WinniWoman (Feb 24, 2016)

am1 said:


> looks like things have changed today



HUH? How so?


----------



## scootr5 (Feb 24, 2016)

A very mystery-shrouded post, for sure.


----------



## pedro47 (Feb 24, 2016)

am1 said:


> looks like things have changed today



What has changed?


----------



## Ty1on (Feb 24, 2016)

Subscribe.


----------



## Vacationfuntips (Feb 24, 2016)

Okay, I'm curious.  Still around lurking. What has changed?

Cynthia T.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 24, 2016)

I lost my Costco card.


----------



## rapmarks (Feb 24, 2016)

I put my smartphone in the wash


----------



## sjsharkie (Feb 24, 2016)

I am one day closer to the end.


----------



## CCR (Feb 24, 2016)

[political - deleted]


----------



## sjsharkie (Feb 24, 2016)

[political - deleted]


----------



## #1 Cowboys Fan (Feb 24, 2016)

I don't know why OP had this post---did Exchanging rules change today?


----------



## billymach4 (Feb 24, 2016)

Y'all have way too much time on your hands.

Wash it off!

Get a life people


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 24, 2016)

billymach4 said:


> Y'all have way too much time on your hands.
> 
> Wash it off!
> 
> Get a life people



Wash it off, or Shake It Off?


----------



## CCR (Feb 24, 2016)

[political - deleted]


----------



## vacationhopeful (Feb 24, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> Wash it off, or Shake It Off?



Is that a "clean" or a "provocative" question?

I think it is "WASH your hands of it" ....

or "shake it out of your mind" ....

or is it "shake your bodie"?


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 24, 2016)

vacationhopeful said:


> Is that a "clean" or a "provocative" question?
> 
> I think it is "WASH your hands of it" ....
> 
> ...



Shake if Off, a la Taylor Swift.


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 24, 2016)

Click bait. Not the first time this OP has posted something controversial just to get a reaction.


----------



## rapmarks (Feb 24, 2016)

I really did put my cell phone in the wash


----------



## Vacationfuntips (Feb 24, 2016)

Oh my!

My son went swimming with his iphone in his pocket.  The phone worked just fine after opening it up getting a new battery installed. Everything worked again the same way as if it never happened.

Perhaps he was very lucky?  

Cynthia T.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 24, 2016)

I believe your title is missing a word - click EDIT > ADVANCED EDIT to fix it.


----------



## am1 (Feb 24, 2016)

All to do about Wyndham.   The people that need to know will realize it.  Most will never know the difference so it will not matter to them.


----------



## Vacationfuntips (Feb 24, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> I believe your title is missing a word - click EDIT > ADVANCED EDIT to fix it.



Is the word "know"???  "we did not know how well we had it" 

I still do not know what the OP was referring to?  am1 where are you to clarify? 

Did the OP mean that reservations are harder to get for popular Christmas/holiday spots this year? Reservation limits for non ARP reservations were fierce this morning.

For some Wyndham vacation places you really do need ARP.  I think that there must be more Wyndham renters than ever these days...???

Cynthia T.


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 24, 2016)

rapmarks said:


> I really did put my cell phone in the wash



Bummer! You could try opening it up as much as possible and putting it in a jar of rice. That's the advice my DW got from the phone store after dropping hers in the toilet (don't ask). It powered up afterwards, but had lost some functions, and died the next day or two.

Jim


----------



## am1 (Feb 24, 2016)

Passepartout said:


> Click bait. Not the first time this OP has posted something controversial just to get a reaction.



No click bait. Nothing controversial.   Just a friendly heads up.  Not sure what happened or how long it will last but not good for some of us.


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 24, 2016)

am1 said:


> No click bait. Nothing controversial.   Just a friendly heads up.  Not sure what happened or how long it will last but not good for some of us.



Prithee, elaborate. Curious minds want to know.


----------



## am1 (Feb 24, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> I believe your title is missing a word - click EDIT > ADVANCED EDIT to fix it.



A few more words would help.  But I am here to help not give everything away.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 24, 2016)

rapmarks said:


> I really did put my cell phone in the wash



I really lost my Costco card too. Just the regular membership card. They replaced it with east.


----------



## Vacationfuntips (Feb 24, 2016)

am1 said:


> No click bait. Nothing controversial.   Just a friendly heads up.  Not sure what happened or how long it will last but not good for some of us.



Knowledge is power.  Some people share what they know?  Why complain when you can explain?

I had a good morning, how about you?

