BWV Standard view

[Leight19]

It would be a nightmare for anyone with reservations that overlap two months, unless you allow to book the whole stay, but then it doesn't stop walking.

I'd like to have a queue system at 8am similar to what they have for MM and other events. So everyone has the same chance, no more bots making multiple requests at 8am within milliseconds to be the first. At least this way each contract has one chance. I think @Brian Noble was the first to suggest this.

So you would still be able to book 7 days so booking between last of Sep and first of Oct would still work, just wouldn’t be able to use one day in Sep to lock in more then 6 days in next month. Could still walk little but not as extreme.

Regarding the queue suggestion, that doesn’t stop walking and not sure it even stops bots. I’m sure the power users or those using for profit would find a workaround and always have advantage in the system in someway. To me the difficulty of getting rooms isn’t a walking issue it’s a competition issue where more want the room then available. Someone always going to be upset they don’t get what they want. In that case I think people complaining about walkers getting a room they want before them would be equivalent to complaining they showed up at park opening and were in back of line because people queued earlier. That side of it isn’t my concern with walking.

To me the issue with walking id like to fix is the walkers blocking dates they don’t want and leaving single days for people to book up as they walk past. I imagine this makes lots of odd stays and makes people juggle reservations as they hope string days together for member services to then merge. This could ruin months of trips for people for dates the walker has no interest in booking and that’s what I think my solution would fix.

 

[zavandor]

So you would still be able to book 7 days so booking between last of Sep and first of Oct would still work, just wouldn’t be able to use one day in Sep to lock in more then 6 days in next month. Could still walk little but not as extreme.

Regarding the queue suggestion, that doesn’t stop walking and not sure it even stops bots. I’m sure the power users or those using for profit would find a workaround and always have advantage in the system in someway. To me the difficulty of getting rooms isn’t a walking issue it’s a competition issue where more want the room then available. Someone always going to be upset they don’t get what they want. In that case I think people complaining about walkers getting a room they want before them would be equivalent to complaining they showed up at park opening and were in back of line because people queued earlier. That side of it isn’t my concern with walking.

To me the issue with walking id like to fix is the walkers blocking dates they don’t want and leaving single days for people to book up as they walk past. I imagine this makes lots of odd stays and makes people juggle reservations as they hope string days together for member services to then merge. This could ruin months of trips for people for dates the walker has no interest in booking and that’s what I think my solution would fix.

You're suggesting a change that impacts the ability of members of booking the trip they want (If the want to book more than one week that crosses two months). That's like every other solution suggested to stop walking, it impacts users that don't walk as much if not more than walkers.

Bots are another problem: they make competition at 11 months unfair. At least anyone can walk, if they want.

 

[Leight19]

You're suggesting a change that impacts the ability of members of booking the trip they want (If the want to book more than one week that crosses two months). That's like every other solution suggested to stop walking, it impacts users that don't walk as much if not more than walkers.

Bots are another problem: they make competition at 11 months unfair. At least anyone can walk, if they want.

I guess I still don’t see how this blocks you from booking over 2 months. As I explained you would still be able to book first 6 days of next month if you have last day of the current month. You could then modify to include the complete next month once that month reaches the window. I guess my argument would be a hard to book room should be hard to book for 2 months straight and not just be something guaranteed cause you grab one day.

I’d also say I’m not sure what evidence exists that bots are a huge problem. I know it’s a theoretical issue but I’ve seen no evidence it’s an actual problem beyond just we have 20 ppl competing for 10 rooms.

 

[zavandor]

I guess I still don’t see how this blocks you from booking over 2 months. As I explained you would still be able to book first 6 days of next month if you have last day of the current month. You could then modify to include the complete next month once that month reaches the window. I guess my argument would be a hard to book room should be hard to book for 2 months straight and not just be something guaranteed cause you grab one day.

I’d also say I’m not sure what evidence exists that bots are a huge problem. I know it’s a theoretical issue but I’ve seen no evidence it’s an actual problem beyond just we have 20 ppl competing for 10 rooms.

Ok so I have to compete twice to get what I want, making my ability to book what I want much smaller than before: I must succed on drop day twice vs being able to try a few days in advance and walking the reservation until I have what I want.
Two successes needed on both drop days, vs one success needed on multiple days. Yes, it would impact me (or rather, someone who books more than 1 week at a time).

