Tickets on sale Sunday 7 Oct

[jameshunt]

If I had to guess I'd say that Eavis charges what he needs to to cover his costs and the other festivals, which provide much less, charge as much as they can. So they set their prices to Glastonbury levels rather than the other way around.

[eFestivals]

If I had to guess I'd say that Eavis charges what he needs to to cover his costs

As I understand it, that was pretty much what he was doing until after the 2008 festival. The late sell-out in 2008 had Eavis thinking he wouldn't cover his costs, because he'd been budgeting things on a sell-out (presumably a business complacency that started when it became a guaranteed sell-out).

The worry that caused had them re-evaluate their approach to things, for it to be run on a tighter commercial basis than it had been doing. The "festival inflation" convo i mention above came a year or two after that.

[jameshunt]

As I understand it, that was pretty much what he was doing until after the 2008 festival. The late sell-out in 2008 had Eavis thinking he wouldn't cover his costs, because he'd been budgeting things on a sell-out (presumably a business complacency that started when it became a guaranteed sell-out).

The worry that caused had them re-evaluate their approach to things, for it to be run on a tighter commercial basis than it had been doing. The "festival inflation" convo i mention above came a year or two after that.

[markeee]

No. I was on the international booking line for the whole duration of ticket sales last year and never once managed to get through.

Don't know anyone who managed to get tickets that way either.

[Dizzy2012]

So a bit of an age old question, is it better to get loads of screens on one laptop going and keep refreshing constantly or, when it says "waiting for response, you're ina queue" do you believe it and leave it running?

Also, if we had 2x different laptops on the same wifi at home, would this make for a better chance?

Do work computers usually get through quicker than home ones?

Sorry, not really very understanding of internet connections....

Any advice?

(Great to be back on this site again!! have had to sort of stay away for fear of bringing on a depression but think we're definitely close enough again to join you all!!)

[eFestivals]

So a bit of an age old question, is it better to get loads of screens on one laptop going and keep refreshing constantly or, when it says "waiting for response, you're ina queue" do you believe it and leave it running?

the "queue" on See Tickets is not a real queue where you progress steadily towards the front of that queue.

Instead it simply retries - with a refresh - to get a working connection every now and then (every 20 seconds, I think).

So if you refresh the browser manually every ten seconds, then you'll be making twice as many attempts at trying to get (thru luck) a working connection.

Also, if we had 2x different laptops on the same wifi at home, would this make for a better chance?

I believe this will be more effective than one computer with two browser windows from the same browser, but I can't guarantee it.

But if what I've said there is correct, then you can get the same effect by using one computer with two distinct browser (eg: Internet Explorer, and Firefox). If you used two windows from one browser, I believe it's the case that they'll use the same browser session which means that one window would be no less effective.

Do work computers usually get through quicker than home ones?

In theory it shouldn't make any difference, because getting a working connection is simply about your request for a connection hitting the See Tickets server at the exact moment it has an available connection to give you.

However, the reality might be slightly (tho immeasurably) different, because the traffic from your request might route to See Tickets in a slightly more efficient way because a work connection might not be having to 'fight' it's way there in the same way as people using domestic broadband services.

If I had a (different) work connection available to me personally, I wouldn't bother going to work to use it. I don't feel that the difference would be great enough to make it worthwhile.

Lots of people will say "do it this way, it works better" - but ignore them. Bear in mind that some people will ALWAYS be getting thru while you are not - it's the fact of others getting thru that will be stopping you getting thru.

At the end of the day who gets thru at any particular moment is massively more down to luck than any other factor. Once a person has got thru, their browser session will keep their connection so they can continually get a connection - which is why they end up believing that they've found some secret method that lets them always get thru while others aren't getting thru.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

the "queue" on See Tickets is not a real queue where you progress steadily towards the front of that queue.

Instead it simply retries - with a refresh - to get a working connection every now and then (every 20 seconds, I think).

So if you refresh the browser manually every ten seconds, then you'll be making twice as many attempts at trying to get (thru luck) a working connection.

I believe this will be more effective than one computer with two browser windows from the same browser, but I can't guarantee it.

But if what I've said there is correct, then you can get the same effect by using one computer with two distinct browser (eg: Internet Explorer, and Firefox). If you used two windows from one browser, I believe it's the case that they'll use the same browser session which means that one window would be no less effective.

In theory it shouldn't make any difference, because getting a working connection is simply about your request for a connection hitting the See Tickets server at the exact moment it has an available connection to give you.

However, the reality might be slightly (tho immeasurably) different, because the traffic from your request might route to See Tickets in a slightly more efficient way because a work connection might not be having to 'fight' it's way there in the same way as people using domestic broadband services.

If I had a (different) work connection available to me personally, I wouldn't bother going to work to use it. I don't feel that the difference would be great enough to make it worthwhile.

Lots of people will say "do it this way, it works better" - but ignore them. Bear in mind that some people will ALWAYS be getting thru while you are not - it's the fact of others getting thru that will be stopping you getting thru.

At the end of the day who gets thru at any particular moment is massively more down to luck than any other factor. Once a person has got thru, their browser session will keep their connection so they can continually get a connection - which is why they end up believing that they've found some secret method that lets them always get thru while others aren't getting thru.

[thetime]

Just a quick question.

Night before ticket day im seeing radiohead and stopping in a hotel. So wont be home to buy tickets on laptop, does it make any difference going through the process on your smartphone? For example waiting and timeouts etc etc?

[Dizzy2012]

the "queue" on See Tickets is not a real queue where you progress steadily towards the front of that queue.

Instead it simply retries - with a refresh - to get a working connection every now and then (every 20 seconds, I think).

So if you refresh the browser manually every ten seconds, then you'll be making twice as many attempts at trying to get (thru luck) a working connection.