Cynthia T.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 24, 2016)

am1 said:


> A few more words would help.  But I am here to help not give everything away.



I mean missing a word grammatically - not content.


----------



## CCR (Feb 24, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> I believe your title is missing a word - click EDIT > ADVANCED EDIT to fix it.



Hey Denise, Are all comments about candidates on all forums banned?  Not that into politics, but wondering if the Tug Lounge is free game.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 24, 2016)

CCR said:


> Hey Denise, Are all comments about candidates on all forums banned?  Not that into politics, but wondering if the Tug Lounge is free game.



That is correct - no posts/jokes/comments about politics/elections.


----------



## CCR (Feb 24, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> That is correct - no posts/jokes/comments about politics/elections.




But what about the Lounge?  Is it also banned there?


----------



## JimmieJames (Feb 24, 2016)

I thought I saw that it was different this morning when I was frantically attempting to book multiple reservations (and canceling some to get the best upgrades).   I thought I would check it out this p.m. after the call center closed and just verified it.  

That is not a game changer - but requires a change of tactics in the cancel/rebook game - back to tactics we were using a few months back.

Jim


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 24, 2016)

CCR said:


> But what about the Lounge?  Is it also banned there?



Yes - TUG Posting Rules:



> Avoid posting about *politics*, religion, or contentious social issues
> Unless directly related to timesharing, such discussions are prohibited in these forums, including TUG Lounge. We've been down that road before, it was ugly, and we are not going there again.


----------



## am1 (Feb 24, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> That is correct - no posts/jokes/comments about politics/elections.



"know" would be the hidden word.


----------



## CCR (Feb 24, 2016)

DeniseM said:


> Yes - TUG Posting Rules:



Oh I can totally see that becoming a problem quick.  Seems like I've seen tons of derogatory comments on policy changes like health care, (Affordable Care Act) etc.  Would be hard to know where to draw the line on "contentious social issues"

Sounds like a full time job for you moderators.  Do you guys get paid?  If not, you should.


----------



## DeniseM (Feb 24, 2016)

CCR said:


> Do you guys get paid?  If not, you should.



Only with the love and adoration of other TUG members….


----------



## Vacationfuntips (Feb 24, 2016)

am1 said:


> "know" would be the hidden word.



I think most knew you forgot the word "know".  Why do you post a new thread, if you want to keep secrets?  Keep it to yourself, share what you know or what you really want to say?

Cynthia T.


----------



## markel (Feb 24, 2016)

am1 said:


> A few more words would help.  But I am here to help not give everything away.




Quit being so damn dramatic. If you want to start a thread like this then elaborate. If not, then don't start one.


----------



## am1 (Feb 24, 2016)

Vacationfuntips said:


> I think most knew you forgot the word "know".  Why do you post a new thread, if you want to keep secrets?  Keep it to yourself, share what you know or what you really want to say?
> 
> Cynthia T.



Be aware and thankful of the head ups.


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 24, 2016)

Given that everything had changed and it was somewhat related to Wyndham. I figured there would be some huge thread in the Wyndham forum talking about it, but there is nuthun.


----------



## Vacationfuntips (Feb 24, 2016)

dioxide45 said:


> I really lost my Costco card too. Just the regular membership card. They replaced it with east.



"They replaced it with ease" typo

Cynthia T.


----------



## billymach4 (Feb 24, 2016)

OK so I went downstairs to work out on the cycle machine. See I have a life with little to no time to wash off. 

This insanity is still proliferating


----------



## Passepartout (Feb 24, 2016)

CCR said:


> But what about the Lounge?  Is it also banned there?



Occasionally a few of us will skate a little close to the edge and see how long we get away with it before the Mother Superior's ruler smacks down on our fingers. If someone really goes over the line, Doug will make the whole thread disappear. Usually though, we police ourselves and know when the ice is getting a little too thin.

Jim


----------



## dioxide45 (Feb 24, 2016)

Vacationfuntips said:


> "They replaced it with ease" typo
> 
> Cynthia T.



No, it was with East, Kim and Kanye's next baby! I just forgot to capitalize.


----------



## Vacationfuntips (Feb 24, 2016)

ha, ha - you are funny! :hysterical:

No future East baby name for Kimye - not another direction.  

Cynthia T.


----------



## CO skier (Feb 25, 2016)

Did someone's Ferrari get a flat tire?  I am sure there is a spare in there somewhere.