Ok, that's just an example, I don't actually walk reservations at 11 months, I just go at slow times and book what I can at 7 months. This change wouldn't affect me. I still don't like changes that affect the flexibility of the program because of a perceived problem with walking.

Rental companies having confirmed reservations for dozens of value rooms at AKV and standard BWV, sometimes many rooms for the same night, is evidence enough bots are being deployed. Again, I'm not affected (I don't have 11 months access to super-valuable rooms), but I'm annoyed someone can have an unfair advantage.

 

[Sandisw]

Ok so I have to compete twice to get what I want, making my ability to book what I want much smaller than before: I must succed on drop day twice vs being able to try a few days in advance and walking the reservation until I have what I want.
Two successes needed on both drop days, vs one success needed on multiple days. Yes, it would impact me (or rather, someone who books more than 1 week at a time).

Ok, that's just an example, I don't actually walk reservations at 11 months, I just go at slow times and book what I can at 7 months. This change wouldn't affect me. I still don't like changes that affect the flexibility of the program because of a perceived problem with walking.

Rental companies having confirmed reservations for dozens of value rooms at AKV and standard BWV, sometimes many rooms for the same night, is evidence enough bots are being deployed. Again, I'm not affected (I don't have 11 months access to super-valuable rooms), but I'm annoyed someone can have an unfair advantage.

Can you expand on how a virtual Que would slow down bots vs how the system works now?

I really know little about the technical side of a bot and how it gets the advantage.

 

[Leight19]

Ok so I have to compete twice to get what I want, making my ability to book what I want much smaller than before: I must succed on drop day twice vs being able to try a few days in advance and walking the reservation until I have what I want.
Two successes needed on both drop days, vs one success needed on multiple days. Yes, it would impact me.

Ok, that's just an example, I don't actually walk reservations at 11 months, I just go at slow times and book what I can at 7 months. This change wouldn't affect me. I still don't like changes that affect the flexibility of the program because of a perceived problem with walking.

No solution to walking is flawless so would have to weigh the pros and cons of each. My proposal would stop walking but would potentially impact the scenario where someone wants to book more then 6 days into the following month for a trip their planning that’s at least 1 day in previous month. The impact wouldn’t stop them booking but make them compete for the additional days a second time. To me this limited scope for one specific type of trip for one specific time of month is greatly outweighed by the vast number of people who have to scratch together rooms day by day as walkers go past to their target dates.

For me the real problem with solution I proposed is the Disney IT would crash the first of every month as everyone books.

 

[Tatebeck]

I've let the idea of combating walking cook in my brain for a few months, and the easiest solution I can think of is having their system not allow the starting date of an 11 month reservation to be changed past a certain number of days into the future. I would think 7 or 14 days would work the best. This would allow people to extend their reservation as needed, and drop some days from the beginning if they need to modify their dates some, but stops people walking rooms forward for weeks or months. You would have a week or 2 to try for the room you want, and if you don't get it then you know that you need change your dates or book a different room.

Example:

At the 11 month window, you book 7 nights at a Standard BWV room. Let's say the nights of Dec 1st through Dec 7th.
The system would assign either December 8th or December 15h as the latest allowed START date. As the days move forward you could:

• Modify the reservation to extend or shave off days to the ending date by any amount needed up to the normal 30 day stay limit. So no changes there.
• Modify the start date any number of days backwards into the 11 month window since the booking dates have already passed. No changes here either.
• Drop the beginning days/modify the STARTING date forward (walk the reservation) up until the system stops you once you move it 1 to 2 weeks into the future. After that it would make you cancel and rebook a new starting date at the 11 month window if you wanted a trip further into the future.

This would still be very flexible but would stop most long term walking and force everyone who wants to stay on a certain date to compete within the same week or two with others who actually want that date. It would stop people from competing for December reservations in September and October for instance.

 

[Sandisw]

I've let the idea of combating walking cook in my brain for a few months, and the easiest solution I can think of is having their system not allow the starting date of an 11 month reservation to be changed past a certain number of days into the future. I would think 7 or 14 days would work the best. This would allow people to extend their reservation as needed, and drop some days from the beginning if they need to modify their dates some, but stops people walking rooms forward for weeks or months. You would have a week or 2 to try for the room you want, and if you don't get it then you know that you need change your dates or book a different room.

