tickets and how it could be done better

[stuartbert two hats]

As can the multiple failures once card details have been added , this seems to be like someone waving the tickets in front of your face and then pulling them away and laughing at the purchaser . Luckily I succeded but know several people who put in details and were kicked off , went back and did it again and the same thing happened

Yeah, that happened to me last year.  Getting a message saying "sold out" shortly after hitting submit would be better than the site just hanging.

See/GFL aren't interested in the extra investment required to make the site run smoothly for 30 minutes every year.  That's arguably reasonable, but let's not pretend it results in an optimal experience for ticket buyers, it doesn't.

[eFestivals]

No it's not.  It's a white screen.  You do your best not to show a blank screen when eFestivals is undergoing maintenance, under severe load or unable to process requests for some other reason.  You really think that having to click back and resubmit your details multiple times in order to get a ticket is a decent UX?

anything is possible with a bottomless pit of resources.

As there isn't a bottomless pit of resources, a decision has to be made about where is the cut-off point, for where extra spend gives no meaningful benefit. That's the same for eFestivals as it is for See Tickets.

See Tickets believe they don't make any money from selling Glastonbury tickets, because of the constraints Glastonbury has put on  them over charges.

If you want a perfect system for Glastonbury, it will come at extra ticket cost.

Do you really think a guarantee you- just perhaps (cos plenty of people don't get white screens) - not getting a white screen is worth that extra few quid a ticket?

It's one thing being able to design/spec/manage/run a robust system, it's a completely different ball game if you have to find the money to make it happen (something I suspect you've never had to do).

[eFestivals]

See/GFL aren't interested in the extra investment required to make the site run smoothly for 30 minutes every year.  That's arguably reasonable, but let's not pretend it results in an optimal experience for ticket buyers, it doesn't.

who pays for any extra investment? The people who buy tickets.

Judging by the continual moans about rising festival prices and rising booking fees, I reckon the optimal experience for most people is a system that works but at the cheapest price, but perhaps that's wrong and the issue there is about people's ability to do joined up thinking.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

Reading this thread suggests the user experience is directly proportional to the users success at getting tickets. 

[stuartbert two hats]

who pays for any extra investment? The people who buy tickets.

Judging by the continual moans about rising festival prices and rising booking fees, I reckon the optimal experience for most people is a system that works but at the cheapest price, but perhaps that's wrong and the issue there is about people's ability to do joined up thinking.

I think you may be reading too much into what I've said.  I'm entirely reacting to JoeyT's statement that it couldn't be done better.  it clearly could.  Whether it should is a different question entirely.  To be clear, I'm not debating whether it's worth it to spend the money, simply whether the ticket buying process could be better.  As stated, there would likely be an associated cost, but that's outside the scope of my response which was entirely about the ticket buying.

 

I'm surprised the conclusion of it couldn't be done better hasn't been reached yet...

There will be those who get lucky and those that don't. End of story.

If JoeyT had said that the optimal decisions had been made to balance cost and experience then I wouldn't even engage, since I'm severely lacking in enough information to make a judgement.  That may well be true.  But that's not what he said.  He said it couldn't be done better.  Which isn't true.

It's nothing to do with joined up thinking, it's about the point that's being made, which is not the one you're responding to.  If I've misunderstood the scope of JoeyT's post, then fair enough.  You certainly seem to have misunderstood the scope of my point.  I'm not questioning the decisions of See/GFL, I've made a very specific point about the experience of the ticket buying process, since it's pretty poor, irrespective or how appropriate that experience may be from a business perspective.  Since resource constraints do change over time, it's still worth observing that a particular area is sub-optimal even if the system viewed as a whole is not.

As for finding the money, I'm always running against financial and other resource constraints when designing systems.  Sometimes that's my own cash, sometimes it's my customers'.  The decision making process is pretty similar in my experience - always a compromise. I've never created a system that couldn't be better, thankfully.  That keeps me gainfully employed!

Edited October 28, 2015 by stuartbert two hats

[eFestivals]

Reading this thread suggests the user experience is directly proportional to the users success at getting tickets. 

That's absolutely spot on, I'd say. It goes as far as lots of the people who do get tickets thinking it's easy to get tickets, or that something about what exactly they do gives them a super-secret-special way to guarantee getting tickets, while plenty of those who don't get tickets end up thinking the system must be unfair in some way because they of all people were deserving of tickets.

When that's just how random works.

[JoeyT]

My apologies, I should have expanded & explained my original post.

My reasoning for thinking it can't be done better boils quite simply down to the fact I'm yet to come across a ticket purchasing system which when demand is considerably high  hasn't in some way buckled be that through white screening or as mentioned above kicking out at any given stage during the process.

I don't have a massive wealth of IT knowledge so my use of words specifically "can't" was probably wrong.

