Transferred points...what really is happening?

[Johnnie Fedora]

In practice, what is really happening with tranferred points. Are they reataining their home resort and use year?? If not, does it matter anymore with the once/year transfer restriction??

 

[Dean]

In practice, what is really happening with tranferred points. Are they reataining their home resort and use year?? If not, does it matter anymore with the once/year transfer restriction??

It seems to be hit or miss. Overall it appears that transferred points for more often than not, assuming the use year and home resort of the destination contract. It has been extremely variable however at this point.

 

[dianeschlicht]

So, Dean, you're saying that point morphing still exists and DVC has done little if anything to correct that debacle. I think the reason might be that they aren't trying to fix the program, but are trying to use false fixes like limiting transfers instead. Since the correct way to transfer points must be done manually, MS probably takes short cuts when they can and just let the points morph.

 

[Dean]

So, Dean, you're saying that point morphing still exists and DVC has done little if anything to correct that debacle. I think the reason might be that they aren't trying to fix the program, but are trying to use false fixes like limiting transfers instead. Since the correct way to transfer points must be done manually, MS probably takes short cuts when they can and just let the points morph.

Exactly, though I do think it's a little better that it was before.

 

[CarolMN]

My theory:

I think the computer system still allows point morphing, but I also think some type of manual system was instituted or (more likely, re-emphasized) to prevent point morphing. However, it appears that the manual system relies heavily on CMs to do some extra work / checking (perhaps reading notes, etc.). Since not all CMs are equally trained (or consistently following procedures), the manual system is hit or miss.

I believe that the one transfer rule has significantly decreased member's ability to "work the system" to bypass the home resort booking rules. Too bad those who didn't abuse the system are also stuck with the one transfer rule.

 

[skelooch]

I'm convinced that point morphing is definately alive and well and MS could probably care less. Every so often when I speak with MS I'll ask the CM if point morphing is still happening, more often than not they have no idea what I'm talking about, I have to explain it to them. Scary isn't it.

I'm convinced that I couldn't get a reservation at my home resort BCV for Thanksgiving at 9 1/2 months was because of morphing.

The one transfer rule isn't going to help, it only takes one transfer to cheat someone else out of there booking privilege, and you know that it is happening at the harder to get resorts like BCV and BWV.

MS needs to fix the computer system so that it is physically impossible for points to morph, it shouldn't be left up to the CM to read notes or if they choose ignore notes. There is way to much at stake. I would think it would be a pretty easy fix.

MS management will never admit it's happening, and the members who are taking advantage of it aren't going to tell or admit it.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

I don't know why DVC just didn't limit transfers to "same resort same use year transfers". That would have stopped the biggest problem, point morphing. It also would have allowed for multiple transfers too.

 

[CarolMN]

I don't know why DVC just didn't limit transfers to "same resort same use year transfers". That would have stopped the biggest problem, point morphing. It also would have allowed for multiple transfers too.

I agree with you - that would fix the problem.

 

[Dean]

I don't know why DVC just didn't limit transfers to "same resort same use year transfers". That would have stopped the biggest problem, point morphing. It also would have allowed for multiple transfers too.

So would eliminating transfers and they are essentially the same thing.

 

[VLee]

Agree. I know the few times that I transferred in before the new rule took effect. I always made it a practice to only transfer in from another DVC member who had the same resort, and the same use year. I was playing it safe in that I didn't want to be informed later that the points were resorts other than mine or expired before my use year did.

I do like the idea of transfers still available-- because this was one way I could build enough points to treat my sisters and mother to one week at BWV in BW View bedroom, but I would like to see them limited to same resort, same use year.

 

[dianeschlicht]

I don't know why DVC just didn't limit transfers to "same resort same use year transfers". That would have stopped the biggest problem, point morphing. It also would have allowed for multiple transfers too.

And if it's as simple as that, and morphing IS a problem, why didn't they make that easy fix?

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

So would eliminating transfers and they are essentially the same thing.

Dean,

Do you mean limiting or eliminating. BTW, Could DVC just eliminate any/all transfers as a simple change in policy?

