Talk:Timeshare/Archives/- 2007

NPOV?

I wonder if this article is of neutral point of view. In particular the criticism section seems to be obviously pro-timeshare, perhaps it should be split into criticism and rebuttal sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.206.233.142 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 17 January 2005

This Timeshare page is missing somethings..

The Timeshare page is missing a few things:

1: Timeshare Resales - The industry is heavy in resales and with the intro of the online auctions listing of timeshare resales there is the beginning of a real active market. The article appears to go out of it's way to avoid even mentioning resales.

2: Point Systems - The article talks about week, and fractionals but skirts points. With so many of the major players selling points and RCI introducing an exchange system based on points it might be helpful to define these.

3: Timeshare User Groups - Timeshare user groups are thriving online. Many are focused on a particular resort system but their are general Timeshare User Groups online with a host of information.

4: Home Owners Associations (HOA's and POA's) - The article discusses issues like maintenance and fees but does not mention that these are controlled by the Boards controlling the associations for the resort. These often start life controlled by the developer but most (not all) transition to being controlled by the owners themselves.

5: Red, White and Blue - No mention of season color! Such a basic item when considering or discussing timeshare and not one reference or explanation of high season, shoulder season and off season.

6: Trading Companies - If you list one, you should list them all or at least give it a good effort. In the article you mention only RCI, and only make general references to a second trading company. The article completely misses that the industry has spawned several competing trading/exchanging companies.

The article also fails to explain that while RCI and that second exchange company (Interval Int'l) have carved up most of the resorts so any given resort will most likely exchange only with Interval to the exclusion of RCI or many more only exchange with RCI to the exclusion of Interval. And that while that is true the independant exchange organizations can exchange condos with any owner at any resort that they choose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leturno (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 May 2005 Scott <signature omitted previously, corrected 11-18-2005>

(or Red, Yellow and Green) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.131.10 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 3 August 2005

One glaringly obvious flaw of this page is that it doesn't consistently use "timeshare" as a single word. It flucuates randomly between timeshare and time share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.243.151 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 June 2006

The quest for impartial timeshare content

Though the current article covers a lot of ground, it is true that it skips over some areas. IMO, it seems likely that someone from RCI wrote this article. I have no grounds to complain about this, since I posted a link to my company's blog in the external links section. I figured that, since the timeshare page links to the homepage of an exchange company's website, it would certainly be acceptable to post a link to a page that at least is trying hard to be a source of good information. However, it is important to note that I have used Wikipedia for years, and the last thing I want to do is violate this community with self-serving links or content. This is why I am hesitant to contribute to this article until I have some idea of exactly what, in the eyes of this community, distinguishes an acceptable external link from a self-promotional link-spamming attempt. I don't expect special treatment. If the link which I added is deemed inappropriate by this community, it should by rights be removed.

I can offer some info on timeshare resales, but because I work for a reseller, I'll have to be careful to remain impartial. That's the obvious problem with this industry; even when we have good information, it is hard for us to drop the "used car salesman" b.s. and post something that is actually considered informative by actual, real people. This is why I would agree with the previous post in this discussion- that the timeshare page is largely informative rather than promotional, and that it just needs to cover a broader spectrum of timeshare information.

The resale sector of the timeshare market might merit its own page. As was pointed out earlier, there's a lot of ways in which one can resell a timeshare. An interesting fact: though surveys are regularly conducted which illuminate statistical data and public opinion regarding timeshares (Ragatz and Associates, etc.), no metrics dealing with the resale sector exist whatsoever. Statistics have shown that timeshare is becoming more popular (and lucrative) as a concept, but so far no-one has aggregated any information pertaining to the resale end of the industry. This means that, when you hear that the total of all timeshare sales for a given time period exceeds a certain multi-billion dollar figure, this alleged total could, in reality, be significantly greater than studies currently are able to show- perhaps even twice, or three times as much.

Impartiality is always tough to find in this industry. Timeshare resale brokers bash resale advertising companies, which in turn bash resale brokers. The resorts bash the resellers, who are more than happy to disclose that timeshares actually cost about 50% of the resorts original asking price... then the resorts fire back saying that all resellers are crooks (sad to say, most of the time they are correct).

Accordingly, there is an incentive for the big resort companies to discourage resales. Combine this with the fact that certain big exchange companies are owned by larger companies that own hundreds of timeshare resorts around the world, and you can see why a lot of people have problems when they try to resell or otherwise transfer their timeshare points/weeks, and you can also see why issues like resales and the transferability of points/weeks are swept under the carpet by those who stand to gain from the obfuscation of such.