Example:

At the 11 month window, you book 7 nights at a Standard BWV room. Let's say the nights of Dec 1st through Dec 7th.
The system would assign either December 8th or December 15h as the latest allowed START date. As the days move forward you could:

• Modify the reservation to extend or shave off days to the ending date by any amount needed up to the normal 30 day limit. So no changes there.
• Modify the start date any number of days backwards into the 11 month window since the booking dates have already passed. No changes here either.
• Drop the beginning days/modify the STARTING date up until the system stops you once you move it 1 to 2 weeks into the future. After that it would make you cancel and rebook a new starting date at the 11 month window if you wanted a trip further into the future.

This would still be very flexible but would stop most long term walking and force everyone who wants to stay a certain date to compete within the same week or two. It would stop people from competing for December reservations in September and October for instance.

Those with a lot of points would still be able to walk and keep it in place until that two week period is up

That could mean giving some owners an advantage over another based on points owned.

You have to ask is that going to be seen by the vast majority of owners as fair? Especially when this issue really impacts a few rooms at a few resorts in a very limited category?

Maybe the owners of those resorts would rather just see them close the point gap between the booking of those rooms to make them less desirable?

If the only different between a SV room and Pool/Garden room was 1 point a night, it go a long way to decrease demand.

 

[Tatebeck]

Those with a lot of points would still be able to walk and keep it in place until that two week period is up

That could mean giving some owners an advantage over another based on points owned.

You have to ask is that going to be seen by the vast majority of owners as fair? Especially when this issue really impacts a few rooms at a few resorts in a very limited category?

It wouldn't take that many points to secure a reservation. Anyone with enough points for at least 2 nights would be able to walk the starting date forward after competing for the start date. They would just have to modify more often. I would think that is the vast majority of the ownership. How exactly would someone with more points have an advantage?

 

[Tatebeck]

If the only different between a SV room and Pool/Garden room was 1 point a night, it go a long way to decrease demand.

I could personally get behind this as well, adjusting cheapest studios to cost more points and lowering the cost for views, 1BR, etc. I would be willing to book the BW view over P/G view for more points instead of them costing the same for example.

But I feel like this would affect way more members negatively than my idea. Increasing the point cost of the lower cost rooms that book first would most definitely give an advantage to member with higher point totals. And many people have probably purchased the bare minimum to stay a certain number of days in their preferred period. Increasing points would force them to either shorten their normal trip or force them purchase more points to continue their normal staying habits.

 

[Sandisw]

It wouldn't take that many points to secure a reservation. Anyone with enough points for at least 2 nights would be able to walk the starting date forward after competing for the start date. They would just have to modify more often. I would think that is the vast majority of the ownership. How exactly would someone with more points have an advantage?

Sorry, I read it backwards. You want it to be that someone can only modify a trip maybe up to two weeks ahead without it being a cancel and rebook.

I have to process that. But my first thought is at what point would that change? Say it’s a month down the road, and rooms are there to extend but not some of what you have you, would that be allowed?

And, would it only apply if it is done on the exact 11 month window? What if someone starts the booking a few days into the window?

 

[Sandisw]

I could personally get behind this as well, adjusting cheapest studios to cost more points and lowering the cost for views, 1BR, etc. I would be willing to book the BW view over P/G view for more points instead of them costing the same for example.

But I feel like this would affect way more members negatively than my idea. Increasing the point cost of the lower cost rooms that book first would most definitely give an advantage to member with higher point totals. And many people have probably purchased the bare minimum to stay a certain number of days in their preferred period. Increasing points would force them to either shorten their normal trip or force them purchase more points to continue their normal staying habits.

Isn’t the purpose of adjusting the points charts supposed to be based on supply and demand?

If you have too much demand for SV and not enough for the others, the easiest and cleanest is to adjust.

And, if the concern is the rental market, then changing the cost could curb that.

Where I lean to this not being a plus is that it would be in place where it doesn’t matter and owners at other resorts not having the same issue now have to deal with stricter rules for modifications

I’d never be a fan of rule changes that penalize owners who are not walking for the sake of stopping that.

The benefit for me is how flexible it is and that really, it’s only inside 31 days that one gets penalized for changes.

 

[Leight19]

I could personally get behind this as well, adjusting cheapest studios to cost more points and lowering the cost for views, 1BR, etc. I would be willing to book the BW view over P/G view for more points instead of them costing the same for example.

But I feel like this would affect way more members negatively than my idea. Increasing the point cost of the lower cost rooms that book first would most definitely give an advantage to member with higher point totals. And many people have probably purchased the bare minimum to stay a certain number of days in their preferred period. Increasing points would force them to either shorten their normal trip or force them purchase more points to continue their normal staying habits.

