121 replies to this topic

[Mack2]

Hi all.

I know this thread is getting rather massive, and my intention is not to grumble but advise of my experience. If it wasn't such a great race I wouldn't bother. Hats Colin.

My wife and I entered the system at 09:00:01, (different computers on the same wifi) as did a mate on his honeymoon in Thailand. We were initially directed to the 'please wait' page, where the counter was counting down from 15", refreshing every time it decremented to 0. At 0905ish, we entered our email addresses and clicked continue. Now directed to another 'please wait' screen, where the counter stuck on 0 after 15". Mmmmm. Decisions, decisions.

I must have read Colin's email 10 times, and decided to follow the instructions to the letter. "Even if you are waiting to log on (clicked continue) you are still queued in order of time stamp. B patient - someone opening the link 5 minutes after you can't jump the queue". The 'please wait' screen was not refreshing, so after much chatting, and calling to Thailand to check on progress at that end, we decided to continue following the RDs instructions.

By 09:26, I couldn't wait any more. I hit refresh. Yep, screwed up. The web site indicated I was only able to join the wait list, so of course did. Wife and mate followed suite and had the same response. Bugger.

Another perspective from the entry process. Disappointed. Don't just assume that if your entry experience was seamless that everyone had the same experience. I'm not making this up.

And the wait begins, again.....

[arrtgrrl]

I dont know if this is useful, but i couldnt find any cookies on my computer from activenet...
Naomi

[flukeyNZ]

I have had one experience of this sort of entry process ... for Kepler this year. The previous year had problems and this year there was also a glitch because both race options had "Luxmore Grunt" rather than one for the Kepler and one for the Luxmore Grunt. This caused issues for heaps of people as those following the instructions to the letter missed out (others correctly guessed where the problem lay and took a chance).

The obvious problem with this sort of system is that when there is a problem, how do you rectify that to be fair to all? Well, you just can't.

Also, some of us are technophobes and there is the lingering fear others are beating the system in some way, whether it be with multiple computers or whatever.

There are yet other potential issues ... in Christchurch at time of Kepler registration we were having lots of aftershocks - these caused the power to go out in affected suburbs (amongst other "inconveniences"). What was plan B if a bunch of people missed out for that reason? For 6 foot, what if there is just a regular powercut in a big Australian city at entry time?

Everyone "gets" that there is more demand than entries in these sort of races but to think the Kepler / 6 Foot process is somehow not a "lottery" is peculiar, to say the least. UTMB, Western States, Hardrock etc all meet this reality with a transparent lottery - just look at Hardrock ... Saloman could have logged on on 100 computers but it wouldn't have improved Kilian's chances.

I also don't appreciate how a transparent lottery would suddenly mean 3000 people would want to enter races such as 6 foot / Kepler. Intuitively I would have thought the amount of entries in an online lucky dip and a lottery would be close to exactly the same (maybe slightly less in the online lucky dip due to oversleeping / forgetfullness / previous frustration with process / power cut / computer failure etc etc.

The one thing I have no idea of is whether the 6 Foot / Kepler online system saves alot of work for the volunteers - if that is the case well maybe it is a necessary evil.

I should be super-fair and point out that entry glitches aside (I got in), the Kepler was the most fantastically organised race by the most fantastic group of volunteers (sounds like 6 Foot has the same excellent organisation and volunteers).

[Colin]

Thanks for your input:

flukeyNZ, on 05 December 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

Also, some of us are technophobes and there is the lingering fear others are beating the system in some way, whether it be with multiple computers or whatever.

The one person that had as much problems as everybody is described as an 'uber IT geek'

flukeyNZ, on 05 December 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

For 6 foot, what if there is just a regular powercut in a big Australian city at entry time?

Entries would be resceduled.

flukeyNZ, on 05 December 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

Everyone "gets" that there is more demand than entries in these sort of races but to think the Kepler / 6 Foot process is somehow not a "lottery" is peculiar, to say the least. UTMB, Western States, Hardrock etc all meet this reality with a transparent lottery - just look at Hardrock ... Saloman could have logged on on 100 computers but it wouldn't have improved Kilian's chances.