One good point that the article makes is that timeshare has been perceived as a scam, largely due to unethical tactics within the industry. A few people in the industry are trying very hard to educate potential timeshare buyers and to subsequently create a business climate that does not reward timeshare scammers for their wrongs. This change is equivalent to a massive paradigm shift. As we have seen in the news, even huge, well-respected timeshare resort development companies have come under fire for misleading consumers. This is because there is an antiquated (and in my mind, somewhat criminal) attitude within the timeshare sales industry (both resort sales and resales) which would seem to indicate that THESE PEOPLE OFTEN FEEL THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO TRICK THE CUSTOMER INTO BUYING A TIMESHARE.

So, in terms of impartial information, the subject of timeshare is something of a convoluted mess. If we are to build this article, we need to attract contributions from the entire industry, and this content needs to reflect all the changes happening in the industry right now. In the spirit of this, it would be logical for this article to draw attention to consumer protection issues that affect timeshare owners.

Thoughts, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.40.11 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 October 2005

Thank you for your thoughts. Please sign your posts, so that a discussion could be tracked. I am tempted to remove your link to a blog, since blogs are not considered a reliable source of information, unless it is sufficiently notable to deserve its own wikipedia article. In this case you don't need the external link at all: an internal one will do. The RCI link sits here because it is declared "pioneer" andd "best known" in the article, hence the link is directly relevant, especially because RCI doesn't have its own article. What is missing are impartial references.

If you are going to contribute to wikipedia, please read two policies important to keep in mind when contributing in areas which are relatively new or little known: wikipedia:No original research and wikipedia:verifiability. Basically they mean that everything you write must already be published in reputable and preferrably neutral sources. mikka (t) 22:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Test for an answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accountedit1 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2005: I just made a major update

After months of hoping someone else would do it, I just made significant updates to this page. It is still not perfect but I beleive I made some improvements. I would like to thank Stephen J. Nelson, author of Timesharing 101 for the use of his article to reference and cite for this article.

Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.25.191 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 November 2005

Comments on: Novemeber major update

The changes are major improvement over the old. Great job, Scott. The only input I would have is that, in the section titled "Types of Ownership", there is some confusion in regard to "Vacation Club" ownership and "Point Program" ownership. As a Disney Vacation Club member, I have point program ownership. So, am I a vacation club owner or a point program owner? It seems that either [1] these two are the same thing, [2] one is a subset of the other, or [3] one is not a type of ownership.

Although I am a DVC member, I am not familiar enough with the industry to know what the answer is. Hopefully you or someone else will.

DisneyPaul 21:02, 30 November 2005

Vacation Club vs. Points Ownership

DisneyPaul raises a question on what is a Vacation Club and what is Points Ownership and how are these not the same. I thought it was worth a discussion.

My understanding it that Points ownership is specific to Timeshare resort systems that specifically divide ownership into points representing fractional ownership.

This would differ from a Vacation Club where ownership would not neccessarily have to be divided up in points and may very well be a fractional ownership in a trust or ownership of a specific deeded week but priviledges to a Vacation Club.

I understand DisneyPauls question on this point, especially in the fact that Disney Vacation Club divides it's ownership into points and calls itself a vacation club. But there are certainly specific non-point vacation clubs out there.

I am open to suggestions on how to differentiate these better. Please refer to the explanation on Stephen Nelsons Timeshare 101 article and it's treatment of this topic.

TUG Timesharing 101

Scott

ps.. DisneyPaul, thank you for the positive feedback.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.25.191 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 December 2005

Thank you for the additional editing and links.

Hi all,

I see we have not furthered the discusion on Vacation Clubs versus points. But I do see that we have had some good help in editing and polishing this post.

Thank you everybody for your contributions and Merry Christmas!

Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.31.4 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 December 2005

Why can't I include a valid link?

Can anyone explain to me why the moderators refuse to allow me to link to www.thetimeshareforum.com (The Timeshare Forum) ? I have both bought and sold timeshare recently and have found this site to provide comprehensive information and lively discussions on its forum. There is no advertising and no commercial mission. It seems to be exactly what it calls itself: The Timeshare Forum. There are links to other timeshare information sites on this page and I am puzzled as to why the link I have supplied has led to me being given a final warning as well as being accused of spamming and advertising.

An explanation would be really welcome.

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.149.216.208 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 May 2006

Regarding adding a link

When I did the major re-edit of this page I added a link to the Timeshare User Group (www.tug2.net) as well as a link to the Timeshare 101 document that much of the rewrite was based on. The link to the Timeshare User Group was removed but the link to the document was maintained. The document is a dead end in the Timeshare user group. I often wondered why someone was so insistant on removing this link. I guess they don't like authoritative communities.

Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leturno (talk • contribs) 01:28, 21 May 2006

Sure, I can explain it, in fact, I already have on your talk page. In a nutshell, though, the link you have tried to add to this page at least four times, www.thetimeshareforum.com (not the page you list above, though that appears to be no better), does not conform to WP:EL-- it is a commercial link that adds nothing to the article that shouldn't be added directly to the article as content, not as a link. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to serve as an advertising vehicle or link farm. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

Imagine, though, just for a minute, that we didn't keep out spam-- your link would be buried under hundreds of others-- who would see it? Our External links sections would look like the results of a typical google search, and anyone who's looking for info on Timeshares is already doing that, unless of course, they're looking for unbiased info, which is why they turn to Wikipedia, which is why your link is unwelcome. -- Mwanner | Talk 01:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

www.thetimeshareforum.com is not a commercial link and I contend that "trying to write an encyclopaedia" really means "throwing my weight about and editing in an arbitrary fashion". Why would a link that points to an independent forum specifically concerned with the page's subject be considered unhelpful? I feel your views are subjective, biased and entirely counterproductive to the dissipation of relevant information. Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.149.216.208 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 23 May 2006

I did not attempt to post a link to the timeshareforum, but I did post a link to the Timeshare User Group. I will have to research if this is a not-for-profit site or a commercial site. Does Wikipedia have a definition. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia from being an advertising vehicle, but I hope you will reconsider the Timeshare User Group do to the wealth of knowledge to be gleaned from the many timeshare owners there. -- Leturno 09:06, 09 August 2006

I looked at www.thetimeshareforum.com, and it doesn't look like a commercial site to me. Had good information about scams, etc. I don't know anything about the site or timeshares, but why can't these links be included? We should err on the side of over-inclusiveness. If a link is "on the line," then why not include it and let the reader decide whether it's valuable or not. Tragic romance 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed a lot of the discussion above earlier. The problem with the timeshareforum is that it is, indeed, a forum. See Wikipedia's External links guidelines. Forums are listed under "Links normally to be avoided", number 10. And the guidelines basically call for under-inclusiveness: "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." -- Mwanner | Talk 18:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

TUG is an online community of timeshare owners, just like Flyertalk is an online community of frequent flyers and slashdot is an online community and MySpace is an online community. It is owned by an individual (not me), but it is open to anybody to post to the forums. I'm sure they don't make money off the web site. Really, no article on timesharing is complete, IMO, without discussion and links to the online community, where people can go for help/advice on purchasing and using their timeshare. I notice that Flyertalk and slashdot have wikipedia entries. Dmkahn 05:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The RCI Color Scheme was purely an advertisment

In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I removed it.

The rest of this entry also stinks advertisement. 24.136.232.72 20:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute! Season codes such as the Color time mentioned are very important to understanding the timeshare industry. I don't have time now but I will have to come back and review how this removal has change the article. Without discussion of season codes it makes all timeshare units in all seasons sound equivelent which they are not. While RCI is a company their season color codes are used across the industry to identify Prime, shoulder and off seasons. Removing this would be like removing wire gauge from discussions about power or audio cables. The industry's value for given timeshare ownership or trading is in a large way based on color time charts, you can't simply delete it without debasing the value of the article.

BTW: what wikipedia policy was this deleted in accordance of? -- -- Leturno 09:28, August 10 2006

Timeshare resale

I'm removing this large addition [1], which was added by User:204.119.143.130. This content was originally at "Timeshares Resale" [2], which I've redirected to Timeshare. This IP is likey a sockpupper of User:Timeshares Only, who has tried to keep the original content (along with the spam link) in that article, reverting my redirects. Both the IP and Timeshares Only (and only them) have edited that original article. This additional content doesn't belong here since much of it is redundant, it reads like a marketing brochure, and Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --mtz206 (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah good. I tried to work out where it came from, but Google wasn't any help and I ended up just tidying it up a bit. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

"At one time, timeshares were known for applying considerable pressure to these touring individuals to purchase". Like when, in 2006? How come the article doesn't mention the vast amounts of tricks, manipulation and sometimes outright lies employed by agents to get people to buy these "incredibly hot" deals that can only be cancelled within like 5 days after signing - just about when unfortunate buyers get back from vacation, do the math and realize they've been scammed? The article is total POV crap, written by someone from the industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.72.221 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 22 August 2006

Deeded v Right to use..

Based on years of past experience selling ownership in Europe I have added information to this section.

There are advantages and dissadvantages to all methods of ownership and really I feel this whole section should be divided into different forms of ownership including variations, listing the advantages and dissadvantages of each.

When the variations of each type of ownership are included, the practical differences, usage and rights and limitations of each form of ownership can become blurred.

I do not feel that listing one type of ownership vs another is either informative, conclusive or even helpful.

This is the first time I have contributed to these pages and therefore I have limited my contribution to some additional content.

I hope it's helpful.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.150.170 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 October 2006

Requesting editing help.

Todays date is October 23rd, lets start the comments over from this date forward and clean this up. This article is tagged now with two 'Quality Standard' banners. I do not know if this is because some people are biased against the existance of this industry, that it has been tagged, or if the wording of the article is indeed bias or sounding like an ad. Either way, lets get this article up to standards. There are enough people interested and contributing that we should be able to get this done.