As owner of akv and bwv I’m against the idea of modifying point charts across the views. I bought these resorts specifically because of the cheaper view categories knowing full well I’d have to compete to book them and only get every so often. Neither of these contracts really even “need” to own there to book the cheaper views so really cuts value/driver of me buying there (akv especially).

While I myself walk I fully supports actions that would fix the scattering of rooms being left after walkers pass. I’m not that worried about blocking walking for anything related to bots or to make it more random just because someone always won’t get the room they want when more want it then is available. I actually like and support the fact if someone wants they can queue up 2 months in advance to gurantee they get their dates. I actually think a lot are right though that commercial renters are disproportionally using walking to get in demand rooms but I feel this just makes it easier for Disney to target commercial renters if they really wanted to.

 

[Tatebeck]

Sorry, I read it backwards. You want it to be that someone can only modify a trip maybe up to two weeks ahead without it being a cancel and rebook.

I have to process that. But my first thought is at what point would that change? Say it’s a month down the road, and rooms are there to extend but not some of what you have you, would that be allowed?

And, would it only apply if it is done on the exact 11 month window? What if someone starts the booking a few days into the window?

Do you mean how would they start implementing it when there is a constant rolling window and existing reservations? I would make it apply to each reservation individually. Say it started tomorrow. Any reservation made today and before would be able to walk/modify as normal. Once that reservation is used/cancelled then any new reservation made afterward would have the new stop on it. As would any reservation made starting tomorrow. So there would be a small period of time with some grandfathered reservations but within a few months every reservation would be covered

As for how I would make it would work with the booking windows, the restriction would be added only to reservations that extend beyond the 11 month window. If you are booking the 11 month window+the next 6 days, 1 day short of the 11 month window+the next 7 days for an 8 day stay, etc. If the reservation includes dates beyond the 11 month window, the start date cannot be modified past a certain number of days (in my example 1 or 2 weeks) into the 11 month window based on the 11 month window on the day when the reservation was made.

 

[Tatebeck]

Isn’t the purpose of adjusting the points charts supposed to be based on supply and demand?

If you have too much demand for SV and not enough for the others, the easiest and cleanest is to adjust.

And, if the concern is the rental market, then changing the cost could curb that.

Where I lean to this not being a plus is that it would be in place where it doesn’t matter and owners at other resorts not having the same issue now have to deal with stricter rules for modifications

I’d never be a fan of rule changes that penalize owners who are not walking for the sake of stopping that.

The benefit for me is how flexible it is and that really, it’s only inside 31 days that one gets penalized for changes.

Like I said, I wouldn't be against some point chart reallocations, and I know they are allowed to do it as long as the total number of points at the resort don't change.

It just seemed like you were against my idea (at least in part) because you thought it would give bigger point holders an advantage when your reallocation idea seemed (to me) like it would give bigger point holders even more of an advantage

 

[Leight19]

Like I said, I wouldn't be against some point chart reallocations, and I know they are allowed to do it as long as the total number of points at the resort don't change.

It just seemed like you were against my idea (at least in part) because you thought it would give bigger point holders an advantage when your reallocation idea seemed (to me) like it would give bigger point holders even more of an advantage

I know they’ve moved points across views before but I thought there was discussion during some of the more recent attempts that the contract only allows them to move it by dates not room category. I was also under impression this was an issue with room declaration where the specific unit definitions could make it so they could be changing the point charts on those declarations unless all were equally balanced in room type and category.

 

[Tatebeck]

As owner of akv and bwv I’m against the idea of modifying point charts across the views. I bought these resorts specifically because of the cheaper view categories knowing full well I’d have to compete to book them and only get every so often. Neither of these contracts really even “need” to own there to book the cheaper views so really cuts value/driver of me buying there (akv especially).

While I myself walk I fully supports actions that would fix the scattering of rooms being left after walkers pass. I’m not that worried about blocking walking for anything related to bots or to make it more random just because someone always won’t get the room they want when more want it then is available. I actually like and support the fact if someone wants they can queue up 2 months in advance to gurantee they get their dates. I actually think a lot are right though that commercial renters are disproportionally using walking to get in demand rooms but I feel this just makes it easier for Disney to target commercial renters if they really wanted to.