I also don't appreciate how a transparent lottery would suddenly mean 3000 people would want to enter races such as 6 foot / Kepler. Intuitively I would have thought the amount of entries in an online lucky dip and a lottery would be close to exactly the same (maybe slightly less in the online lucky dip due to oversleeping / forgetfullness / previous frustration with process / power cut / computer failure etc etc.

We would never have a system that means someone like Killian misses out. Even now, anyone with podium credentials will get a spot. This is afterall a competitive race too. A race loses credibility and just becomes a 'bucket list' item if we start doing that, and that's the difference between us and Hardrock in this case.

As for lottery, I am not sure how you get a 'transperent lottery' of 2,500 people without a hell of a lot of work..yes 2,500 people is the demand if you collect names over a period of time and market it.

The system, despite what some people tell us about blue screens - and I have been screaming at Active to supply answers- favoured those who logged on at precisely 9:00am- I know that much, 80% of the successful people logged on then,  so it is not a random lottery

flukeyNZ, on 05 December 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

one thing I have no idea of is whether the 6 Foot / Kepler online system saves alot of work for the volunteers - if that is the case well maybe it is a necessary evil.

Yes, if you average the time spent on the race in 6months, it is probably <1 man hr/day

So it is a necessary evil we have to live with, unless we implement the amazing entry race thing

Edited by Colin, 05 December 2011 - 09:26 PM.

[Kato]

Why not just collect names for your lottery for one day, and only advertise this day to people on the six foot mailing list?  Then you wouldn't have every under-prepared Tom, Dick, and Harry seeing a "raffle" and deciding to buy a ticket, you would only get those who really wanted to enter, setting a reminder on their phone / calendar / secretary to do something really important that day - enter six foot.

Besides which 2500 to 3000 entrants is pure speculation, maybe we should stick to the known facts.

Please understand, I have nothing against the race or the RD, I just want not to be frustrated by technological glitches when I go to enter.  And I won't sook or cry foul if I don't get in, if the reason I don't isn't because there is a fatter broadband pipe to someone else's place than mine, or the entry software doesn't support my browser, or some other reason that isn't apparent.  It's just that the current solution seems to be like playing with loaded dice.  A fair lottery wouldn't tick me off at all.

edit - add empahsis.

Edited by Kato, 06 December 2011 - 07:01 AM.

[Supersam1979]

Kato, on 05 December 2011 - 10:20 PM, said:

Why not just collect names for your lottery for one day, and only advertise this day to people on the six foot mailing list?  Then you wouldn't have every under-prepared Tom, Dick, and Harry seeing a "raffle" and deciding to buy a ticket, you would only get those who really wanted to enter, setting a reminder on their phone / calendar / secretary to do something really important that day .  It's just that the current solution seems to be like playing with loaded dice.  A fair lottery wouldn't tick me off at all.

Or justice it really hard to qualify- something to strive for and cut down eligible numbers of people. But is this really equitable? How about a bidding process? What bid yee at auction to run six foot above the entry price? Any money left over could go to forestries to help up keep of track and win some goodwill for runners on it?

First suggestion. Above favors the quicker runner and those willing to work very hard to get quicker - second favors the rich.That said how about multiple six foot track events through the year - I don't know the logistics of that and the paperwork involved but putting it out there. Already been mentioned in this thread, but if you are so intent, then how about just grab a few mates and some support and font for free any day of the week?

Hairbrain schemes? Perhaps? But no more so than others out there..

Edited by Supersam1979, 06 December 2011 - 02:18 AM.

[Colin]

Kato, on 05 December 2011 - 10:20 PM, said:

Please understand, I have nothing against the race or the RD, I just want not to be frustrated by technological glitches when I go to enter.  And I won't sook or cry foul if I don't get in, if the reason I don't isn't because there is a fatter broadband pipe to someone else's place than mine, or the entry software doesn't support my browser, or some other reason that isn't apparent.  It's just that the current solution seems to be like playing with loaded dice.  A fair lottery wouldn't tick me off at all.