----------



## JudyS (Feb 25, 2016)

rapmarks said:


> I really did put my cell phone in the wash





Passepartout said:


> Bummer! You could try opening it up as much as possible and putting it in a jar of rice. That's the advice my DW got from the phone store after dropping hers in the toilet (don't ask). It powered up afterwards, but had lost some functions, and died the next day or two.
> 
> Jim



My smartphone met an untimely demise in a washing machine at Marriott's Sabal Palms. I tried opening it up and placing it in desiccant, and replacing the battery as well, but no luck. Fortunately, it was a Windows phone that only cost $50 new. The SIM still worked and my content had been automatically backed up to "the cloud," so all was good. 

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I guess something has changed with the cancel/rebook technique for Wyndham Platinum members? I don't own Wyndham, so I don't really know.


----------



## wjappraise (Feb 25, 2016)

Looks like the six minute delay from cancel to available is down to a few seconds.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pagosajim (Feb 25, 2016)

wjappraise said:


> Looks like the six minute delay from cancel to available is down to a few seconds.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



And if this is truly what all the fuss and mystery is about, how is this a "bad" thing?

AM1 - why not just say what it is that prompted your post and be done with it?


----------



## JimmieJames (Feb 25, 2016)

wjappraise said:


> Looks like the six minute delay from cancel to available is down to a few seconds.
> 
> 
> Shhhh!!!!  That's what I was referring to in #34 but now everybody knows.  I like it that way - but it works for me no matter what the delay is provided it is somewhat predictable.
> ...


----------



## alexadeparis (Feb 25, 2016)

This applies to so very few Wyndham users and/or tug users, so why were you so cryptic? The rest of us normal Wyndham users couldn't care less. Anyway, who's to say it won't change back again soon? I wouldn't make a major change to my vacation plans based on what could be a momentary software glitch/loophole.


----------



## am1 (Feb 25, 2016)

Also means the bots can come back or already are.  The delay was the best security system Wyndham could provide for all owners.  Not just a small few.


----------



## ronparise (Feb 25, 2016)

am1 said:


> Also means the bots can come back or already are.  The delay was the best security system Wyndham could provide for all owners.  Not just a small few.



The bots never left No matter how hard wyndham tried to stop  them.. just like the VCs could see cancelled reservation in a few seconds when it took minutes for us to see them, so could the bots, and they still can


----------



## CCR (Feb 25, 2016)

Passepartout said:


> Occasionally a few of us will skate a little close to the edge and see how long we get away with it before the Mother Superior's ruler smacks down on our fingers. If someone really goes over the line, Doug will make the whole thread disappear. Usually though, we police ourselves and know when the ice is getting a little too thin.
> 
> Jim




Sounds like that could be more of a fun game than posting cryptic messages :rofl:

Just kidding, Denise and other forum gods.  I'll behave


----------



## JudyS (Feb 25, 2016)

wjappraise said:


> Looks like the six minute delay from cancel to available is down to a few seconds....


Ah! Thanks for clearing up this mystery! 

It seems to me that the rules change frequently with Wyndham points. I know many Tuggers love thier Wyndham ownerships, but the rule changes are one factor that makes me reluctant to buy Wyndham. 

Yes, I know that it's possible to use rule changes to one's advantage. I think this is more worthwhile for people who own tons of points in one system, though. I tend to have small ownerships in a bunch of different systems, and I've discovered that keeping up with frequent rule changes is just too much hassle. I used to own in a very small points system where the rules were always changing, and I ended up paying the company to deed back my ownership.


----------



## JudyS (Feb 25, 2016)

ronparise said:


> The bots never left No matter how hard wyndham tried to stop  them.. just like the VCs could see cancelled reservation in a few seconds when it took minutes for us to see them, so could the bots, and they still can


Hmmm.... do the bots access the Wyndham reservation system through the internet, and if so, why can bots see the changes before human users can? (I understand that Wyndham reps are using the reservation system's "back end," so it makes sense Wyndham reps can see changes before the general public can see them online.)


----------



## am1 (Feb 25, 2016)

JudyS said:


> Hmmm.... do the bots access the Wyndham reservation system through the internet, and if so, why can bots see the changes before human users can? (I understand that Wyndham reps are using the reservation system's "back end," so it makes sense Wyndham reps can see changes before the general public can see them online.)



My understanding/guess is the bots see the inventory as soon as it is available online.  I took today off from doing reservations so not sure how active they are since the change yesterday.  

Hopefully I have not forgot too many tricks.


----------



## JudyS (Feb 25, 2016)

Also, I am now second-guessing my knowledge of grammar. Shouldn't the title of this thread be, "We did not [know] how *good *we had it"?  

