DeanoL
-
Posts
5,577 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by DeanoL
-
-
1 minute ago, Crazyfool01 said:
Issue with that is the 2 different sales and groups changing dependant on what happens in the first one
Honestly I think it would be a fix to only let people try for one or other. The "coach sale first" thing was designed to encourage people to take public transport but reality is there's enough demand regardless and it'd be better to see coach tickets go to people who *want* to take the coach rather than those doing it begrudgingly because they're worried about not getting tickets on the Sunday.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, BBC7BBCHEAVEN said:
Would not be as simple as having to pre-register your group of six, then require a login for the ticket sale?
You can only buy for the group you're registered in
But I could login as someone else's group once I got my tickets, just share passwords. You'd have to have some weird thing where you logged in before the sale on a specific device and could only use that device. It's not impossible, but it's not trivial.
-
5 minutes ago, gfa said:
Not sure anyone is justifying these - but even with some tickets being lost to them its a far better system than say, the ticketmaster randomised queue or a raffle
I think it's as justifiable as the large groups/syndicates. Both are at odds with the intent of how Glastonbury wanted the sale to go. The only difference is the server issues/IP stuff is easier to fix than the large groups issue.
Network engineering versus social engineering.
-
Just now, stuie said:
I still haven't seen any evidence of these bots securing hundreds of tickets. They'd need access to masses of IP addresses too. I've seen plenty of evidence of people just getting lucky and getting tickets.
The same applies for groups of people as well though. They also need masses of IP addresses.
The reality is it's increasingly easy to simulate have a group of 64 people trying for tickets with a small set of remote bots. With the advantage that those bots don't all have to get their own tickets first before they try for you. But other than that, it's the exact same thing. It's probably what I'd do if I decided I really wanted to go again.
And like you say, maybe that is working as intended. If I want to put that much effort in, I get rewarded with massively increased chances at getting a ticket.
-
2 minutes ago, Nick_ said:
I think that Glastonbury wants to minimise the number of people like that attending. What they want most of are groups of young people who know each other and have connections to other groups , preferably well populated with people who have been before, and who are grateful for being there after having jumped through all the hoops, because that is what will give the best atmosphere for lowest cost.
I don't think that's true. If it were for a start the maximum group size would be higher than 6.
I do think that's where they've ended up, but I don't think it's intentional at all.
-
20 minutes ago, stuie said:
Literally all of this ^^
I don't see why people would not want a situation that is gamed by more effort, more devices, more friends trying etc.
To leave it in the hands of a lottery would decrease your individual chances.
Depends how many friends and devices you have I guess? I was trying for a friend of a friend this year. Guy in his 50s, never been to Glastonbury, always wanted to go, was going to go on his own, been trying the past five years, just one person after one ticket... his odds are really not great.
You have to question where it ends, because people are fine with more effort, or more devices, but then someone codes a bot that simulates 500 devices and uses it to secure a load of tickets. Then loads more people do the same. A situation that rewards effort is only good if you're putting in more effort than the average person. If you're putting in less, then actually your odds are reduced.
This forum is a good example of how things have progressed. Been a pretty good success rate on here for most of the 00s and early 10s as the advice of "have everyone in your group try, have 2 or 3 devices if possible, keep refreshing" put you well above what the average person was doing.
That's not the case anymore. People are a lot more on it. They're forming huge groups that work as syndicates to help get tickets. They're using auto-refresh programmes. They're using bots. They're using clever network knowledge. The average effort people are putting in is going up. Just doing what I said in the last paragraph may not even be above average any more.
(And y'know, fundamentally, people might just want a fairer system out of principle, even if it reduces their own chances. Same reason I'll vote Labour even if the Tories want to give me money)
-
4
-
-
53 minutes ago, Nick_ said:
Thanks for the clear and patient explanation @mjfromthelane - much appreciated.
Wow. I had no idea that's what one was meant to - I assumed you got in, and either there was a queue or some kind of random selection process. This does feel either pointless or immoral, though. Is there any evidence it does actually increase your chances? If it does, presumably it is at the expense of people who don't know you are meant to be doing this, or (like nuclear weapons) everyone feels they need to do it because everyone else does.
