When is DVC going to fix the software loopholes?

[mochabean]

There has been lots of talk about the "commercial renters" and "morphing points" but it seems to me a lot of this problem would simply go away if they got their back-end software fixed to eliminate the loopholes which allow points to change their home resort. I have heard many times in reference to their software that they are "working on it", and we have seen the implementation of tracking points via the website. But really, how hard can it be to just add a field to the database for points which have been transferred to allow them to track the home resort?

 

[Chuck S]

Probably a little harder than you think, when you consider it would also have to interact with the reservation/home resort database to allow ressies in the 11 month window for the transferred points. It would almost be like creating a new virtual temporary add-on contract.

 

[LisaS]

Unfortunately things are never that simple in the IT world. There are always ripple effects to any change that you make, especially if it involves changing a database. Fixing this problem is almost certainly not as simple as adding one database field. In addition you have to change the software that MS uses to make reservations and transfer points, possibly also the code that handles banking of points, the database backup procedures, etc. They probably have programs that track point usage and generate statistics that might also have to be modified. And any code that is modified needs to be tested, and then retested on the production system once it has been updated. Next thing you know that "one little change" ends up taking quite a bit of time (and money) to implement.

 

[mochabean]

So it might be hard to do, but in my mind it's something they really need to do! Maybe cracking down on the commercial renters is just buying them more time to get it done.

 

[Chuck S]

So it might be hard to do, but in my mind it's something they really need to do! Maybe cracking down on the commercial renters is just buying them more time to get it done.

But in the IT world hard means EXPENSIVE, if only allowing one transfer per year has enough impact, it certainly would be much more cost efficient.

I'd rather have a system that works but has a few bugs and need to be monitored manually for transfers, than have a sophisicated system prone to crashes.

 

[ScooterL]

If DVC changed their rules to only allow transfers of points to another contract at the same resort (e.g. BCV points could only be transferred to a BCV contract), wouldn't that go a long way to solving the problem?

Laura

 

[LisaS]

So it might be hard to do, but in my mind it's something they really need to do! Maybe cracking down on the commercial renters is just buying them more time to get it done.

I'm not saying it would be hard to do, just that it requires more work than addng a database field. The more work that is required, the higher the cost to implement the fix. I think the real issue is that it has to make financial sense to Disney to fix the problem. No matter how much we feel it should be fixed, if Disney feels they can reduce the problem by limiting transfers (which costs them nothing), then I can see why they took that approach. Restricting transfers also reduces the calls to MS and that saves even more money.

Given all the testing you have to do when you make software changes, I suspect they will make this change in conjunction with other changes. It's more cost effective to do one system update that incorporates fixes to several problems. That way you go through the testing phase once, and you do one system update. So (hopefully!) this is on the list of things to fix the next time they do an update of DVC's computer systems.

 

[Inkmahm]

If DVC changed their rules to only allow transfers of points to another contract at the same resort (e.g. BCV points could only be transferred to a BCV contract), wouldn't that go a long way to solving the problem?

Laura

YES!!!

But it would also keep people with multiple contracts from being able to do a transfer to themselves.

 

[LisaS]

If DVC changed their rules to only allow transfers of points to another contract at the same resort (e.g. BCV points could only be transferred to a BCV contract), wouldn't that go a long way to solving the problem?

Laura

That works great when owners need points to book their home resort at the 11-month window but not so great for those looking for points to book at the 7-month window. For example, if both a BCV owner and an SSR owner want to transfer in additional points to acquire enough points to book a GV at OKW at 7 months out, the SSR owner will have little trouble finding points while the BCV owner will have more difficulty and probably have to pay much more for them (due to the limited supply).

 

[spiceycat]

I'm not saying it would be hard to do, just that it requires more work than addng a database field. The more work that is required, the higher the cost to implement the fix. I think the real issue is that it has to make financial sense to Disney to fix the problem. No matter how much we feel it should be fixed, if Disney feels they can reduce the problem by limiting transfers (which costs them nothing), then I can see why they took that approach. Restricting transfers also reduces the calls to MS and that saves even more money.

Given all the testing you have to do when you make software changes, I suspect they will make this change in conjunction with other changes. It's more cost effective to do one system update that incorporates fixes to several problems. That way you go through the testing phase once, and you do one system update. So (hopefully!) this is on the list of things to fix the next time they do an update of DVC's computer systems.

but all DVC costs become member cost.

I won't pay to fix this problem. and I have a hard time seeing other members, who have never even transfer a point, spending the money to fix this problem.

this is not something that most members do.

 

[ScooterL]

YES!!!

But it would also keep people with multiple contracts from being able to do a transfer to themselves.