Kato,

This is not proven.

I have a very dodgy (not ADSL2+) line that had line issues last week dropping me down to dial up speed at some cases - I can give you the service transcript off iiNet toolbox. Some people used phones and iPads, it did not require a fat broadband.

It works on every common browser. There is no information that a particular browser or set of hardware caused a common problem.

More over, if you look at list then the people that you 'expect' are there and common names are on waitlist that were there before, perhaps people need to start learning from mistakes and look internally rather than externally.

The people that got in were almost all , with some exceptions , the early log ins.

Having said that, I have been furious at Active that they have not given me their view yet, and for that reason alone I would dump them---I want a quick response to convey to people and I have made it clear in writing I do not want spin.

Away for day

cheers

[rodthehornet]

We are going around in circles talking about the internet connection issues, this is one of the problems, but the main problem is that demand has outstripped supply.  In my view you have to look at other events that have this problem, and look at how they deal with the situation.  A mate of mine just emailed me the new qualifiers for NYM below.

The 18-39 age group drops from 2.50 to 2.45
The 40-44 age group drops from a 3.10 to a 2.50
The 45-49 age group drops from 3.10 to a 2.58.

This was a bucket list race of mine.  I dont have a forum to whinge about this, nor a RD online trying to placate me.  I have two options - train harder or find another race.  I know which one I will choose.....

Same deal at Boston.  Last year my age group qualifier was 3:20 and I sneaked in with 3:16.  They have excessive demand, race selling out in 10mins etc, so they have tightened all age group qualifiers.  I think my age group dropped to 3:10 (too lazy to check website, might be 3:15).

How does this apply to 6ft.  Lets apply a staggered cut based on age groups:

18-39 sub 6hr 6ft or equivalent qualifier
40-55 sub 6:20 6ft or equivalent qualifier
56 and over sub 6:40 6ft or equivalent qualifier

Age groups and times could be massaged around the statistics.  The groups above could be for the men and have a 10min allowance for the ladies.  This would not affect the 7hr cut on race day.  Some people will be affected by this, but unfortunately that is the whole point of the exercise - to try and match supply and demand, or at least get it closer to even.  No different to the NYM experience above - train harder or choose another race.

The reality is at the current rate, demand will either remain static or increase.  I cant see supply of race spots going much past their current level.  The current situation provides disappointment to people because of the internet issue.  This alternative will at least put a degree of performance into the equation to put a throttle on demand.

[Jogger]

Quote

The current situation provides disappointment to people because of the internet issue.

yes - having 1300 people hovering over the enter or refresh button at 08.59.59 hoping for 850 spots plus a wait list is as random as any random draw - except no one knows what mojo gives THEM a lucky ticket. the whole idea of the "mad rush" was that the keen people would get up and enter when they opened, but if everyone does that, then it doesn't really help. keeping the same system, regardless of what issues Active have/didn't have/ own up to, will just see a repeat each year of "internet-related issues" regardless of the individual. Most people I have spoken to believe a really random draw is fairer/more out in the open than the current.

Whether the race changes the price (TNF is $330 !!) or the entry criteria to throttle entries is another matter entirely and I will leave that one alone.

[johnnyboyrun]

Jogger, on 06 December 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

yes - having 1300 people hovering over the enter or refresh button at 08.59.59 hoping for 850 spots plus a wait list is as random as any random draw - except no one knows what mojo gives THEM a lucky ticket. the whole idea of the "mad rush" was that the keen people would get up and enter when they opened, but if everyone does that, then it doesn't really help. keeping the same system, regardless of what issues Active have/didn't have/ own up to, will just see a repeat each year of "internet-related issues" regardless of the individual. Most people I have spoken to believe a really random draw is fairer/more out in the open than the current.

