This is getting ridiculous!

[MamaJojo]

What an in idiotic system. Do you honestly expect people to plan there whole week around Glastonbury ticket day? And I don't see how people should prove their dedication to wanting to go by undertaking in something like this. Most importantly though, do you honestly believe seetickets would agree to this??!! They're not going to want their website blocked up for a few hours each day for a week for glastonbury tickets! They do have thousands of tickets to events and if their customers cant get on the site than theres a good chance that they'll go to another rival which seetickets obviously won't like. The fact is the contract to them will be a tiny one compared to their overall income and the amount of tickets they sell in a year. They have to sell it in one batch!!!

[Digi]

Oh. My. God.

Brick Wall. Banging head....can't stop.

I'm not saying that anyone can AFFORD to lose a weeks money. Read what I wrote.

I'm saying that if you work out the odds, if you have 7 chances to get a ticket then thats better than 1.

[Paul ™]

This thread is well titled now - This is getting ridiculous! desperation for tickets

How about Michael Eavis hides 135,000 tickets inside non branded 5 finger chocolate bars?

Edited October 6, 2010 by Paul ™

[jameshunt]

As I pointed out this system very much favours groups of people buying tickets very much at the expense of individuals buying one ticket - to the extent that for every purchase, seven people can get a ticket by making absolutely no effort whatsoever, or groups of eight people have 8 times more chance of getting a ticket than an individual buying one ticket.

Could you explain how that is any more equitable than this years system? Under your plan 118,125 out of 135,000 people could get a ticket by staying in bed.

[MamaJojo]

But those odds are MASSIVELY reduced over those 7 days!! Your odds are MUCH higher with all tickets going onsale at the same time!

TBH - Nope, i'm obviously not dedicated enough because if losing a weeks pay and having to struggle paying bills and the mortgage is the only way for me to get a ticket, then i'll watch it on telly with half a dozen bottles of festival strength cider!

[stylishkids]

Jaysus - did I say that see tickets had to be used?

all I'm saying is that 7 chances = better than 1

and that if that meant i was sat here for 7 days then so f**king be it.

Christ.....calm down.

[llcoolphil]

You think buying 8 vs. buying 5 x 8, or 10 x 8, or 500 x 8 is equally fair??? The orders of magnitude difference are invisible to you?

Seriously?

[Spuddy]

As I pointed out this system very much favours groups of people buying tickets very much at the expense of individuals buying one ticket - to the extent that for every purchase, seven people can get a ticket by making absolutely no effort whatsoever, or groups of eight people have 8 times more chance of getting a ticket than an individual buying one ticket.

Could you explain how that is any more equitable than this years system? Under your plan 118,125 out of 135,000 people could get a ticket by staying in bed.

[llcoolphil]

I actually cannot be bothered to work out the exact odds

[jameshunt]

You were the one who raised 1000 buying 137!!

...

[ethereal]

If the Reg. number is the unique identifier in a database, it wouldn't be difficult to randomise a selection of whatever the ticket allocation is (135,000), and send out email invitations to buy over a reasonable time window? Then send out further (randomised) invitations to buy for any that are not taken up.

You could factor in allowances for couples, families and small groups into the equation, plus you could also build in a 'weighting' whereby folks unsuccessful in the previous year(s) had priority.

Beats having to join a syndicate or the less-than-level playing field of the current system. The Reg. would need to stay the same for each person (dunno why they make us re-register anyway).

[mrfunk]

Why not just sell them in record shops, like the old days...

You just turn up, they check your photo and you pay for ONE ticket only.

They give you a reciept. and tickets are sent out as normal..

that would take a bit more effort, and it means that everyone that wants to go, has to get off there arse...

It would stop the group thing instantly.

And if people have to que so be it.

[MrZigster]

If it was limited to 8 per connection, then surely the people with a ticket buying army would still have an advantage over those in a group of two (my own circumstances this year), only the group of twos chance would be increased, as people wouldn't be able to hang on and book some of the large amounts that have been boasted of? Tell me what I'm missing here? The groups of 24 would only need 3 to get through. Ooh, but hang on, isn't that what we've got? Have to say I'm truly confused and it's doing my head in, but I don't think there is much doubt that being able to hang on once you were in (which seemed to work for some) provided an even bigger advantage for the bigger groups.

I'm not having a go at ticket buying armies. It's the only sensible option really given the way things work. I've always tried to organise one myself.

I think some may be worrying that the good old, trusted for years, generally works, ticket buying army technique may be compromised somewhat by any more rules about limits on sales, and are arguing from that perspective, whereas others who are ticketless are cross about people being able to hang on and constantly go back for more.

llcoolphil, sorry but this is bugging me. On the one hand you post that it was just you on your own with a computer, but in another thread.

I had people Ive met once ring people they've never met. I had people who I made friends on FB this morning through other friends ring people they've never met. I had friends who've met some other friends ring one another. I trust them all implicitly. This morning was a morning to really, really realise that the world isn't full of c*nts x

Edited October 6, 2010 by MrZigster

[paulo999]

If the current system continued unaltered it would accelerate the use of 'buying networks'.

Network members would (and do) get an advantage in direct proportion to the size of their network.

This could throw up some unintended consequences. One possible outcome - extreme, but by no means impossible - is monetization. A very low cost 'service' that puts one in touch with other buyers. A more likely prospect (imho) is that same thing, but simply as a mechanism for fraud. Join us, hand over your card details for that elusive ticket. A glasto specific version of a 419 scam, if you like.

A definite outcome is that networks would grow. Those pitching in as solo players would have their odds increasingly slashed.

All in all, I don't think that unlimited purchases is a realistic long term policy. My prediction: It'll be gone within the next 3 festivals, and most likely gone sooner than that.