Either way, if there are people who feel you only "deserve" tickets if you do this, I can't agree with that.
I did notice that the holding page didn't mention "you can manually refresh" this time around. It did just say "this page will refresh in 20 seconds" which I do think makes a big difference for those who are new and have no idea what they're doing.
25 minutes ago, danmarks said:However people try to justify using hacks or whatever you want to call it -because you can - doesnt make it right. Because others are doing it and why not- doesn't make it right. Because the system is broken to people who know what they're doing doesnt make it right. People can justify anything to themselves if it enables them to get what they want but it ultimately stinks for those who havent got these advantages.
Doesn't make it wrong either. Same goes for setting up big groups of syndicates. At no point do See/Glastonbury say "you may only buy tickets from this server" nor do they say "you may only buy tickets for your group". In both cases they are possible, I suspect if we're talking about intent, if it were up to them, Glastonbury would like neither to be possible. But reality is tickets were sold to both.
-
(Not saying we *should* have a ballot system, just disagreeing that it's impossible or unworkable. Whether it's desirable or not is an entirely different question I have mixed feelings on)
-
Multiple registrations don't need to be a blocker for the ballot system. You could drop the refund option on the deposit for those who are successful so it means you can enter multiple times if you want, but if you enter ten times that'll cost you £75 and if all your numbers come up, that's £750 you're out.
There are ways to make a ballot system fairer than the current system. It's never going to be 100% but it doesn't need to be - and if you can shift it to where getting an advantage requires people risking money, there's an inevitable cap as if you're willing to pay a few thousand you can get tickets anyway.
-
1 hour ago, BBC7BBCHEAVEN said:
It's draining to see people who get tickets every year accepting a flawed system.
I've been in the double digits now, and to be honest wasn't bothered yesterday at missing out, but to lose out unfairly is annoying.
Every year regardless of success I will call out a blatantly biased and crap system. It doesn't "reward persistence" as people love to claim, it rewards being in a massive spreadsheet
A ballot which allowed selected registrations to buy tickets for five other preallocated friends regs would be an actual fair system, but people don't want that because they'd rather a chance to game the system than a fair chance for everyone
It rewards having other people try for you. Know what's better than a spreadsheet of 10 groups of six people each, all of whom try for the next group should they get theirs? One group of six people, and 54 mates who are willing to help you out. Or failing mates, people you're paying. Or failing people, robots.
The issue is Glastonbury eliminated touting by not allowing tickets to be resold, but all the tricks touts use to secure tickets still work if they know in advance who they are buying for. As someone said before, it's just moved the problem upstream. And to be fair to Glasto, it's taken over a decade for us to end up here, so what they did worked for a long time. But we might be approaching the end of the road with it.
Next year I expect to see a couple of things:
1) A lot more services offering to secure you a ticket for £50 or £100, money back if they fail. Completely legit, just relying on bots or cheap labour pools in eg. China.
2) Some solid scams taking advantage of the hosts trick to get people to enter their details on a fake site. -
3 minutes ago, BBC7BBCHEAVEN said:
That's not strictly true though is it?
If you've got the same people repeatedly going straight through and buying tickets (some claimed to have bought hundreds), then there might only be for example 100 people accessing that server but buying thousands of tickets without issue (while hundreds of thousands of people try and access the "normal" server)
Right, but if the servers don't bump you to a holding page if there's only 100 people on them (because those people are getting right through on the dodgy server) then the main server must also have at least 100 people on it who are "through" at any point in time too.
You could maybe argue that those on the dodgy server would be doing their transactions more quickly? Because of familiarity etc? In which case yeah you might have a point and it might throw it off slightly. Or it was biased towards bigger groups. I'm assuming even distribution of group size and average purchase time, but it's not going to have a major impact either way.
-
1 hour ago, ModernMan said:
It's the same every year really. For the people who don't get them there will always be reasons why and "unfairness", it's draining having these same complaints every year. I think we just live in a generation where many people think they can just have what they want when they want and if they don't get it, it's a "disgrace".
Demand will always outstrip supply and no system will every be perfect. The one used now is as good as it can be.