Whether the race changes the price (TNF is $330 !!) or the entry criteria to throttle entries is another matter entirely and I will leave that one alone.

I logged on, kept hitting refresh and got in....There was nothing lucky about getting my spot, i planned to be online 15mins before... i dont think having a random draw is fair either... If i miss out next year because i wasnt quick enough/internet was bad/ or whatever reason i would make sure the year after that i was.

[Mick]

Open entries at 3am. That will test how much you want a spot.

[halfwaydown]

Mick, on 06 December 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

Open entries at 3am. That will test how much you want a spot.

Yes, but like the Barkley Marathon - with no warning of what day night they will open in advance.

[Jogger]

Quote

I logged on, kept hitting refresh and got in....There was nothing lucky about getting my spot, i planned to be online 15mins before.

The hundreds of others that didn't get a spot also did the same as you. Is that luck I don't know but it certainly appears to be random.

[Mexican]

Colin, on 06 December 2011 - 05:28 AM, said:

Kato,

This is not proven.

I have a very dodgy (not ADSL2+) line that had line issues last week dropping me down to dial up speed at some cases - I can give you the service transcript off iiNet toolbox. Some people used phones and iPads, it did not require a fat broadband.

It works on every common browser. There is no information that a particular browser or set of hardware caused a common problem.

More over, if you look at list then the people that you 'expect' are there and common names are on waitlist that were there before, perhaps people need to start learning from mistakes and look internally rather than externally.

The people that got in were almost all , with some exceptions , the early log ins.

Having said that, I have been furious at Active that they have not given me their view yet, and for that reason alone I would dump them---I want a quick response to convey to people and I have made it clear in writing I do not want spin.

Away for day

cheers

I managed to get a spot using my Iphone (on Optus Network) at my daughters swimnming leason that started at 9am while holding my other Daughter (1 year old) on my knee by the pool.  I did get a few odd looks from the other parents as my 1 year old started to get very restless and I continued to focus 100% on my phone!!!

Congratulation to Colin and the team for all of their hard work in getting this race to where it is today.

[AlunDavies]

Jogger, on 06 December 2011 - 11:37 AM, said:

The hundreds of others that didn't get a spot also did the same as you. Is that luck I don't know but it certainly appears to be random.

It is luck Kevin. Even if slots are open for a micro-second, someone will hit the right button at the right time and get into the system.  The odds are that in the few minutes after nine those slots became more and more rare.

And so it came to pass that another 6ft Track entry day came and went with (supposedly) incident. Not that I saw it mind you. I just have it on reliable authority (from the ‘masses’) that the system was loaded/unfair/broken/fixed(?) or plain wrong.

For the second such year, I experienced no difficulties. Using my steam driven laptop I opened the registration page at 8:55 DST and waited. At 9:00 am I hit refresh and, as expected, was met with a message telling me the system was very busy simultaneously displaying a counter which counted down from 15 to 0 in as many seconds. I let it count down once and was presented with the same screen. Bugger this.

I let it count down three seconds this time then refreshed, repeating the process about half a dozen times before getting the login screen. I entered my e-mail address as instructed, then clicked on the continue button which went to the countdown page again which I, again, refreshed and voila, I entered my information and registered.

Registration e-mail arrived in my inbox at 9:09.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it common for a website to display a ‘busy notice’ when it’s ‘busy’? Weren’t we all expecting it to be busy? Doesn’t this happen when people try booking cheap flights or get the best deals on e-Bay or queue up at the January Sales in London or New York?

I nearly missed out the year before as I was complacent with the entry opening at midnight. I was actually standing by the PC at the time and thought to myself that I’d enter the following morning, even mentioning it to Donna. It was only when I got a phone call from a friend later the following morning that I’d better get on the waitlist quickly if I could as it had filled up. At that point I thought I’d missed out and was surprised when, in the new year, I got an entry offer.

My point is, I had accepted that I’d missed out, that was that. I didn’t go e-mailing the race director or bemoan my ill-fate to the masses ... it was what it was.

