25 replies to this topic

[t0paz]

F5 checks to see if the page has changed, and if it hasn't it just loads the one cached (stored) on your pc.

Ctrl-F5 forces it to load the page again off the server, not using any locally stored cached files.

[5co77ie]

Say there were around 500,000 people registered for tickets (some people suggest this was higher), and there's 144,000 tickets available that gives a 1 in 3 or 4 chance of getting tickets - any system is going to leave more people without tickets than those who have tickets. So, for each person who has a ticket at least 2 other people are without them.

No system is ever going to give those that missed out a ticket. In 2007 they sold out in under 2 hours with the same complaints levelled at people who had been successful.

However re-sales do allow those who are persistent more chance of getting a ticket than those who give up - and that's the important point. In 2007 an awful lot of those who were unsuccessful on ticket day still went to the ball.


And I'd like to add - I never hit f5 on the machine which got through.

Edited by 5co77ie, 05 October 2010 - 10:48 AM.

[eFestivals]

AnnaGrant, on 05 October 2010 - 10:25 AM, said:

Sorry to be dense- but what difference does it make refreshing f5, or refreshing whole page on CTRL f5?

CTRL-F5 forces a full refresh - everything is fully loaded from the source (webserver), rather than from the browser's cached copy if there is one.

[Pinhead]

5co77ie, on 05 October 2010 - 10:47 AM, said:

Say there were around 500,000 people registered for tickets (some people suggest this was higher), and there's 144,000 tickets available that gives a 1 in 3 or 4 chance of getting tickets - any system is going to leave more people without tickets than those who have tickets. So, for each person who has a ticket at least 2 other people are without them.

No system is ever going to give those that missed out a ticket. In 2007 they sold out in under 2 hours with the same complaints levelled at people who had been successful.

However re-sales do allow those who are persistent more chance of getting a ticket than those who give up - and that's the important point. In 2007 an awful lot of those who were unsuccessful on ticket day still went to the ball.


And I'd like to add - I never hit f5 on the machine which got through.

All absolutely true. However, it appears that due to the way that See have designed their site this year, people with many social networking connections have been able to exploit that design in order to order many tens of tickets within the same session, to the detriment of those who do not have such networking in place.

My assertion is that the ticketing system has therefore become less fair, and favours those with abundant social networking relationships. I'm certainly not suggesting that a finite number of available tickets for sale will not lead to some being disappointed, only that many of that finite number of tickets would have been shifted to social networking users now as a result of them being able to 'keep the door open' for everyone else once one member had got into the booking system.

I don't begrudge anyone getting tickets this way - I'm sure we'd all have exploited such a facility if we could, but I do begrudge See who I think now clearly put fast ticket sales before system fairness. This ticket day has been a victory for facebook and similar.

[Paul ™]

Pinhead, on 05 October 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

favours those with abundant social networking relationships.

For those of us who didnt get tickets thread

Pinhead, on 04 October 2010 - 11:09 PM, said:

I feel we now have a viable communication network for spreading the word about any resale that suddenly appears.

Is that fair on others who don't have this network? Surely both are just using networking to gain advantage over others  

[Pinhead]

I see the point you are trying to make - however none of us on this list have talked about 'holding the door open' for everyone else on the list - not once. Whoever spots a valid ticket resale gets theirs, then emails everyone else in the list. And if they are able to email everyone else whilst they are getting theirs - all the better. This 'advantage' is available to anyone who's interested.

In any case, as I've said before my issue is not with the people who got tickets this way, its that the facility to do so existing within the design of the Seetickets ticket system, a facility which worked out very well for those with extensive social networking arrangements in the sense of being able to keep open those rare booking sessions that they managed get for 60, 70, 80 - or hovever many people that they felt like buying tickets for within their facebook group. In essence therefore I believe it would be fairer if it were 8 tickets per session, not 8 tickets per registration.

I accept that See probably don't care about having a fair system, but that doesn't mean that we can't examine and debate the way in which it is not fair.

Edited by Pinhead, 05 October 2010 - 02:17 PM.