I think it was pretty solid for a fair few years but issues have crept back in over the past couple (I was trying for friends yesterday but not doing next year myself). It's definitely not the same every year. The complaints may sound the same, but what they're reacting to is not - which is why this sort of discussion is important to try and establish what is people just whinging versus what are actually genuine concerns. Apologies if you find it draining but they're not compulsory reading!
1 hour ago, briddj said:It was for me. Clicked back, entered a second set of reg, submit, back in queue, never saw another booking page.
Wonder if there's a difference between clicking back and chopping off the end of the URL? The latter seems to have worked where the former didn't. But I don't know if that's technically possible.
-
11 hours ago, BBC7BBCHEAVEN said:
Well noone can say for sure that's the problem.
Could have been 80% or tickets sold, could have been 8%
We can to a certain extent, because there's no way that server could be processing more requests than the main one, otherwise that would be the busy one you couldn't get through on, and the main one would be easier! So it's absolutely less than 50%. But yeah, beyond that it's hard to know.
-
23 hours ago, The Nal said:
100s of people bitching at See on Twitter at 9.05am. Not pressing F5 clearly if theyre tweeting.
But its Seetickets/Glasto/Emilys fault.
Auto refresh.
20 hours ago, Crazyfool01 said:FML this looks complicated 🙁
Problem is it's not, it's pretty rudimentary which is why it's a problem.
18 hours ago, BBC7BBCHEAVEN said:My understanding (not much!) from other posts on it is that this is also a load balancing issue, it's basically forcing the login to a server that has less access and you get through? I don't really see the difference from this and 2013, the method seems the same with the host file etc.?
In 2013 if I'm remembering right, you could "ping" the sales page, which basically means saying to the server "hey, what IP addresses are you on?" and it would return two different addresses. But if you put the URL in the browser, you only ever got sent to the one address. So people figured "why not force it to the other one?" and that worked. I remember checking it myself at the time as no way was I just going to force connect to a random IP address because anyone could just set up a website that looked like the Glasto one and use it to harvest card details.
This time around people used an address that SeeTickets used elsewhere and it just so happened to work. I appreciate it's a subtle difference, but the difference is that in 2013 the system was literally advertising the second address, it was publicly available information. But then the load balancer was pointing people in just one direction. It's sort of like if you're in a (real life) queue and there are big signs up saying "USE BOTH LANES" and then someone is stood there directing everyone to the left. If you ignored them and went to the right... bit cheeky but it did say "USE BOTH LANES".
This year is more like people going to the "5 items or fewer" lane in the supermarket with a trolly full of 20 things. You can do it. It does work. You're very unlikely to be challenged. But at the same time, you are breaking the rules.
-
1
-
-
Or it could be location or any other thing. It's not likely to have been entirely random is all. So sample size isn't mathematically relevant unless your sample is random, which it can't be, as it's your group.
-
10 minutes ago, Crazyfool01 said:
while I agree my maths tells me that statistically there should be an error within those large groups unless the numbers of errors/ deletions were quite low , that said whilst it was a pain on the day I actually think the right thing has been done as just 1 dodgy reg would block entire groups of 6 during a sale . Seeing some of the posts in this thread it seems some have done all the right things and had registrations disappear very last minute after the festival had confirmed they worked
Or the errors were not randomly distributed? I'd assume with groups being that tightly organised, people all confirmed within the first day or so, maybe it hit people who confirmed during a certain period of time.
-
17 minutes ago, Skip997 said:
I'm fully aware I'm in a privileged position.
Took many years to get there though
Yup, and it's absolutely deserved and needed for what you do.
It is also, much as you might hate to admit it, glamping.
-
3 minutes ago, stuie said:
Emily quotes the BBC partnership and the superfence as the two things that saved Glasto. Without them, the vibe would be empty fields in the countryside vibe.
And it's the fence, and elimination of the free for all, the "edge" and provision of space by the central festival for groups like Skip's that has led to them still having space (extremely valuable space) within the festival for the past 25 years.