Ultimately though as human's it's our nature to look for external factors in failure. Which in this process will always be the IT system used. You can guarantee that no matter how good the user experience whilst trying to get to a page is if the user then doesn't get their favoured outcome they will immediately look for something to blame rather than recognising the system for what it is be that chance / lottery / luck.

 

[Steel city camper]

I managed to get tickets for the first time last year and luckily I have them for next year too . I tried so many times and failed it was depressing, I think if you've had tickets for 2-3 years in a row then you should be made to take time out for the following year and let other have ago , if there where tickets left over then everybody could try again ?

[eFestivals]

they will immediately look for something to blame rather than recognising the system for what it is be that chance / lottery / luck.

Well, as can be seen, one of the things that gets blamed is the very fact that it's chance and luck. Some people think it should be a simple queue.

Tho when they say that they're imagining themselves as one of the people in that queue and getting their tickets via it.

The real problem is that some will always be left on the outside, because more people want to go than tickets are available - and no selling system will sort that bit out.

[Festival Liam]

Interestingly today was the Harry Potter priority ticket sale. They are using a queue system, which seems to be working well with around 35000 people online initially. I think the main sale is Friday. I doubt the numbers will reach that of Glastonbury, but it could be an indicator that large numbers can be processed in a queue successfully. It would involve some horrific waiting though..

[Harry49]

Sorry if this has been mentioned earlier but if the main aim is to make the system random and fair to all, why not simply run it as a lottery. Pretty sure that is how Led Zep managed it  for their one off concert at the O2

All registrations go into the virtual hat, and on a designated day super computer selects 50,000 winners.

Winners receive email notification and are given 48 hours to register themselves and 1 other person who was also registered.

Lottery is run again and second selection of winners is notified etc etc

This would clear up the problems with the registration as system would be able to cope with 50,000 rather than 1million. Winners happy, losers unhappy but at least it would be over painlessly and quickly. 

No doubt this is too easy so look forward to hearing why?

.

 

[eFestivals]

Sorry if this has been mentioned earlier but if the main aim is to make the system random and fair to all, why not simply run it as a lottery.

There's nothing to stop people making multiple registrations to take part in the lottery and so increase their chances of winning.

I also think it would increase the numbers who'[d want to try to go, as it would make it so effort-free there'd be nothing to lose by trying, you might get lucky.

(While opening it up to new people isn't necessarily a bad thing, I don't want there to be less chance of me getting a ticket).

[russycarps]

Sorry if this has been mentioned earlier but if the main aim is to make the system random and fair to all, why not simply run it as a lottery. Pretty sure that is how Led Zep managed it  for their one off concert at the O2

All registrations go into the virtual hat, and on a designated day super computer selects 50,000 winners.

Winners receive email notification and are given 48 hours to register themselves and 1 other person who was also registered.

Lottery is run again and second selection of winners is notified etc etc

This would clear up the problems with the registration as system would be able to cope with 50,000 rather than 1million. Winners happy, losers unhappy but at least it would be over painlessly and quickly. 

No doubt this is too easy so look forward to hearing why?

.

 

 

A lot of people go in families. I feel the festival would lose a lot if this was no longer possible.

 

 

[Peroni]

You probably wouldn't be very calm if you were in the queue for Glastonbury and were told you were 250,000th in the queue with a six hours to wait.

 

Yes I posted the screen grab of it earlier - did make me pretty much useless at work today for an hour whilst I waited, got in at 11am and immediately behind 13K other people.  Did get through to buy but sold old before I could put in card details... 

[Harry49]

There's nothing to stop people making multiple registrations to take part in the lottery and so increase their chances of winning.

I also think it would increase the numbers who'[d want to try to go, as it would make it so effort-free there'd be nothing to lose by trying, you might get lucky.

(While opening it up to new people isn't necessarily a bad thing, I don't want there to be less chance of me getting a ticket).

Concede point one would potentially be an issue, but greater minds than mine could probably solve it either via cross reference routines running in background of database and or more info required in registration to weed this type of unsavory activity. Maybe even having to pay to register.I Know I know think about the women and children!

 Point two - make registration more painful as above and make people register anew each year. I think most people have this attitude anyway - i'll give it a shot and if I get one great. 

Point 3 - at least you are honest enough to admit it. This is probably why it wont be accepted, we are all self interested at heart when it comes to Glasto. We want random, we want fair but just as long as we dont lose out. The actual change in odds in getting a ticket would probably not change that much but we kid ourselves that we have the inside knowldge to get us through on ticket day. Take the human element out and our advantage goes.

[stuartbert two hats]

 

Yes I posted the screen grab of it earlier - did make me pretty much useless at work today for an hour whilst I waited, got in at 11am and immediately behind 13K other people.  Did get through to buy but sold old before I could put in card details... 

Well that certainly helped remove the stress <sarcasm tag>

[Harry49]

 

A lot of people go in families. I feel the festival would lose a lot if this was no longer possible.