I believe this will be more effective than one computer with two browser windows from the same browser, but I can't guarantee it.

But if what I've said there is correct, then you can get the same effect by using one computer with two distinct browser (eg: Internet Explorer, and Firefox). If you used two windows from one browser, I believe it's the case that they'll use the same browser session which means that one window would be no less effective.

In theory it shouldn't make any difference, because getting a working connection is simply about your request for a connection hitting the See Tickets server at the exact moment it has an available connection to give you.

However, the reality might be slightly (tho immeasurably) different, because the traffic from your request might route to See Tickets in a slightly more efficient way because a work connection might not be having to 'fight' it's way there in the same way as people using domestic broadband services.

If I had a (different) work connection available to me personally, I wouldn't bother going to work to use it. I don't feel that the difference would be great enough to make it worthwhile.

Lots of people will say "do it this way, it works better" - but ignore them. Bear in mind that some people will ALWAYS be getting thru while you are not - it's the fact of others getting thru that will be stopping you getting thru.

At the end of the day who gets thru at any particular moment is massively more down to luck than any other factor. Once a person has got thru, their browser session will keep their connection so they can continually get a connection - which is why they end up believing that they've found some secret method that lets them always get thru while others aren't getting thru.

[eFestivals]

Just a quick question.

Night before ticket day im seeing radiohead and stopping in a hotel. So wont be home to buy tickets on laptop, does it make any difference going through the process on your smartphone? For example waiting and timeouts etc etc?

it might be the case that mobiles are automatically directed to a different server or process (essentially, a mobile version of the website) that might perform better than the full website.

But at worst you'll end up in the same place. The only disadvantage I'd say there is from using a phone is that in my experience a phone's lesser processing power means the same page takes longer to load & display in a phone's web-browser than it does on a desktop computer.

That difference in load speed shouldn't alter your chances of getting a working connection at the See Tickets server for any single browser refresh, tho it will reduce the amount of times you're able to refresh (because you'd need the refresh to finish before refreshing again).

[Mr.Tickle]

(Great to be back on this site again!! have had to sort of stay away for fear of bringing on a depression but think we're definitely close enough again to join you all!!)

[dingbat2]

I have no idea if my theory is correct or not, but I have as many Internet Explorer sessions open at the same time - usually about 25 on my desktop. The key is to refresh the screen as often as possible, however every time you refresh it takes a few seconds to update to tell you you are in the queue. Say this takes 10 seconds. So it you have one session open at a time then you can only refresh 6 times a minute

However if you have 10 sessions open say, then each session is trying independently of the other (I believe) so each session still takes the 10 seconds to tell you you are in the queue. However each session updates independently so you refresh each screen each time you see the queue screen (like plate spinning!) Because you have 10 sessions open then you updating each session every 10 seconds then you are refreshing 60 times a minute, hence improving your chances. This has worked for me every year, the key is to arrange the IE windows so can see them all at the same time and can see each time the screen updates.

As I said, I dont know if what I say is true (especially the bit about each screen updating independently) but it has worked for me every year so far

[eFestivals]

I have no idea if my theory is correct or not, but I have as many Internet Explorer sessions open at the same time

they're not "different sessions" - they're different windows.

On the server they connect to, they're all the same 'server session'. The proof of this can be made by logging into a website that requires you to log-in, and where the login is maintained by a server session (rather than via cookies). If you then open another window to that same page, you're already logged in - thus the fact that a single browser with multiple windows is all the same server session is proven.

If two distinct web-browsers are used, then you'll get two distinct server sessions - because a server session is tied to a single piece of software (browser).

[dingbat2]

I see what you mean. I would be interested to know from people who have just one window open when they try for tickets, how long does it take for the queue screen to appear, and hence how often can they refresh? With my 25 'windows' open I am updating one of the screens every 1-2 seconds. Is this the same for people who have just one window open?

[LondonTom]

I guess you could use private browsing windows to create the same session in the tab

I normally use chrome, firefox and then when that starts going wrong throw IE into the mix to.

Might download Opera to, it meants to be milliseconds faster

[eFestivals]

I would be interested to know from people who have just one window open when they try for tickets, how long does it take for the queue screen to appear, and hence how often can they refresh? With my 25 'windows' open I am updating one of the screens every 1-2 seconds. Is this the same for people who have just one window open?

not unless they're manually refreshing it.

[dingbat2]

Bit if they manually refresh that one screen, are they doing it as often as every 1-2 seconds, as soon as the see the queue screen?

Edited June 22, 2012 by dingbat2

[budvar]

Wow. I don't know how you could do anything but try to get tickets on T day.

[eFestivals]

Bit if they manually refresh that one screen, are they doing it as often as every 1-2 seconds, as soon as the see the queue screen?

it depends how hard they're trying. Some do, some don't.

But the point is there's no benefit doing that refreshing in multiple windows of one web-browser (unless it's taking a while to load in the content of the queue screen) over doing it in just one window of one web-browser.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I wouldn't arrange to do anything now but I got my place for the Royal Parks half marathon last year!

[AcademicPistol]

Absolute madness that people would pay the same amount for Reading and Leeds as you would for Glasto

[The Nal]

Typical Glasto-snob thing to say.

[eFestivals]

Typical Glasto-snob thing to say.

Not really.

If you ignore the band preferences side of things and the far greater number of acts at Glasto, you get far more for your money at Glasto than you do at Reading - more days, entertainment over many more hours, a free programme, etc.

[AcademicPistol]

I agree. Very snobby. Fucking hate that attitude among Glasto goers!

Reading and Leeds should actually cost less because the people going need extra cash for empty bottles to fill up with their own piss so they can chuck them at Nickleback.

[The Nal]

Indeed, but I wouldn't pay for an empty bottle I would just pick one up I am very savvy like that.