I mean, his group are based in Dragon, which was public camping in the early 00s, and they (rightly) got the festival to reserve that space for them because of the work they do. But when someone who literally sits in a campervan, on a field that was previously public camping and was then fenced off and general public excluded, talks about how they agree we should all be in it together in general camping... it's just bizarre.
-
4 minutes ago, Skip997 said:
You've finally gone mad.
A fresh and black tent plonked in the middle of general camping is in no way "glamp"
No it's not. And yet it's better than much of what you get in WV and Sticklinch.
It's almost like those places aren't really glamping either, but that would be mad, because then who do we blame for ruining the vibe?
-
I'd also add that I think a decent Fresh and Black tent is way more "glamp" than Worthy View or Sticklinch scout tents.
People are doing it so they don't have to carry their stuff or because they can't arrive Wednesday and want to get space together. *Maybe* for the showers but I'm not convinced the queues for those are any better than those on site at this point. Albeit you'll likely be nearer to them.
-
Yeah the problem is people assuming that the deleted registrations must have happened randomly, and so be evenly spread across all registrants.
If that was true then, yes, it'd very unlikely those 260 all didn't get deleted. But it's more likely a certain subset of registrations got missed, of which a given a group could easily avoid - be it age of registration, last time they were successful, or some other moon logic.
(I'd also give evens on some of these people who are saying "no-one in my large group got deleted" coming back on here absolutely fuming on ticket day about how they missed out because one of the registrations in their group wasn't recognised. The level of confidence to say that probably goes hand in hand with the level of confidence of "I don't need to re-check")
-
6 minutes ago, blutarsky said:
This is my first log in since July, so apologies if I'm covering old ground - I'm sure I am - but this really pissed me off.
Out of 260 people I'm aware of across 2 syndicates, no-one had their reg deleted after going through the re-registration process.
I can't help feel this has been done purely to appease the whining moaning contingent of people who can't follow simple f**king instructions.
The old ground is people on here literally saying it happened to them, so you've come in quite aggressive, for what it's worth.
-
10 hours ago, Superscally said:
Fully understand people wanting to take the easy life, but saying people COULDN'T attend if those options didn't exist isn't true. Wouldn't perhaps, but thats very different.
I dunno what to tell you mate. Regular parking can be a couple of miles from even the gates. If you don't know a single person who can't carry/push a tent and five days of clothes that far who isn't disabled then... yeah I dunno.
I'll give you that it's a continuum, rather than a binary. It gets harder and harder until you say "I just can't" and then at that point, you probably can if you just push a bit more. But people do reach the point they just physically can't do it.
Bringing your stuff in is always unpleasant, that's not a fun walk. Where it sits on the line of unpleasant, to actively painful, to completely exhausting, to literally unachievable will vary with age, fitness and health. And yes, some people are opting out and glamping instead at the "unpleasant" point - you're not wrong there - but how much does someone have to suffer before it's in the glastonbury "vibe" to opt out?
-
10 hours ago, Superscally said:
...and another thing. The demographic on this site is VERY different to the wider world view of Glasto and likely a lot of the newer attendees from all ages. I'd imagine a very high percentage, 90% of people here would be awesome and fully get the festival and how to behave and treat others. Unfortunately I'd say there is a lot less of that than there used to be, so yes, I'm wailing into the wind, harking for people to be nicer so don't take offence. My written tone, as stated before appears very different to the way I'd be saying this in a pub, hence this.
It doesn't work like that in reality though. It's fine to think you're going around the festival being openly really nice and lovely, and it's only secretly, behind the eyes, that you're judging people on if they're "sound" or if they're "c**ts" - but the reality is people can't hide that judgmentalism half as much as they like to think they do.
Yes, I've noticed a big increase in loutish, nasty aggressive behaviour from folks over the past ten years. But I've also noticed a similar increase in aloofness, closed-off-ness, cliques and such from those who are convinced the festival belongs to them, and that other people are doing it wrong.
2024 Ticket Buying Tips
in Chat
Posted
The ticket would just go in the resale though, so wouldn't be wasted - for Glasto at least don't know about the marathon.
People have a different amount of friends. People have a different amount of tech knowledge. It's fine to leverage one, but not the other.