Which oddly, is the opposite of the proper word usage here:


----------



## JudyS (Feb 25, 2016)

am1 said:


> My understanding/guess is the bots see the inventory as soon as it is available online.  I took today off from doing reservations so not sure how active they are since the change yesterday....


If I understood correctly, Ron was saying the bots could see changes *before* the changes appeared online. Not sure how that would work.


----------



## ekajun1957 (Feb 26, 2016)

Thought I was going crazy but was looking at three open reservations and they disappeared off the screen while I was looking. Was just being curious about what was available so no harm, has anyone else had them actually drop off the list right in front of your eyes like I did, or has anyone seen any added as you are looking?


----------



## ronparise (Feb 26, 2016)

JudyS said:


> If I understood correctly, Ron was saying the bots could see changes *before* the changes appeared online. Not sure how that would work.



I dont know how any of this works, The whole internet is magic as far as Im concerned (not to mention television and cell phones)

but it seems to me that if the Wyndham VCs could see what I cancelled and rebook it with their machines in Orlando, before I could see it on mine, why couldnt some sharp computer guy program his machine to do the same thing


----------



## pagosajim (Feb 26, 2016)

JudyS said:


> If I understood correctly, Ron was saying the bots could see changes *before* the changes appeared online. Not sure how that would work.



I'm doubting this theory as the bot program would need some kind of elevated access or privileged view provided internally to the VCs to operate in this way.  My understanding of bots is they are programmed interfaces to the application that operate just as a human would in clicking/selecting objects on the screen, just a whole lot faster and repetitively.

Which takes me back to my previous question:  How is immediate return of a cancelled reservation as compared to delayed return a bad thing?  I'm just not seeing how this changes things.  If I'm competing with the bot for that reservation, we are both waiting the same amount of time for it to reappear and the probability of either of us getting it hasn't changed.


----------



## JudyS (Feb 26, 2016)

ronparise said:


> ...but it seems to me that if the Wyndham VCs could see what I cancelled and rebook it with their machines in Orlando, before I could see it on mine, why couldnt some sharp computer guy program his machine to do the same thing


Typically, transactions are done on a computer system that is located only within a company, using a database program rather than a web browser. Only after the transaction is completed within the company's database system is the information transmitted to the internet. Depending on the particular company, the transmission could take as long as several hours. (Or, in the case of RCI, days. )

It's certainly possible that some other owner has a faster internet connection than you do. In fact, I'd say this is pretty much guaranteed, unless you are paying for a very fast connection. However, usually the big delay is in transferring the information from the company's database to the internet. Once the information is available to the internet, it is usually transmitted quite quickly. A faster internet connection might buy someone a few seconds, but that's probably it.

(Just saw pagosajim's post. My understanding of bots is the same as his.)


----------



## JudyS (Feb 26, 2016)

pagosajim said:


> ...
> Which takes me back to my previous question:  How is immediate return of a cancelled reservation as compared to delayed return a bad thing?  I'm just not seeing how this changes things.  If I'm competing with the bot for that reservation, we are both waiting the same amount of time for it to reappear and the probability of either of us getting it hasn't changed.


Not a Wyndham owner, but I'd say owners who want to cancel and rebook are better off with *no* delay. The owner knows exactly what s/he has canceled. If the week shows up within a few seconds online, s/he can rebook it while other owners are still searching to see what might have become available.

*Edited to add:* On second thought, what I posted above doesn't make sense. I should get more sleep before I post!


----------



## am1 (Feb 26, 2016)

The delay was better.  Much Better.  A game changer.  It was good while it lasted.


----------



## ronparise (Feb 26, 2016)

JudyS said:


> Typically, transactions are done on a computer system that is located only within a company, using a database program rather than a web browser. Only after the transaction is completed within the company's database system is the information transmitted to the internet. Depending on the particular company, the transmission could take as long as several hours. (Or, in the case of RCI, days. )
> 
> It's certainly possible that some other owner has a faster internet connection than you do. In fact, I'd say this is pretty much guaranteed, unless you are paying for a very fast connection. However, usually the big delay is in transferring the information from the company's database to the internet. Once the information is available to the internet, it is usually transmitted quite quickly. A faster internet connection might buy someone a few seconds, but that's probably it.
> 
> (Just saw pagosajim's post. My understanding of bots is the same as his.)



and I dont have any understanding of what happens behind the scenes, but if Wyndham's VCs some of whom work from home on computers and the internet, just like you and me, can work right out of the database, why cant some smart guy get his machine to do the same thing


----------



## Ty1on (Feb 26, 2016)

ronparise said:


> and I dont have any understanding of what happens behind the scenes, but if Wyndham's VCs some of whom work from home on computers and the internet, just like you and me, can work right out of the database, why cant some smart guy get his machine to do the same thing



This would be a security breach, I would think.  VCs should have secure logons to the database portal that aren't available to the public.


