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.
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.
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 (or Red, Yellow and Green) - 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. Scott <signature omitted previously, corrected 11-18-2005>
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.
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?
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)
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
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.
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.
Scott
ps.. DisneyPaul, thank you for the positive feedback.
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
Why can't I include a valid link?
Can anyone explain to me why the moderators refuse to allow me to link to 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
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 194.149.216.208 (talk)
- 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, http://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)
http://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
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
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)
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....
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