When the Summer Olympic Games come to your city, the chances are it will be a once in a lifetime chance to see the event. The inevitable excess demand creates a logistical quandry — and we’d like to know if you could solve it in a better way than the organizers of next year’s event.
For those who don’t know, the London 2012 tickets are not being distributed to domestic buyers in the way of most major sporting and entertainment events by which they go on sale at a set time on a first-come first-served basis. Officials believed it was likely using such a system would inevitably lead to what could only be dubbed servercide and, given than 1.8 million people made a total of 20 million ticket requests, they were probably correct.
The system they did use has been controversial, however. It involved ticket applications being taken online during a window of several weeks, with applicants required to hand over credit card details. Money is now being debited from accounts in line with the tickets people have been allocated, apparently on a purely random basis. (Spare tickets for events that didn’t have enough applications will be offered again in a second round of sales.)
That’s led to a range of problems. Some are purely administrative (the money is being debited before the notification of which tickets people have been allocated), but others are more fundamental. Applicants were left with no idea what proportion of tickets they applied for would be allocated to them, meaning a choice between picking a few key events and being left with nothing, or applying widely and praying they didn’t get everything they applied for: successful applicants must pay immediately and must wait next year before they have the option to sell any unwanted tickets (at face value only.)
The results have also demonstrated the way random distribution works. With 20 million applications for six million available tickets, the average applicant should get one-third of the total they applied for, which does appear to be the case. But it’s been reported that 250,000 people will get no tickets, while some are already reporting they’ve got everything they applied for (and are facing a lean period in their finances.)
So while the outcome appears to have been exactly as would be expected from such a system, there are plenty of complaints about the perceived fairness or efficiency of the set-up. Here’s where you come in: we’d like to hear your ideas for designing a better system, a choice that of course involves a subjective criteria for what counts as fair and/or efficient.
To get you going, here are a few rival systems we’ve thought up for debate:
Typical scenario in an RPG: You get at a fork om the road and can…
Teens say ‘for you’ algorithms get them right. Photo illustration by Spencer Platt/Getty Images Nora…
This affordable custom-made Darth Vader diorama lamp was hand-made by Etsy seller and artist "ResinLampMadebyRV",…
For today’s edition of “Deal of the Day,” here are some of the best deals…
SoulStop: It's like GameStop, but for your soul, where they give you a fraction of…
In 1962, Tom Hancocks unveiled his motorized skates on TV, capturing a moment of suburban…