I say this as someone whose friends all got tickets by pooling, which I helped out with. I myself work. No self interest in what I've said above.

[Pinhead]

If nothing, I've at least helped spark a lively debate! The odd thing is, the system used to be fairer - I don't remember seeing the 'buy even more tickets' button on the system last time. After 2007 they plugged a similar such loophole. Why regress?

Edited October 6, 2010 by Pinhead

[stylishkids]

If the Reg. number is the unique identifier in a database, it wouldn't be difficult to randomise a selection of whatever the ticket allocation is (135,000), and send out email invitations to buy over a reasonable time window? Then send out further (randomised) invitations to buy for any that are not taken up.

You could factor in allowances for couples, families and small groups into the equation, plus you could also build in a 'weighting' whereby folks unsuccessful in the previous year(s) had priority.

Beats having to join a syndicate or the less-than-level playing field of the current system. The Reg. would need to stay the same for each person (dunno why they make us re-register anyway).

[Redwinevino]

Just go to the see tickets main page. Go down the the very bottom, click on T&Cs scroll down to about 3/4 of the way down.

Unless I am hallucinating of course. That will be the stress of not having a ticket bringing on errant brain activity.

[paulo999]

The odd thing is, the system used to be fairer

[123ginge]

This is seriously taking over my life now, haven't done any of my coursework for the last week because I can't actually think about anything else.

Please,please let today's resale rumour come true

[Pinhead]

Did it? Can anyone else confirm?

There's been at least one year before (2005 I think) when repeat ordering was working.

What year was it prevented?

[eFestivals]

If the Reg. number is the unique identifier in a database, it wouldn't be difficult to randomise a selection of whatever the ticket allocation is (135,000), and send out email invitations to buy over a reasonable time window? Then send out further (randomised) invitations to buy for any that are not taken up.

You could factor in allowances for couples, families and small groups into the equation, plus you could also build in a 'weighting' whereby folks unsuccessful in the previous year(s) had priority.

Beats having to join a syndicate or the less-than-level playing field of the current system. The Reg. would need to stay the same for each person (dunno why they make us re-register anyway).

The problem with a system like that is that people with little interest in going are guaranteed to get tickets, at the same percentage rate as those who are desperate to go, and that the expense of tickets for those who are desperate to go.

I don't believe that those who are desperate to go should have an absolute right to go above those who don't much care, but I do think there should be something in the selling method which gives a better chance to those demonstrate that keenness to go.

By selling the tickets over a number of hours, it gives a better chance of getting tickets to those who try the hardest - on the basis that a hundred attempts at getting the buying page gives someone a better chance of tickets than just one attempt at getting the buying page. And this is the system we have now. It doesn't completely exclude those who don't try hard - and I wouldn't want them excluded completely, Glasto always needs fresh blood - but it does lessen their chances overall as a group of 'not so bothered'.

IMO, about the only thing wrong with how tickets were sold this year was people being able to order tickets again and again and again once they'd got the buying page. Once a person has bought a set of tickets they should be made to start again at the beginning of the process, opening up the slot they've just vacated to others.

(Oh - and saying "queue" when it wasn't a queue. That was misleading to those who didn't realise it wasn't a real queue).

[eFestivals]

Why not just sell them in record shops, like the old days...

You just turn up, they check your photo and you pay for ONE ticket only.

They give you a reciept. and tickets are sent out as normal..

that would take a bit more effort, and it means that everyone that wants to go, has to get off there arse...

It would stop the group thing instantly.

And if people have to que so be it.

Because that would be a system that's unfair on the people who live in the areas where too small an allocation of tickets was made. It's not good there still being tickets available in (say) Glasgow if you're trying to buy in (say) sold-out London.

With the system we have (including with its current faults - they don't change this aspect), all tickets are equally available to everyone no matter where they're located. This is very definitely a good thing.

[eFestivals]

Did it? Can anyone else confirm?

There's been at least one year before (2005 I think) when repeat ordering was working.

What year was it prevented?

People's perception of how unfair the sale was rises and falls with the demand for tickets rising and falling - this has become abundantly clear this year. The *actual* unfairness (or not) hasn't actually changed for a few years now.

I think last year was comparatively easy, because the ticket sale in October passed many people by. This year, people have wised up to it (plus the success of the last few Glastos ['success' strongly based on what the weather has done, IMO] has made it more appealing to a greater number of people), so there were many more trying to buy, which meant many more lost out.

It's not really any faults with the system used that makes people feel the sale was unfair, it's the fact they didn't get the ticket they wanted. If the system was perfect, those who didn't get tickets would still scream that it was unfair - the unhappiness comes from not getting a ticket, not the method by which a person didn't get a ticket.

[duncbob]

People's perception of how unfair the sale was rises and falls with the demand for tickets rising and falling - this has become abundantly clear this year. The *actual* unfairness (or not) hasn't actually changed for a few years now.

I think last year was comparatively easy, because the ticket sale in October passed many people by. This year, people have wised up to it (plus the success of the last few Glastos ['success' strongly based on what the weather has done, IMO] has made it more appealing to a greater number of people), so there were many more trying to buy, which meant many more lost out.

It's not really any faults with the system used that makes people feel the sale was unfair, it's the fact they didn't get the ticket they wanted. If the system was perfect, those who didn't get tickets would still scream that it was unfair - the unhappiness comes from not getting a ticket, not the method by which a person didn't get a ticket.

[MrZigster]

Thats not true. I'm disappointed that I didn't get a ticket. I'm unhappy that some people had 60 odd chances to get a ticket yet I only had 4 chances.

Edited October 7, 2010 by MrZigster