Olympics Tickets - Page 11

Mark · 07-06-2011, 21:39

Trouble with that approach is that the system goes into meltdown. Imagine 1.8 million people all trying to get tickets at the same time - instant distributed denial of service. Most sites can barely handle an event with 60,000 tickets - let alone one with 100x that.

In addition, woe betide anyone wanting tickets for one event - by the time you've fought your way through the system to get one, all the others have gone.

Ticket lotteries can and do work - there wasn't all this mess with M2002 which also used a lottery for oversubscribed events. Big difference there - it didn't make headline news every day - so they must have got something right. This one could have worked too had they:

Told you what you were getting before taking payment.
Not made it VISA-only
Not given away all the best tickets to their cronies

So what if some allocated ticket sales fail for lack of payment. That's what the second-chance sale is for. Their botched-up system doesn't avoid that problem anyway. Fail!

Kitten · 07-06-2011, 21:55

I meant, event by event, not all at once.

Mark · 07-06-2011, 22:09

That'd work, providing the servers don't melt, but would make for some interesting logistics. You'd also get complaints from a different quarter - those who work and can't get online at 9am (when most ticket sales seem to start).

divine · 07-06-2011, 22:12

You're never going to please all of the people all of the time but I can't believe they couldn't develop a better system that didn't result in 6.6 million tickets leaving 900,000 out of 1.8m people with nothing.

BBx · 07-06-2011, 22:20

Should've given one ticket to each person.

LOL

BB x

Kitten · 07-06-2011, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

That'd work, providing the servers don't melt, but would make for some interesting logistics. You'd also get complaints from a different quarter - those who work and can't get online at 9am (when most ticket sales seem to start).

So don't put them on sale at the same time. Problem solved. Sorry, I fail to see any reason why it had to be such a ridiculous, convoluted process leaving so many with nothing. Just to cover up how few tickets the public will actually get IMO.

Mark · 07-06-2011, 22:36

You think the organisers could come up with such an intelligent solution?

Perhaps you could suggest it for the Paralympics. I expect they'll try the same debacle all over again come September.

Desmo · 08-06-2011, 07:25

I don't think there was a major problem with the system as such, I just don't like the way the tickets seem to have been distributed. Some people will end up with multiple tickets whilst others end up with none. Surely it must have been quite simple to say "right, J. Bloggs has got his first 4 tickets, no more for him, next person please". Instead, some people seem to have ended up with more tickets and others with none at all.

Jonny69 · 08-06-2011, 21:06

I agree with Desmond. No reason for some people to get a sizeable stash to leave others with nothing.

divine · 08-06-2011, 21:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desmo

I don't think there was a major problem with the system as such, I just don't like the way the tickets seem to have been distributed. Some people will end up with multiple tickets whilst others end up with none. Surely it must have been quite simple to say "right, J. Bloggs has got his first 4 tickets, no more for him, next person please". Instead, some people seem to have ended up with more tickets and others with none at all.

A reasonably simple preference system would have probably helped loads, allocate an event at a time, people who put it as first choice get first stab, then second choicers if there are some left etc.

When you have tickets, you're not entered into further ballots unless it's one of your choices and is hugely under-subscribed etc.

A bit of thought and development and they could have produced a much more robust system I feel.

07-06-2011, 21:39	#101
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	Trouble with that approach is that the system goes into meltdown. Imagine 1.8 million people all trying to get tickets at the same time - instant distributed denial of service. Most sites can barely handle an event with 60,000 tickets - let alone one with 100x that. In addition, woe betide anyone wanting tickets for one event - by the time you've fought your way through the system to get one, all the others have gone. Ticket lotteries can and do work - there wasn't all this mess with M2002 which also used a lottery for oversubscribed events. Big difference there - it didn't make headline news every day - so they must have got something right. This one could have worked too had they: Told you what you were getting before taking payment. Not made it VISA-only Not given away all the best tickets to their cronies So what if some allocated ticket sales fail for lack of payment. That's what the second-chance sale is for. Their botched-up system doesn't avoid that problem anyway. Fail! Last edited by Mark; 07-06-2011 at 21:43.

07-06-2011, 21:55	#102
Kitten Spinky-Spank Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: 668. The Neighbour of the Beast Posts: 11,226	I meant, event by event, not all at once. __________________ "You only get one life. There's no God, no rules, except for those you accept or create for yourself. Then once it's over... it's over. Dreamless sleep for ever and ever. So why not be happy while you're here?" Nate Fisher

07-06-2011, 22:12	#104
divine Moonshine Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Southampton Posts: 3,201	You're never going to please all of the people all of the time but I can't believe they couldn't develop a better system that didn't result in 6.6 million tickets leaving 900,000 out of 1.8m people with nothing. __________________

08-06-2011, 07:25	#108
Desmo The Last Airbender Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Pigmopad Posts: 11,915	I don't think there was a major problem with the system as such, I just don't like the way the tickets seem to have been distributed. Some people will end up with multiple tickets whilst others end up with none. Surely it must have been quite simple to say "right, J. Bloggs has got his first 4 tickets, no more for him, next person please". Instead, some people seem to have ended up with more tickets and others with none at all. __________________

08-06-2011, 21:06	#109
Jonny69 Noob Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Socialist Republik of Kent Posts: 5,032	I agree with Desmond. No reason for some people to get a sizeable stash to leave others with nothing. __________________

07-06-2011, 22:09	#103
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	That'd work, providing the servers don't melt, but would make for some interesting logistics. You'd also get complaints from a different quarter - those who work and can't get online at 9am (when most ticket sales seem to start).

07-06-2011, 22:20	#105
BBx Reverse SuBo Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: London Posts: 8,673	Should've given one ticket to each person. LOL BB x

07-06-2011, 22:36	#107
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	You think the organisers could come up with such an intelligent solution? Perhaps you could suggest it for the Paralympics. I expect they'll try the same debacle all over again come September.