Well, yes...which keeps someone from transferring (for example) OKW points to BWV and using those OKW points to make an 11 month reservation at BWV...and I thought that was the whole point of the current policy to limit transfers?

Laura

 

[fishermouse]

It's not likely DVC will spend to much time or money on this since it affects a very small number of owners. The ones affected the most, are exactly the people dvc wants to stop. Of course occasionally someone legit will be prevented from doing transfer. I bet 99.9% of us we wil not be affected after all how many people really do more than 1 transfer a year?

 

[CarolMN]

I agree with spicey - I do not want to pay for an expensive upgrade if the problem can be corrected by enforcing the POS.

As I've posted elsewhere, I do not have a lot of sympathy for situations like the one that LisaS described in the post above - the only thing being limited is the transfer of points between members. There is nothing to stop a member from making a reservation for another member. It may not be as convenient, but the BCV owner could surely find an OKW owner who would be willing to rent them a GV reservation

As far as there being a limited number of points that can be tranfered to a BCV member, I see that as a function of "buy where you want to stay". Thus, an advantage to purchasing one of the larger resorts is that it may be easier to find someone to transfer you points when you need them.

Best wishes -

 

[skelooch]

To me the issue is not about the 1 transfer per year, the big problem that needs to be corrected is the morphing of points. There are many owners of multiple resorts, I think it is obvious why they wouldn't think that is an issue, or care to even talk about it ( and would never admit they take advantage it ), stopping the morphing issue can only hurt them.
As it is now they have the best of both worlds, at the expense of those that only own at the smaller more desireable resorts such as BCV, BWV, VWL.

Unless it gets fixed, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to buy the majority of your points at the cheapest resort you can, do an Add-On of 25 points at say BCV, presto do your transfer and book at the 11 month window at BCV.
I'm sure it's already happening more than anyone is willing to admit, including MS.

All I know is until it gets fixed, I can only get hurt by it.

 

[skelooch]

I just had another thought, I would be extremely interested to see what resorts (or contracts if you prefer) receive the most points trnsferred into them.

Anyone have any guesses?

 

[spiceycat]

corrected is the morphing of points.

didn't know this could be done until DVC announced it....

don't think I am the only one.

I own at VWL, BWV and OKW. so I could move all my OKW points to BWV - is that what you are saying?

this seems a bit strange. you can't transfer without MS doing it. So how can they transfer from one resort to another resort. this is not something an owner can do alone. So how about telling MS not to do this in the future. No program would be necessary.

as far as resorts transferring my guess would be BWV - it has more combination owners than BCV or VWL does. It is bigger. but I don't know.

I have transfer twice in 13 years - both times I was asked.

 

[ScooterL]

Of course occasionally someone legit will be prevented from doing transfer. I bet 99.9% of us we wil not be affected after all how many people really do more than 1 transfer a year?

I had some extra points this year, but because of the new rule, I was not able to help people who were looking for just 9 or 2 points, or some other small number to help complete a reservation, and I found that to be frustrating, because I was able to do that last year.

Laura

 

[LisaS]

It's not likely DVC will spend to much time or money on this since it affects a very small number of owners.

It would be interesting to know how many owners have been unable to get a reservation during the 11-month window due to point morphing, but I don't think even DVC knows. I'm guessing the morphing affects BCV owners the most and maybe VWL owners to some extent. But then again, even if it's a small number of members losing out, it's very disheartening if you happen to be the one shut out of your home resort because points from other resorts are being used at the 11-month window.

 

[mochabean]

I had some extra points this year, but because of the new rule, I was not able to help people who were looking for just 9 or 2 points, or some other small number to help complete a reservation, and I found that to be frustrating, because I was able to do that last year.

Laura

If DVC limited INCOMING transfers to 1 per year, while allowing unlimited OUTGOING transfers, then many people who need just a few points could be helped by a single person with extra points, while still having the same overall impact on people who abuse the transfers.

 

[mochabean]

Here's an idea, whether legal or not who knows, but give it some thought:

What if DVC made a rule that said any transferred points cannot be used for reservations more than 7 months out?

This way, the home resort advantage of morphed points is gone. No more abusing the system. And if a member is trying to get together enough points from multiple sources for a GV or long trip to be booked at 11 months out, then instead of transferring, renting a reservation for one or more nights from multiple people, and linking the reservations, would accomplish the same goal (albeit with more work required).

This rule has the advantage of eliminating (not just minimizing) any abuse of the system with respect to morphing points and home resort advantage, while still allowing members to obtain rooms they desire at 11 months out. In addition, this puts the additional burden on the person wanting the reservation, where IMO it rightfully belongs, instead of MS.