----------



## SMHarman (Feb 26, 2016)

JudyS said:


> Typically, transactions are done on a computer system that is located only within a company, using a database program rather than a web browser. Only after the transaction is completed within the company's database system is the information transmitted to the internet. Depending on the particular company, the transmission could take as long as several hours. (Or, in the case of RCI, days. )
> 
> It's certainly possible that some other owner has a faster internet connection than you do. In fact, I'd say this is pretty much guaranteed, unless you are paying for a very fast connection.



A key word here is fast as in ping / round trip times. Not fat as in 10 Mb or 100Mb. 
Their request needs to get to the server before yours. 


ronparise said:


> and I dont have any understanding of what happens behind the scenes, but if Wyndham's VCs some of whom work from home on computers and the internet, just like you and me, can work right out of the database, why cant some smart guy get his machine to do the same thing


In these situations they wyndham employees will start by logging on to the wyndham corporate network through a vpn with a secureid or some other authentication. Then they are inside the network. They may use a web bases interface to access internal databases but they are looking at a slightly different info set.

As someone else commented what a public user sees is a replication of the DB in the network DMZ. A zone between the internet and the secured corporate network. 



pagosajim said:


> I'm doubting this theory as the bot program would need some kind of elevated access or privileged view provided internally to the VCs to operate in this way.  My understanding of bots is they are programmed interfaces to the application that operate just as a human would in clicking/selecting objects on the screen, just a whole lot faster and repetitively.



Exactly. When you fill our the web form and submit it the content is turned into a single long line of query that is sent to the database. In many cases this is pretty human readable at the top of the response page you can often see resort codes and dates. 

The bot just is programmed to submit that periodically though the day and night and when a response contains what they are looking for then sent the bookit commands.


----------



## comicbookman (Feb 26, 2016)

Ty1on said:


> This would be a security breach, I would think.  VCs should have secure logons to the database portal that aren't available to the public.



Without getting technical, using a VPN is basically the same as being directly connected to the corporate network on campus.  It requires a network login (Which the VC's need in the call center as well) and can be configured to only allow particular addresses or even machines access.  Completely different from how you and I access Wyndham.  That is why VC's can see things we cannot.  If a bot had that kind of access, it would be a major security breach and/or an inside job.  As a network administrator for a smallish Regional Water and Sewer Authority, I could detect this kind of breach to my network, it is inconceivable to me that the Wyndham IT folks (even outsourced) could not find this type of breach.  The only way for bots to work is connect the same way we do, they just have many orders of magnitude faster reaction times.  That and they can continuously try for hours without rest.


----------



## pagosajim (Feb 26, 2016)

am1 said:


> The delay was better.  Much Better.  A game changer.  It was good while it lasted.



Please elaborate.  Perhaps specific examples of "much better" to help support the assertion.


----------



## CO skier (Feb 27, 2016)

pagosajim said:


> Please elaborate.  Perhaps specific examples of "much better" to help support the assertion.



In a word -- "collusion" on the part of Vacation Counselors.  Some of them have a conscience.

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1859758


----------



## ronparise (Feb 27, 2016)

CO skier said:


> In a word -- "collusion" on the part of Vacation Counselors.  Some of them have a conscience.
> 
> http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1859758



Thats my post you are referencing.. How is that collusion?

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.

The question is, who am I "deceiving, misleading, or defrauding"  These are reservations I already have. If its a competition for the reservations I already have them, I already won


----------



## T-Dot-Traveller (Feb 27, 2016)

*SHARING info with all on TUG is not collusion*

Hi All,
I love the info I get from reading TUG . It is a forum-  so opinions and personal interpretations are part of the " sharing " .
I really appreciate how freely the points renters share   - with all of us and with the occasional new owner of  Wyndham who is considering using some of their points for renting . 

Keep it up  - it is a version of the " pay it forward  " life plan 
and enjoyable reading for me


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Feb 27, 2016)

The worst change to Wyndham was when the company took away our various use-year starts.  This kept us from having points expire all at once.  We had to bank huge numbers of points into RCI that first year, which was 2014.  I was sick about it because honestly, there is not much in RCI, and depositing a few million points into an exchange company is like throwing them away.