We are to address: To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and comply with our neutral point of view policy, this article or section may require cleanup. The current version of the article or section reads like an advertisement. Please discuss this issue on the talk page. Editing help is available.

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability.

Thanks all Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leturno (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 October 2006

External links

I just removed a large number of external links from this page, both in-text and under the "external links" section because they seemed to be placed there just to generate traffic to these websites. Maybe I was too eager, but before anyone replaces links, remember WP:EL: do not place links to sites that you are affiliated with. Also in this case, I think it should be clear from the article why a specific site deserves to be mentioned. Most of the mentionings were: "many companies such as ABC and XYZ exist", which suggests that there are 100 other comparable companies, without ABC and XYZ being special in any way. There were also a few timesharing associations, for which I cannot judge whether they are "main players" or just a few out of many. Han-Kwang 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There's still a reference to "Timeshare Relief" there, for some reason. There should be links to the online timeshare community in the article. The online communities (TUG is one example, there are several good ones that have been around for a long time) are non-commercial web sites that people can use to ask questions before or after they buy which can help them get the most out of their purchases. Dmkahn 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed?

Should this statement (in the "Methods of use" section) be clarified? I don't understand exactly what they mean by it:

"They also bar members from renting weeks they have exchanged for."

Tragic romance 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting more citations

"However, it is usually hard to evaluate the value of a timshare(sic), thus it may take a while to sell or to get a reasonable price."

This statement is demonstrably false. With a broadband internet connection I could find an appropriate resale price for a timeshare unit in a matter of minutes. It is a well-known fact that timeshares on the resale market do not require appraisals. You only need an appraisal if you plan on donating your timeshare for tax write-off purposes. To say that it is "hard to evaluate the value of a timeshare" is so erroneous that I'm tempted to suggest this page has been vandalized. I think more of these suspicious newer edits should cite their sources.64.140.245.130 21:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

A section on the industry that promotes timeshares?

You know what I'm talking about: the sweepstakes, the free vacation offers, the fax spams to offices...the promotion is an art in itself and deserves more than just a few sentences in the article. Xiner (talk, email) 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture

There should be a section regarding the reference (usually bad) in TV nd movies. For example, there is one on Family Guy when Peter goes to a timeshared meeting of a resort hoping to get a free boat but he change that for tickets for stand up comedy.--ometzit<col> 02:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The page had been blanked

I restored back to Feb 6th, the page had been blanked.

Scott --Leturno 16:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...

Until now, I've constantly referred to Wikipedia for information on all kinds of research. I'm more than disappointed at finding how one-sided this has become about Timeshares and all the options out there in that regard. It seems like Wikipedia is no more than an advertising vehicle for sales crooks to advertise the sales web-sites. It's awfully sales friendly imho. I think if Wikipedia is going to hold any amount of respect it should contain unbiased information, and include information on companies "like" Timeshare Relief who offer services related to Timeshares just like it includes Interval International or RCI (both of which have been included directly in the editorial piece as it is). I notice that the references and external links are also to sites that sell and promote timeshares. Hmmmm, makes one wonder why there are no links to any of the other companies that are perhaps "anti" timesharing and offering services to folks to get them out of their perpetuity contracts. It seems rather like telling a pregnant woman she can only have the child and keep it, or put it up for adoption, and not letting her know that abortion is a legal option just because you're against abortion. Does anyone feel like trying again to educate the public in a manner befitting "intelligent" educators? 67.53.113.226 23:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)K.

Page Reeks of POV

I'm not an expert on the topic -- otherwise I'd attempt to fix it -- but this article reads like it was written by a Timeshare salesperson. 74.96.8.12! Previous comment was added by me. Me2NiK 04:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a few edits that hopefully make this article a bit better. I mostly deleted POV propaganda fluffity fluff, removed all the 2nd person references, and reorganized a few sections. Rahzel (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What a bunch of fluff and nonsense. The timeshare page run by the timeshare industry it would seem.

It really is something else to come back to a page, see that it's been altered, and it still has a bunch of nonsense on it. Granted, anyone can edit a page, so I no longer consider Wikipedia a reliable source for information. It's just really unfortunate that the best anyone can do is to provide only the fluffy information on a topic such as timesharing. It seems to me, that for Wikipedia to have value as a source of information, there should be an all out open piece that delineates the good and bad aspects of the subjects being discussed. Reading the current page about timeshares, no one would ever think there is anything bad in regards to the industry. That's just so patently untrue. There are scams and cons aplenty in the timeshare industry, and people should be warned accordingly. I'm so disappointed by the bias of this article. So utterly disgusted that the information posted is so obviously written and slanted by the folks who run the industry. Yuck yuck yuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.113.226 (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)