The issue I have with walking reservations in the DVC system is that due to the way it works, there are scenarios in which people can be entirely locked out of getting a certain room during parts of the year due to their use year.

Say you have a December use year but like staying in the second week of December, a very popular time. Sounds like it should work out great. But if you own only a small contract at BWV or AKV and want a standard view at BWV or a value or club room at AKV you can't even start the reservation until you book on Jan 1st for Dec 1st. By then the reservations could be completely locked up by members with earlier use years who can walk their reservations to the second week of December and use/rent them. In this case there was never a world in which you even had a chance to compete for a starting date. 0% chance. That is NOT booking equality. It doesn't sound like we've gotten there yet, but it does show that the booking system we have is NOT 100% fair when members have different use years and can only start walks once their use year starts. The further out walking gets, the higher the possibility this starts happening.

Basically the booking system we have now with unlimited walking simply cannot be 100% fair unless they did away with use years and we all had the same one

 

[Tatebeck]

I know they’ve moved points across views before but I thought there was discussion during some of the more recent attempts that the contract only allows them to move it by dates not room category. I was also under impression this was an issue with room declaration where the specific unit definitions could make it so they could be changing the point charts on those declarations unless all were equally balanced in room type and category.

I believe each declared unit has a certain number of points and they can't change that total number either (or our percentage ownership would change on our contracts). So they would have to finagle the point charts around in such a way that the totals for each unit don't change (and then the resort total would be the same too) for it to be 100% allowed. Whether they can do it depends on what they declared into each unit at each resort. If there are varied rooms in each unit it would be possible, if they had some units at a resort with only 1 view type it may not be possible unless they wanted to push their luck. Then members may have a reason to dispute it

 

[tx911]

I've let the idea of combating walking cook in my brain for a few months, and the easiest solution I can think of is having their system not allow the starting date of an 11 month reservation to be changed past a certain number of days into the future. I would think 7 or 14 days would work the best. This would allow people to extend their reservation as needed, and drop some days from the beginning if they need to modify their dates some, but stops people walking rooms forward for weeks or months. You would have a week or 2 to try for the room you want, and if you don't get it then you know that you need change your dates or book a different room.

Example:

At the 11 month window, you book 7 nights at a Standard BWV room. Let's say the nights of Dec 1st through Dec 7th.
The system would assign either December 8th or December 15h as the latest allowed START date. As the days move forward you could:

• Modify the reservation to extend or shave off days to the ending date by any amount needed up to the normal 30 day stay limit. So no changes there.
• Modify the start date any number of days backwards into the 11 month window since the booking dates have already passed. No changes here either.
• Drop the beginning days/modify the STARTING date forward (walk the reservation) up until the system stops you once you move it 1 to 2 weeks into the future. After that it would make you cancel and rebook a new starting date at the 11 month window if you wanted a trip further into the future.

This would still be very flexible but would stop most long term walking and force everyone who wants to stay on a certain date to compete within the same week or two with others who actually want that date. It would stop people from competing for December reservations in September and October for instance.

I think this is a well thought out plan, and I'd love to see it implemented. It's very hard to envision this having a negative affect on the typical user.

 

[Leight19]

The issue I have with walking reservations in the DVC system is that due to the way it works, there are scenarios in which people can be entirely locked out of getting a certain room during parts of the year due to their use year.

Say you have a December use year but like staying in the second week of December, a very popular time. Sounds like it should work out great. But if you own only a small contract at BWV or AKV and want a standard view at BWV or a value or club room at AKV you can't even start the reservation until you book on Jan 1st for Dec 1st. By then the reservations could be completely locked up by members with earlier use years who can walk their reservations to the second week of December and use/rent them. In this case there was never a world in which you even had a chance to compete for a starting date. 0% chance. That is NOT booking equality. It doesn't sound like we've gotten there yet, but it does show that the booking system we have is NOT 100% fair when members have different use years and can only start walks once their use year starts. The further out walking gets, the higher the possibility this starts happening.

Basically the booking system we have now with unlimited walking simply cannot be 100% fair unless they did away with use years and we all had the same one

I know in past I’ve walked across my use year you just had to call member services to make that transition. Maybe it’s possible disney changed but no one ever gets “blocked” from walking they just started after someone else did. For me it’s not a fairness or equality issue I worry about becusse anyone can start walking earlier if really want it. My only concern is the impact on dates that are walked past, not that a walker gets dates all time while someone who just tries day or can’t.