Kato, on 04 December 2011 - 06:07 PM, said:
You didn't experience a problem, so there can't be a problem there - that seems to be your repeated response. Pastyboy has a problem, but obviously has a hidden agenda, so there must be something wrong with the way he's operating the system. There must be, because entrant "X" has entered first cab off the rank for three years in succession. What a crock of shit - even blind Freddy can see that the system seems to be favouring some entrants over others. As I said - why it is, we can't yet determine. So, how does that give a potential entrant control over their fate?
Oh, and 870 out of 1300 is a lot closer to 67% than 80%, so it's more like 33% (one person in THREE) MIGHT be saying it's a stuff up, if the entry process treated them as shabbily as, say, Pastyboy.
I thought you started this thread for people to list problems unemotionally so that I can take it further. That is why I have only made one response.
I encourage others to do what your original intent was with the thread.
I DID NOT say there was no problem because I did not have a problem. I just relayed mine and many others experience. I told pastyboy that "I admit I don't know what his problem"
We don't know whether the people Action registered for had browser problems, you are stabbing in the dark - and doesn't that tell you a lot that he could do that on two devices? As far as we know all known browsers were successfully used by several different entrants. There is no browser that had a common problem.
BTW...you were not a beta tester
. ActiveNet have already tested that the forms they build work on all available browsers
. This is their business and they won't be number 1 if not.
You offered to test if it worked on all browsers you could find after complaining that it didn't last year. You reported no situations where it didn't
I had several others test the functionality for our purposes, ease of use , proper questions etc. They used whatever browsers they run and reported no issues.
I don't bat for Active and Dave can tell you that I do not give them slack and actually don't even deal with their local rep. However I am not going to respond straight off by slagging Activenet when I do not have the facts. We all know what was related last year and what actually was time stamped.
Let's wait and get some facts first from both sides and then start investigating and apportioning blame.
As for the 1300 vs 870, I thought we were all saying earlier that people had 'several logons', so lets be consistent here and take that into account. My email account doesn't tell me that we have the big numbers complaining that you suggest.
BTW, lets think like logical IT guys (not that I am one). The ratio 67%, 80% or even 30% is meaningless because we gave away all the spots we had , if we had 1300 then it would be 100%.
Let's just simply accept that >686 logged on and that 686 got successful entries within a couple of minutes. If you can think of a way that more than 686 people could get the 686 spots I am all ears.
And if you really had a lottery then it would be 686 out of 2000 or 3000 or however many registered.
cheers and lets keep the anomalies coming.
I just want to give an example of 'jumping to conclusions' wasting my time.
We got a 'complaint' that the system 'rejected' macquarie email addresses. We referred this to ActiveNet.
I got further emails from the two people and investigated. Checked waitlist then thought, check the entries and found that both actually got entries, not only that one registered a second person and the other got a second person on waitlist. Plus email responses back and forth 15min wasted on a wild goose chase by jumping to conclusions.
Let's relax and wait to see where problems were.
Edited by Colin, 04 December 2011 - 07:39 PM.