Redweek is a disappointment

I have felt RedWeek is a disappointment, a subscription to Timesharing today is a better source of information. Good-luck!

katiea14 wrote:

I have felt RedWeek is a disappointment, a subscription to Timesharing today is a better source of information. Good-luck!

As a subscriber to both entities, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

One benefit of the forum venue (whether it's Redweek or any of the several others out there) is that the forum venue allows for ongoing exchange of information and ideas (and yes, sometimes disagreements as well). A magazine published once evry two months, on the other hand, is much more one sided. It's just "here it is in print, read it" with no opportunity for interaction, correction, or questions. Moreover, there is a whole lot of advertising to weed through in order to get to the substantive and/or informative content.

It's probably fair to say that, in general, TT may have a more knowledgeable and experienced reader base than Internet sites like RedWeek, but I still feel that the "interactive" nature of forums is a lot more interesting. There is no avenue for a reader of the stand alone printed page to ask any questions, offer opposing viewpoints, add material to info already presented, etc. in "real time" (if ever).

You are certainly entitled to your make your own judgements, comparisons and decisions, but for $14.99 per year, I personally think that Redweek is a good resource (in spite of the occasional forum squabbles). Having subscribed to Timesharing Today for a long time, I am willing to say that it's content is usually "considerably less than impressive" and, when renewal time comes along, I likely won't even bother. Just my personal view and opinion. Your mileage may vary.

katiea14 wrote:

I have felt RedWeek is a disappointment, a subscription to Timesharing today is a better source of information. Good-luck!

I was once a member of Timesharing Today, but I really didn't get much out of their publication so I cancelled after a couple of years.

Also TT's message boards need updating drastically since it's not easy to decipher the different posts as they are not categorized. They've used the same message format for years. I believe if they changed their forum/message format they would have a much better product.

My disappointment with Redweek is in their definition of "features". We always want a full kitchen when we exchange, yet Redweek NEVER posts that information. It's been a standard description term in any RCI listing for many years (I AM NOT A FAN OF RCI!), so why can't Redweek do the same?

hankj3 wrote:

My disappointment with Redweek is in their definition of "features". We always want a full kitchen when we exchange, yet Redweek NEVER posts that information. It's been a standard description term in any RCI listing for many years (I AM NOT A FAN OF RCI!), so why can't Redweek do the same?

Hey Hank,

On the individual posting pages you should see where it shows "kitchen" and yes or no beside it. That is on the rental and resale posting but you're right, we don't show it on the exchanges. I'll check to see if that is something we will be adding in the near future.

Thanks, Marty

hankj3 wrote:

My disappointment with Redweek is in their definition of "features". We always want a full kitchen when we exchange, yet Redweek NEVER posts that information. It's been a standard description term in any RCI listing for many years (I AM NOT A FAN OF RCI!), so why can't Redweek do the same?

Hi again,

We hope to improve this in the future but for now we have only the information that is given to us from our partner company.

Thanks, Marty