----------



## massvacationer (Feb 27, 2016)

rickandcindy23 said:


> The worst change to Wyndham was when the company took away our various use-year starts.  This kept us from having points expire all at once.  We had to bank huge numbers of points into RCI that first year, which was 2014.  I was sick about it because honestly, there is not much in RCI, and depositing a few million points into an exchange company is like throwing them away.



i believe wyndham may be okay with mixed use years for owners......I think it may not be possible to roll points forward anymore, so the reason to discourage mixed use years is now gone


----------



## am1 (Feb 27, 2016)

You're welcome.  

I could share a lot more but need to keep a competitive advantage.  But best advice you can get is learn as much as you can and then learn the important stuff from experience.  There is no other way.  



T-Dot-Traveller said:


> Hi All,
> I love the info I get from reading TUG . It is a forum-  so opinions and personal interpretations are part of the " sharing " .
> I really appreciate how freely the points renters share   - with all of us and with the occasional new owner of  Wyndham who is considering using some of their points for renting .
> 
> ...


----------



## jjmanthei05 (Feb 27, 2016)

ronparise said:


> and I dont have any understanding of what happens behind the scenes, but if Wyndham's VCs some of whom work from home on computers and the internet, just like you and me, can work right out of the database, why cant some smart guy get his machine to do the same thing



It would be a difference of gaming the system to get a slight advantage and going to jail. To access the back-end without authorized access would be literally hacking into the system and a federal felony. 

Jason


----------



## ronparise (Feb 28, 2016)

jjmanthei05 said:


> It would be a difference of gaming the system to get a slight advantage and going to jail. To access the back-end without authorized access would be literally hacking into the system and a federal felony.
> 
> Jason



But probably not to difficult for the right guy to do or get away with

Didn't Wyndham get into some trouble not too long ago for the poor security they employed 

I know both times I visited ocean walk my credit cards were were compromised


----------



## jjmanthei05 (Feb 28, 2016)

pagosajim said:


> am1 said:
> 
> 
> > The delay was better.  Much Better.  A game changer.  It was good while it lasted.
> ...



Since it doesn't exist anymore, it's not really a secret worth holding on too... 

The loophole before was you could cancel and rebook with little to no fear of losing the reservation. If it took 6+ min for the reservation to come up online but the VC could see it in 20 seconds then the only way to lose the reservation was if someone called that instant asking for the exact dates and unit size you were upgrading without knowing it was there. 

I wonder if the fix was intentional because people (aka mega renters) who knew of this advantage would then spend hours on the phone with VCs to upgrade rooms instead of doing it themselves online. A two fold problem for Wyndham. One, that would lengthen wait times for the regular owners looking to book their once a year vacation at full points with their 154,000 pt contracts. The 2nd is that every VIP upgrade costs sales money since they have to cover the point difference of the upgrade to keep the trust in balance. if people can upgrade with no fear of losing it, then it would cost significantly more to sales to cover all the VIP costs. They want you to have a fear you may lose your reservation so you don't chance it and pay the full points. 

Jason


----------



## jjmanthei05 (Feb 28, 2016)

ronparise said:


> But probably not to difficult for the right guy to do or get away with
> 
> Didn't Wyndham get into some trouble not too long ago for the poor security they employed
> 
> I know both times I visited ocean walk my credit cards were were compromised



No, it would be a big deal. Since all contracts have a Social Security number linked to them, this kind of breach would expose all of those to whoever got in. That in itself would be much more valuable than being able to grab some bonnet creek reservations before everyone else. 

Jason


----------



## comicbookman (Feb 28, 2016)

ronparise said:


> But probably not to difficult for the right guy to do or get away with
> 
> Didn't Wyndham get into some trouble not too long ago for the poor security they employed
> 
> I know both times I visited ocean walk my credit cards were were compromised



Also, the cards were probably compromised onsite.  Happens at fast food restaurants, grocery stores and other retail establishments as well.  A major computer breach, which is what would be required, is a huge deal and has very large penalties.  not worth the risk, in my opinion, for a mega renter.


----------



## pagosajim (Feb 28, 2016)

jjmanthei05 said:


> Since it doesn't exist anymore, it's not really a secret worth holding on too...
> 
> The loophole before was you could cancel and rebook with little to no fear of losing the reservation. If it took 6+ min for the reservation to come up online but the VC could see it in 20 seconds then the only way to lose the reservation was if someone called that instant asking for the exact dates and unit size you were upgrading without knowing it was there.