Anyway, since then, the race director and his team has moved mountains to make the entry process as fair as possible to novices, veterans and those that should be guaranteed spots (as the RD has pointed out, Kilian Jornet – or for that matter Tim Cochrane, David Waugh or Mike Le Roux I would think - would never miss out on 6ft). Yet, there are still a contingent who think it’s that same race directors responsibility to ensure that people have the right internet connection/browser/hair colour/star sign/whatever to gain entry (none of which, by the way, have been proven to be contributing factors in individuals failure to gain entry).

I miss out on lots of things – two jobs this year for a start, each of which I’d trade, without too much thought, for my spot at 6ft next year.

I’m not trying to be smug here or anything, I just think some perspective is required.

[Pasty]

Alan,
Just some feedback to your post - please don't be offended because other people have other perspectives.

Active provides a paid service for which the end users (either RDs, or the entrants themselves) pay.   They do a bunch of big races, and usually add their fee onto your total entry fee.  SFT realised a while back, with the growing popularity of their event, the need to be able to control entry numbers.  There are many schools of thought on how to handle this increase in popularity, but simplistically there is the Boston/Kona approach (fastest athletes are rewarded once qualified), the WS100 approach (lottery), the Kepler approach (faster keyboard typist wins).  There are other models (some trail ultras in Canada reward those that put in volunteer hours or volunteer dollars), the Ironman approach (increase prices, though that still hasn't really worked, or get them to enter the next morning at 6am by standing in line). Other races I know added extra events to cater with extra athletes (perhaps we need an official 12 foot track), or run the event twice a year (the Grouse Grind model).  There is no "right" model, but it is the RD's responsibility to choose the model and implement it accordingly.

SFT chose a balanced online entry model.  To their credit, it rewarded regulars (5+ entrants), veterans (1-4) and novices (0).  It reserved entries for elites, previous winners, and other considerations like most events should and do.  It was transparent in its process description.   The race was always going to sell out though.  NPWS limits on entrant numbers was always going to be the deciding factor.  Guaranteed entry opened before all other entries was AFAIK uncapped.  Maybe this will be problematic in (say) 5 years time with increased numbers of 5+ athletes wanting guaranteed entry, or maybe that's the way the event goes. Whatever.  Maybe the Veterans entries should have opened on a separate day to the Novice entires to minimise risk of Active not being able to handle the load - I don't know, but I would guess that this would force caps on all sectors of the event, or Active assured it could handle it.  SFT became more active on it's use of wait lists, requiring athletes to accept their entry opening quickly - there is a whole discussion about that aspect and its advantages and disadvantages, it's discouragement to interstate/internationals, the potential overall increase in risk to the event as a whole, but will leave that alone for now.

As a background, I think I am a net positive contributor the SFT (though Colin may disagree).  I've written race reports, suggested improvements (happily one of which was accepted this year in the removal of the first wave, plus other tightening of entry criteria which I applaud) all of which you can find on Coolrunning.  Colin still may hold a grudge about comments I made over the bus one year when I spectated with a broken ankle, but having re-read the post I believe it was positive.  I'm a RD myself, run an organisation with 1500 members, run xx events a year and work at another xx or so.  I volunteer at other ultra events (recently Marysville & GOW, B2H in the past).  I run xx websites, which takes online entries (one we wrote, one we did not). I work in IT, I additionally run a small IT based business.  I do Admin for CR and have from ground zero.

Quote

Yet, there are still a contingent who think it’s that same race directors responsibility to ensure that people have the right internet connection/browser/hair colour/star sign/whatever to gain entry (none of which, by the way, have been proven to be contributing factors in individuals failure to gain entry).

I think if you go back to reread this thread you'll find that the RD asserted that it was a failure to use the internet correctly.  You left that one off your list.

I've stated it before - I don't think Active will ever fess up to any issue like this as they are somewhat conflicted.  Their entry process should handle any load.  There just seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence around of anomalies to the contrary.   Adz's post here is particularly disturbing though because of the pre-entry assertions that you were queued even if you were waiting to logon.