 

[ZekeKelso]

I would think it would be a pretty easy fix.

Having worked on big corporate computer systems, I suspect it could be vastly harder than you think.

First, you have to understand that even the smallest change is a big deal. It's not the change, but the testing. You have to not only ensure that the change works the way you want under every possible combination of events (of which there are probably thousands associated with the DVC point-tracking systems) but you have to go through "negative testing" to ensure that you change didn't mess up something else.

Second, keep in mind that systems from day one will be built around a particular architecture / data structure. If you need to do something that doesn't fit into that structure, fixing the problem can basically involve a rewrite of the entire system to accommodate.

Now I haven't a clue what the Disney systems look like or how they are built. But it's possible the data architecture simple doesn't have room to track different point "types" under one account. If that's the case, an automatic fix is near impossible. You just can't add that flexibility at a later date if there isn't room for it in your data structure. All you can do is find some sort of workaround. Which leads to the question of whether there are better, more effective workarounds DVC could implement?

 

[Dean]

Dean,

Do you mean limiting or eliminating. BTW, Could DVC just eliminate any/all transfers as a simple change in policy?

I meant eliminating. In my opinion, limiting transfers to the same resort and same use year would be so restrictive as to be the same as eliminating transfer in all practicality. To me that would be fine and I don't know of any other system that allows this type of transfer. Overall this fits into the same category as a number of these other issues and that is, does the problem warrant the solution. Frankly, if members really think it's a big problem, they should ask for transfers to be eliminated. Otherwise, trying to preserve transfers but limiting the other issues is going to be a non workable alternative.

 

[javaj]

Just got 75 points transferred a little over a week ago and they had to do a manual transfer due to the different use year. The transferred points retained their original use year. My use year is Dec and the transferred points were for Feb 2006. If I were to make a reservation in Dec or January, I can use the transferred points with no banking issues.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

I meant eliminating. In my opinion, limiting transfers to the same resort and same use year would be so restrictive as to be the same as eliminating transfer in all practicality....

I guess what I was thinking is that you would be able to transfer into your 2007 BCV contract any 2007 BCV points (April, June, December, etc.). I don't think it would be necessary to hold to the use year month. That would give the tranfer process some flexibility but the points would never morph from their home resort status.

Seems like a simple fix that would allow a member the ability for multiple home resort transfers, if needed.

 

[Dean]

Just got 75 points transferred a little over a week ago and they had to do a manual transfer due to the different use year. The transferred points retained their original use year. My use year is Dec and the transferred points were for Feb 2006. If I were to make a reservation in Dec or January, I can use the transferred points with no banking issues.

In a week or two ask when those points expire. Do so without any explanation. Don't be surprised if you here that they expired the end of November.

 

[Dean]

I guess what I was thinking is that you would be able to transfer into your 2007 BCV contract any 2007 BCV points (April, June, December, etc.). I don't think it would be necessary to hold to the use year month. That would give the tranfer process some flexibility but the points would never morph from their home resort status.

Seems like a simple fix that would allow a member the ability for multiple home resort transfers, if needed..

To me it sounds like a very complicated fix for something that should work correctly already. Really all they have to do to correct this issue is set up a separate contract under your account for that home resort and use year. In your scenario, you still have the problem of morphing use year which probably is actually a larger problem in the big scheme of things. To fix it your way you literally have to limit to same use year and home resort. The other, and likely better, fix is to this eliminate transfers.

 

[javaj]

In a week or two ask when those points expire. Do so without any explanation. Don't be surprised if you here that they expired the end of November.

I just made a reservation for December 2007 using the Feb 2007 transferred points (I had no Dec 2006 points left) so they did retain their original use year.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

To me it sounds like a very complicated fix for something that should work correctly already. Really all they have to do to correct this issue is set up a separate contract under your account for that home resort and use year. In your scenario, you still have the problem of morphing use year which probably is actually a larger problem in the big scheme of things. To fix it your way you literally have to limit to same use year and home resort. The other, and likely better, fix is to this eliminate transfers.

A temporary contract number would be an excellent fix!