So the "loss" that was so cryptically called out at the beginning of this thread is that we no longer have the delay associated with doing a cancel/rebook ourselves vs. calling a VC to get it done more quickly on our behalf.  So now I have the choice of doing it myself or calling a VC to do it for me with the same probability of success.  Seems to me I didn't know how BAD I had it before.  Things just got a little better from where I sit.

BTW, hasn't this technique been discussed quite extensively as a hedge against losing the reservation in a cancel/rebook transaction?  No real secret here, right?


----------



## ronparise (Feb 28, 2016)

pagosajim said:


> So the "loss" that was so cryptically called out at the beginning of this thread is that we no longer have the delay associated with doing a cancel/rebook ourselves vs. calling a VC to get it done more quickly on our behalf.  So now I have the choice of doing it myself or calling a VC to do it for me with the same probability of success.  Seems to me I didn't know how BAD I had it before.  Things just got a little better from where I sit.
> 
> BTW, hasn't this technique been discussed quite extensively as a hedge against losing the reservation in a cancel/rebook transaction?  No real secret here, right?



the difference is that when the vcs were doing it the only other competition was the other vcs . 

 Before and again now we will have all the folks on the phone with the VCs and every other owner that is online at the same time.


----------



## am1 (Feb 28, 2016)

ronparise said:


> the difference is that when the vcs were doing it the only other competition was the other vcs .
> 
> Before and again now we will have all the folks on the phone with the VCs and every other owner that is online at the same time.



And the bots which is real issue here.  Before calling in gave us a 5 minutes head start on them.  


Everyone that thinks it is not a big deal does not know how to maximize their ownership.  They delay was no secret on here but the change was the secret.  I was just interested in seeing how long it would take to be reported on here even with the heads up.


----------



## bnoble (Feb 28, 2016)

> Everyone that thinks it is not a big deal does not know how to maximize their ownership.


...or they don't have VIP and so it does not apply to them.


----------



## am1 (Feb 28, 2016)

bnoble said:


> ...or they don't have VIP and so it does not apply to them.



A lot of people are in that boat.  But it should still have affected how they searched for inventory.  The guy saying it is not a big deal and now he had choices and maybe now it is better is a VIP Platinum owner according to his profile.


----------



## tschwa2 (Feb 28, 2016)

It's more cost effective for Wyndham to have members use the online system rather than paying for agents to do cancel rebooks.


----------



## am1 (Feb 28, 2016)

tschwa2 said:


> It's more cost effective for Wyndham to have members use the online system rather than paying for agents to do cancel rebooks.



Probably why the system was corrected.


----------



## Ty1on (Feb 28, 2016)

am1 said:


> Probably why the system was corrected.



I'm thinking that's exactly why.  They hadn't foreseen that the delay would increase phone contacts.


----------



## wjappraise (Feb 28, 2016)

Right about the time the delay was stretched to five and then six minutes, didn't the reCaptcha system change?  Could the minimizing of possible automated systems getting the cancel/reboots have been stymied by this change, and not the lengthened delay time span?  



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## am1 (Feb 28, 2016)

wjappraise said:


> Right about the time the delay was stretched to five and then six minutes, didn't the reCaptcha system change?  Could the minimizing of possible automated systems getting the cancel/reboots have been stymied by this change, and not the lengthened delay time span?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



No.  It was the length of time reservations took to come back in.


----------



## comicbookman (Feb 28, 2016)

wjappraise said:


> Right about the time the delay was stretched to five and then six minutes, didn't the reCaptcha system change? Could the minimizing of possible automated systems getting the cancel/reboots have been stymied by this change, and not the lengthened delay time span?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



It was definitely the time delay.  The delay allowed members to beat the bots if they called in and had a VC do the cancel/rebook.  this is because the bots could not see the cancelled reservation for 5, then 6 minutes, but the vc could see it in about 20 seconds.  That had to increase the call center costs.


----------



## antjmar (Feb 28, 2016)

bnoble said:


> ...or they don't have VIP and so it does not apply to them.


Actually it helps the non VIP also since they now have a chance to "grab" the reservation if they happen to be looking...


----------



## bnoble (Feb 28, 2016)

Well, they could have done that by calling in before, but it's much easier to do online.


----------



## pagosajim (Feb 29, 2016)

ronparise said:


> the difference is that when the vcs were doing it the only other competition was the other vcs .
> 
> Before and again now we will have all the folks on the phone with the VCs and every other owner that is online at the same time.



