We did not how well we had it.

[rickandcindy23]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[jjmanthei05]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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

 

[am1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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

 

[pagosajim]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

You are wrong about this