 

 

Yes I agree, that is the big downside as far as i can see. The large groups make up a lot of the atmosphere. 

Increase winners allocation to 4 or 6 perhaps

[DeanoL]

I've covered in fairly great detail earlier in the thread how a lottery system could work (I'm not proposing they move to it, but it's very much viable).

Essentially, you register in groups, each group gets one entry in the ballot (the odds of any single person then getting a ticket are the same - the maths is up-thread)

Multiple registrations can be avoided by opening entry to the ballot for just a couple of days in April, you put your card details in there and then, and if you're successful, you are charged. So multiple registrations risk paying two or three times the cost of the ticket (and if you're rich enough to do that, there are other ways to get a ticket).

It would create other problems - last refund date would be earlier, money would no longer be split between two tax years. But a system could work.

[Harry49]

I've covered in fairly great detail earlier in the thread how a lottery system could work (I'm not proposing they move to it, but it's very much viable).

Essentially, you register in groups, each group gets one entry in the ballot (the odds of any single person then getting a ticket are the same - the maths is up-thread)

Multiple registrations can be avoided by opening entry to the ballot for just a couple of days in April, you put your card details in there and then, and if you're successful, you are charged. So multiple registrations risk paying two or three times the cost of the ticket (and if you're rich enough to do that, there are other ways to get a ticket).

It would create other problems - last refund date would be earlier, money would no longer be split between two tax years. But a system could work.

I knew I would not have been the first to think of it. Your group registration suggestion covers the major downside as well. As you can see my lack of effort in reading whole thread places me firmly in the "lazy as a man can be" camp.

[Smeble]

i wonder what effect upping the number of tickets you can buy would have on things?

if you have 50 in a group all trying to get through and one person can by 50 tickets then as soon as one person does get through that's 50 people cleared from the system straight away.

as it stands those 50 will stay on until 9 have got through and bought a full allocation each. And may never clear if only 4 get through.

obviously 50 is extreme but what about 10 or 15?

ive never managed to buy tickets myself, once you have bought tickets, are you ejected from the ticket page or can you just go back and buy more?

 

Edited October 28, 2015 by Smeble

[dingbat2]

I think that noone on here really wants a truly fair system – it would mean they wouldn’t be able to go every year which would drive fear into all efesters. A ballot system would allow 140,000 people to picked out at random (ignoring the complexity around groups). The successful punters would then go the back of the queue, next year 140,000 people are picked out of the remaining 160,000 unsuccessful punters from the first year (assuming  there were 300,000 registrations trying for tickets originally) The following year the 20,000 other registrations would be guaranteed a ticket + 120,000 from the original lucky punters. It would mean a punter could only go every 2.2 years, but would at least be guaranteed a ticket and its fair! A horrible thought. Any new registrations could join the front of the queue each year

[eFestivals]

Concede point one would potentially be an issue, but greater minds than mine could probably solve it either via cross reference routines running in background of database and or more info required in registration to weed this type of unsavory activity. Maybe even having to pay to register.I Know I know think about the women and children!

It would be easy enough to remove the obvious duplicate registrations, but just about impossible to deal with ones using false names &/or addresses.

And if it's pay-for, that means you can buy yourself a greater chance of getting a ticket.

 

Point 3 - at least you are honest enough to admit it. This is probably why it wont be accepted, we are all self interested at heart when it comes to Glasto. We want random, we want fair but just as long as we dont lose out. The actual change in odds in getting a ticket would probably not change that much but we kid ourselves that we have the inside knowldge to get us through on ticket day. Take the human element out and our advantage goes.

It's selfish, yes, but I still reckon there's a bit more to it than that.

It's already over-subscribed, so there's no necessity to attract more potential buyers. If the numbers wanting to go drop they can always change to a lottery to get extra numbers at that point.

I also like the current system as it rewards trying & patience more than it does a casual attempt, whereas with a lottery or queuing system the casuals get an equal chance of getting tickets. I think rewarding those who want to go more more-so than the casuals (while not excluding the casuals entirely) is just about the perfect system

[DeanoL]

I don't think a lottery with registrations being excluded if people have gone the previous year would work, as people would just re-register. That's a system where I struggle to see how to make it work without vast administrative overheads (would also cause a 2-3 year waiting list for the festival).

A truly random lottery on a year by year system is viable though, if not ideal.

[matt2007]

After many years of going and then one year not getting a ticket I decided to do something different and now volunteer. Would not do anything else ever again and know in advance that I will be there in 2017 and beyond. Get there a week before, do 20 hours work, free food and showers, and no ticket price.

Not to mention the numerous crew bars!!!!

[Pinhead]

Sell 'em all through HMV or similar again - that would sort the speculators from the dedicated. International sales can continue to use the Internet and purchase from a reserved pool like for the coaches. I appreciate this is not a particularly fair or likely situation to arise however and that just goes to show how though not perfect, the current solution is comparatively fair.