OK, I'll concede on the competition aspect of this discussion.  Agreed that it has now increased by the "bot" factor.

That said, aren't we giving these alleged bots a lot more credit than they are due?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but an account can still have only one signon at a time, right?  The bot can only issue one reservation request at a time, right?  They still have to navigate the Captcha inquiry (sometimes incorrectly I assume), right?  And unless there are multitudes (hundreds maybe?) of these bots trolling the system (I can't believe that would go undetected or unaddressed), what's the probability that one or more of them are looking for the 3 nights at Panama City beginning on 4/2/16 that I just cancelled to rebook at a discount AT THAT MOMENT? If I am the "owner" of that bot, have I programmed it to look for a specific resort at a specific time?  Again, wouldn't that be quite easily detected and addressed?  Why would Wyndham tolerate such abuse of the system?

Feels like a lot of conjecture and speculation without a hard foundation of fact surrounding the existence and impact of these bots.  Perhaps my logic-based thinking is flawed.  Help me understand what I may be missing.

And yes, I have lost a reservation or two when cancelling and rebooking without the help of a VC .  Nothing I wasn't prepared to lose in advance.


----------



## ronparise (Feb 29, 2016)

pagosajim said:


> OK, I'll concede on the competition aspect of this discussion.  Agreed that it has now increased by the "bot" factor.
> 
> That said, aren't we giving these alleged bots a lot more credit than they are due?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but an account can still have only one signon at a time, right?  The bot can only issue one reservation request at a time, right?  They still have to navigate the Captcha inquiry (sometimes incorrectly I assume), right?  And unless there are multitudes (hundreds maybe?) of these bots trolling the system (I can't believe that would go undetected or unaddressed), what's the probability that one or more of them are looking for the 3 nights at Panama City beginning on 4/2/16 that I just cancelled to rebook at a discount AT THAT MOMENT? If I am the "owner" of that bot, have I programmed it to look for a specific resort at a specific time?  Again, wouldn't that be quite easily detected and addressed?  Why would Wyndham tolerate such abuse of the system?
> 
> ...



Wyndham has addressed the issue of bots and has locked a number of folks out of the online reservations system, but I suspect its similar to when they prohibited the owner to owner transfer of points. It put a number of guys out of business, but others adapted and got bigger.


----------



## am1 (Feb 29, 2016)

My understanding was that in the past the bots did not confirm the reservation just tagged it.  That would explain why some reservations would come back for a split second and then disappear but come back in 15 minutes for a split second.  I chased a few like that for over an hour before getting it.  Now with the captcha system the bot for sure cannot book the reservations but can still tag them.  

Bots can still log in and log out with inputting the captcha information.  I think that is where the weakness is.  A captcha to log in would make it a lot harder.

All of this is guessing on my part.  I know nothing about website security.  

Thankfully I have a few other tricks that give me a few legs up.






pagosajim said:


> OK, I'll concede on the competition aspect of this discussion.  Agreed that it has now increased by the "bot" factor.
> 
> That said, aren't we giving these alleged bots a lot more credit than they are due?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but an account can still have only one signon at a time, right?  The bot can only issue one reservation request at a time, right?  They still have to navigate the Captcha inquiry (sometimes incorrectly I assume), right?  And unless there are multitudes (hundreds maybe?) of these bots trolling the system (I can't believe that would go undetected or unaddressed), what's the probability that one or more of them are looking for the 3 nights at Panama City beginning on 4/2/16 that I just cancelled to rebook at a discount AT THAT MOMENT? If I am the "owner" of that bot, have I programmed it to look for a specific resort at a specific time?  Again, wouldn't that be quite easily detected and addressed?  Why would Wyndham tolerate such abuse of the system?
> 
> ...


----------



## ronparise (Feb 29, 2016)

am1 said:


> My understanding was that in the past the bots did not confirm the reservation just tagged it.  .



You are wrong about this


----------



## am1 (Feb 29, 2016)

ronparise said:


> You are wrong about this



Quite possibly.  Not sure why would keep coming back.  Unless the account was out of points. Or maybe only some bots.

Hopefully Wyndham resolves this as it affects all owners.  And further devalues the ownership.


----------



## DeeDibble (Mar 1, 2016)

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:





vacationhopeful said:


> Is that a "clean" or a "provocative" question?
> 
> I think it is "WASH your hands of it" ....
> 
> ...


----------

