Skip to main content

Why are online festival bookings so rubbish?

On Sunday I kindly offered to attempt to make my children's bookings for Radio 1's Hackney Weekend. It was an experience all too familiar to anyone who has attempted to make an online booking for a ticket for a major festival.

To begin with, the site simply crashed with the sheer weight of people trying to get on it, producing error messages that suggest it didn't like your IP address, but I think were simply just its way of saying 'I can't cope!'

For the next hour, every attempt put you through to a holding page that said the booking page was too busy. What was mildly fascinating about this (you take fascination where you can when you are spending an hour repeatedly clicking the refresh button) was that the design of the screen seemed to change several times. I'm not just referring to the times when it only half-loaded and you got a text version, but even when you got the whole thing there seemed to be at least three different versions of it.

Then - joy, oh, joy, the buying screen came up - only to time out before all the information could be input.

For the next 20 minutes elusive sightings of the buying screen would disappear with dashed hopes, especially when over-enthusiastic clicking meant that the refresh button was clicked when the buying screen was on its way, returning me to the holding screen.

But finally, finally, I did manage to get them both a ticket. One and a half hours of mind-numbing tedium. Were they grateful? That's another story.

What I was struck by, though, was the sheer awfulness of a website for this sort of task. If you were designing a real computer system to deal with this, an entry module would hand out queue numbers (behind the scenes) - you'd go into a queue. While you were waiting you would gradually bubble up the queue and your position could be shown on screen. When you reached the top of the queue you could join the however many people the buying screen could cope with and have (say) 5 minutes to complete your transaction. It would be painless, there would be no fiddling about and crashing as 50,000 people tried to access the same web page simultaneously.

In the real computing world this should be relatively easy. Booking systems are not exactly a new idea for computing. Is it really beyond the wit of web programmers to embed some sort of queueing system into a web database? A lot of brownie points would go to the people who sort this out.

Comments

  1. Actuator said...
    Brian, I just finished reading "How to Build a Time Machine" and am somewhat disturbed. I believe time is easy to explain. Time is the result of an organism with sufficient brain power accomplishing the following:

    1. Observe
    2. Record observations
    3. Recall observations
    4. Sequentially analyze observation

    Take any of these abilities away and time no longer exists for the individual and there are numerous medical cases that establish this. You mention comas in the book. Anesthesia that shuts down the brain during surgery is another. When I have a colonoscopy, for 25 or 30 minutes time ceases to exist. Humans have devised electro/chemical/mechanical devices that do all of these things better than our brains do. So time is really a perception.

    When we measure time all we really measure is the motion of the Earth. We relate that motion to a single orbit and call it a year. One arc second of one Earthly rotation we call a second. Then we proceed to measure everything against these motions as a basis for our perceptions of just about everything in the universe.

    What is a specific time/date. It is what, as the real estate folks say establishes the value of real property, "location, location, location." If you want to go back to a specific date, perhaps 8:00 A.M. EDT on 9/10/2001, consider this. At that specific instant wherever you were trillions of neutrinos were in your body going somewhere. The Earth was at a specific point in its rotation and was at a specific place in relation to Sol, which was in a specific location in relation to the galaxy which was in a specific location relative the local cluster...and just go ahead and extend this out to the entire universe. For it to be 8:00 A.M. EDT on 9/10/2011 requires every quantum bit of the universe to be where it was at that instant or it is not 8:00 A.M. EDT 9/10/201. The problem for time traveling is finding a way to put every quantum bit of the universe back where it was at the point you want to get to. In the vernacular of the Southern U.S. "It ain't happening".

    Ron W.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your comments Ron. I think maybe you have a different concept of time to Einstein's spacetime. The trouble with your picture, I think is that time is universal, but Einstein showed it depended on your frame of reference - effectively how you are moving - and that brings the whole edifice crashing down.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou