FK/TA Blocking messages. Human intervention?

[cleanforum]

FK/TA emails often get stopped these days. Uncanny. I suspect that they have something more than a AI system and that it is backed by human screening. Also it seems to take a long while before it is actually blocked by TA which seems to support that.

Any comments??

[FelicityA]

Have you had some problem with them in the past which might have put you on their 'to be monitored' list?

[cleanforum]

I have had a couple of blocked messages over the past two years. Nothing other than that.

[FelicityA]

I just asked that because I know that when people have had problems with the other great monopoly (HA) and have had cause to complain about something so that a CS agent has looked at their listing, mysteriously, some days or weeks later, they are pulled up (or even have their ad become one of the 'disappeared') and admonished for some wording they had in their listing or for 'directing people off site' in their emails.

I would hazard a guess that the blocked messages you have had were because of banned details (?) and you are now permanently on their human monitoring list. I am on subscription with TA so I have no experience of this myself but I am sure others here have.

[newtimber]

I'm not quite sure why you want to encourage people to book direct.

I do not think the listing site can object to your saying that the price for their stay is £x + the site's booking fee.

If they want to save money, then if your listing is such that someone would be able to find your place directly using google, then they can do so.

[cleanforum]

Yes points taken. I find the procedure of communication with prospective guests already very trying with the listing sites. I know, we have to live with that. But blocking just adds frustration, with a customer that is asking questions it is now almost impossible it seems (for me anyway) to say more than a simple yes or no to the booking. Not always the best way to deal with clients. For example in the past I have tried to explain that although they can perhaps book our villa cheaper on other sites they may not have the protection offered on TA etc..

It does indeed look as though I have a TA monkey on my back. No problem with that as long as I understand and can avoid wasted emails and unnecessary frustration and time wasting.

[Tivoli]

I would agree, the spyware has become more sophisticated and phrases one could get away with in the past can no longer get through. However, I don't believe it is human monitoring because I have still managed to slip through some glaring stuff.

I had planned to stop trying this but had a recent enquiry where a guest wanted to pay in small increments and TA would not allow a first instalment of less that £xx, which she didn't have access to at the time. She was really concerned that somebody would get in before her. Eventually she managed to follow my breadcrumb trail but I have no intention of making a habit of it.

What I find most infuriating is the blanket ban on any internet references, so it is impossible to tell potential guests where to find charter flights or ferries.

[Marks]

I don't have a problem responding via the dashboard, in my case I only use HL/TA.

I never send a quote unless a potential guest says they want to book however I do say the price is £xxx which includes HL/TA's booking fee of £yyy and I then use a phrase which has not yet got blocked that strongly suggests that they can find me quite easily elsewhere and they won't pay the booking fee. I have given my apartment a very unique name which if Googled pulls up various TA variant sites, HA/OD & SH plus my own little website on page 1.

Last night I directed someone that way and this morning they have booked directly with me saving £190 on their summer holiday. I have taken another 6 bookings in the exact same way over the last 12 months.

That said, if they want to book via a third party and pay the booking fee then they are welcome to do so. Currently 15% of my bookings are via HL/TA paying the booking fee.

[cleanforum]

"I then use a phrase which has not yet got blocked"

I am leaning towards the human checking.. at least for unlucky ones.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Let's think about this. You only posted here because your message was blocked. So if there is human intervention, what proportion of messages would have to have been humanly read for an LMHer to complain here?

It is very easy to come to the wrong conclusion. It is called the prosecutor's fallacy. You are only posting because it happened to you, so you are not a random sample.

In other words, if one in a million messages are looked at by a human, those who are blocked will complain, the other 999,999 will not complain, so it only takes very little human reading for the message (sic) they want to get out there. You are doing their job for them by complaining, they want to get the message out that they do not want direct contact between guest and owner.

Very sad case of prosecutor fallacy is the Sally Clark case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy

Yes, I know, it is Friday afternoon, but more interesting than filling out fictitious financial forecast spreadsheets.

Do you want to be roughly right or exactly wrong?

[cleanforum]

"You only posted here because your message was blocked"


I am inclined to believe that there is more to the message blocking I am seeing than my own imagination, for the reasons above.

[AndrewH]

Very sad case of prosecutor fallacy is the Sally Clark case.

OK - right off topic. That poor mother, who lost two of her babies by cot death, was tried for murder (infanticide) and found guilty on the sayso of an "expert witness". She spent three years in jail, before her sentence was quashed by a superior court in the UK. Sally Clark's mind was, shall I say, disturbed by this and she has since died at a young age.

That so called expert witness was Sir Roy Meadows, consultant paediatrician, who just got a wigging from the General Medical Council for his part in this. The GMC is a self-regulating body in the medical profession; if it were otherwise he would have deservedly been booted out.

[Nigel Goodwin]

"You only posted here because your message was blocked"
.
.

I am inclined to believe that there is more to the message blocking I am seeing than my own imagination, for the reasons above.

I'm sorry, I wasn't attacking anybody, I was just trying to add a perspective to the issue as to whether it is a human or machine blocking you. It would be easy to come to an incorrect conclusion.

My day job involves a lot of statistics and probability and I see it being wrongly applied all the time.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Very sad case of prosecutor fallacy is the Sally Clark case.

OK - right off topic.

The two basic errors were:

- no comparison between two possibilities, each of which had a miniscule probability

- no recognition that the person in the dock was only there because she had lost two babies, so conclusions based on random samples are false.

So, to try to determine what the listing site is doing, you need (a) a large random sample (b) from the evidence, compare probability that (i) it is a machine (ii) it is personal, they hate you (iii) it is a human.

[cleanforum]

I have a (tounge in cheek) challenge if anyone wants to test it out this can be done very easily. I can copy the text of an mail that was blocked and some interested person here can include in their next enquiry email and see if it gets through..