[brewer]

pastyboy, on 06 December 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

Guaranteed entry opened before all other entries was AFAIK uncapped.  Maybe this will be problematic in (say) 5 years time with increased numbers of 5+ athletes wanting guaranteed entry

Given that there is one hundred and forty odd with four finishes and one hundred and seventy odd with three finishes currently entered for 2012, it it will be probably become a significant issue with entry for the 2014 race.

[Colin]

pastyboy, on 06 December 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

Guaranteed entry opened before all other entries was AFAIK uncapped.  Maybe this will be problematic in (say) 5 years time with increased numbers of 5+ athletes wanting guaranteed entry, or maybe that's the way the event goes. Whatever.  

brewer, on 07 December 2011 - 04:22 AM, said:

Given that there is one hundred and forty odd with four finishes and one hundred and seventy odd with three finishes currently entered for 2012, it it will be probably become a significant issue with entry for the 2014 race.

Before we go down this track, this is speculation on how we will do things in future....we are always changing.

pastyboy, on 06 December 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

Maybe the Veterans entries should have opened on a separate day to the Novice entires to minimise risk of Active not being able to handle the load - I don't know, but I would guess that this would force caps on all sectors of the event, or Active assured it could handle it.  

The veterans had a lower demand, and had no impact from Novices

pastyboy, on 06 December 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

SFT became more active on it's use of wait lists, requiring athletes to accept their entry opening quickly - there is a whole discussion about that aspect and its advantages and disadvantages, it's discouragement to interstate/internationals, the potential overall increase in risk to the event as a whole, but will leave that alone for now.

Don't understand, would love to know more about what is meant here

pastyboy, on 06 December 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

I think if you go back to reread this thread you'll find that the RD asserted that it was a failure to use the internet correctly.  You left that one off your list.

...and if you look at the lists that are up, you see that thye entries are far from random luck. There is an obvious element of people 'knowing what they had to do and when'. Especially as an IT guy, I would have thought you would quickly realise if stuck, that you needed to do something else. Others did that. Not everybody was assured a perfect connection. We and Active don't control that

pastyboy, on 06 December 2011 - 09:13 PM, said:

I've stated it before - I don't think Active will ever fess up to any issue like this as they are somewhat conflicted.  Their entry process should handle any load.  There just seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence around of anomalies to the contrary.   Adz's post here is particularly disturbing though because of the pre-entry assertions that you were queued even if you were waiting to logon.

We are speculating. There is no evidenmce that there were load issues and there should not have been at our load anyway. They did throttle things and therefore some people hung up. We don't have facts as to whether people jumped queues and in fact people like yourself were never in the queue.

cheers

[Unlikelyrunner]

The fact of the matter is that it is highly likely there were software issues,  whether they be functional or non functional.  There are too many people with similar concerns to ignore.

Now I don't sit in the camp suggesting it's fair,  in fact it's far from it.  However the fact of the matter is that software development is not cheap.  If we were to insist that designs were clearer and testing was more thorough there would be a significant cost which would have to be passed on to the consumer.  

I have a few ideas on how to improve the experience without introducing significant cost,  colin I may PM you.

[B1orB2]

I wasn’t able to register myself at the time registration opened so I organised for someone else to do it for me. They had previously entered a Guaranteed runner on 01/12 so was familiar with the registration process. When entries opened at 9:00 on 03/12 for Veterans they entered the email address, confirmed email address then waited patiently for the countdown to reach zero, again and again before it finally froze. They reread the email outlining the registration process and got no further information about what to do in this situation. As it turned out they waited too patiently and by the time they tried other options (refreshing the page and then going back to the start of the registration process) the waitlist was full.

Also speaking to a work colleague who was entering as a Novice, they had the same problem, however they were able to get their brother who was also entering as a Novice to re-enter the system and register them. One is on the entry list and the other the waitlist.

Gutted not to be on either list but am hopeful that entries will reopen before race day. Otherwise I’ll have to make do being a frustrated spectator or volunteer. I noticed at Kepler this year that they filled places that were not taken by people registering before the compulsory briefing (i.e. no shows) by lucky runners on a first in first serve basis. I wonder if the 6ft race committee would consider doing the same, for example at the close of race day registration on the Friday evening?

[Pasty]

Colin, on 07 December 2011 - 05:48 AM, said:

We don't have facts as to whether people jumped queues and in fact people like yourself were never in the queue.cheers

Strong assertion, so I guess I dreamt up this HTTP session on the active server then...

 6ft_login.jpg   25.47K   136 downloads

[AlunDavies]

pastyboy, on 07 December 2011 - 07:35 AM, said:

Strong assertion, so I guess I dreamt up this HTTP session on the active server then...

6ft_login.jpg

No offence PB.  I can't really see what that says but it seems to be along the lines of "the site is busy"?

Seperate entry days for Vets and Novices with a cap is sensible to me, but not my decision to make but I pretty much stand by my views.  I would add that I personally would not allow entry unless you've already qualified.  Not qualified yet?  Then you have 15 months until the next event to do so (not sure if this is being addressed).

By the way, I organise events too, some just training events and familiarity runs to support the Glasshouse Trails series.  I've also been self-employed in different IT roles and worked as service and operations manager for a couple of multi-nationals.

My Dad's probably bigger than yours too

Edited by AlunDavies, 07 December 2011 - 08:51 AM.

[Supersam1979]

My own humble view is that tightening qualification is the fairest way to go on this one going forward.

I know that if I want to get into London automatically, I have to run a 2.50. This would mean a bit of training and perhaps some more time to get there. Not impossible, just means I have to apply myself more.

It would also be interesting (and I hesitate to go here, but will anyways) to see of the number of whingers, how many are borderline qualification and how many comfortably in? Just curious....

As mentioned before, I am quite comfortable with anyone who is around the 2.40 marathon time having my spot in the waitlist if they missed out. I am just a average joe really.

Anyways - we are going round in circles. Give Colin a chance to get some answers, or accept it and apply your training to something else.

Good luck all!

[MountainMan]

I am surprised people waited in a queue...

When you hit a link on the internet and a message comes up that says, "Please wait while you are re-directed or click here to continue." Do you wait or click?

I click, I didn't get put in the queue for 6ft track entry, but there is no way I would have waited in it.

I don't think it is luck that got some people a spot, computer confidence/savvy makes me feel that I won't miss out. I got stuck in traffic last year and entered using an old Nokia phone with the dodgyiest browser I ever saw (first time I ever used it, but I still entered OK). I didn't read the massive instructions sent out this year, I just rocked up to my PC 2min to 9 and entered.

People that know computers/software and have a solid understanding of how they work and regularly don't work have a better chance of enter 6ft track in this format. Welcome to the 21st century, in 40yrs only people with implanted neural interfaces will be fast enough to register.  

Having said that, the attempt to create this queue system is a noble way to make the entry fairer and I applaud the massive effort from the organisers in both responding to and seriously considering all the feedback they get. It is waaaay more than anyone can seriously expect from a not-for-profit organisation. Damn, you wouldn't even expect this level of response from a well paid service provider!

[johnnyboyrun]

Btw I entered from the outskirts of busselton on my laptop and using my I-phone tethered to it. No fat broadband connection there!! Opened s few browsers, let one do the countdown and the other refresh.

[dickyboy]

Supersam1979, on 07 December 2011 - 09:07 AM, said:

My own humble view is that tightening qualification is the fairest way to go on this one going forward.

I know that if I want to get into London automatically, I have to run a 2.50. This would mean a bit of training and perhaps some more time to get there. Not impossible, just means I have to apply myself more.

It would also be interesting (and I hesitate to go here, but will anyways) to see of the number of whingers, how many are borderline qualification and how many comfortably in? Just curious....

As mentioned before, I am quite comfortable with anyone who is around the 2.40 marathon time having my spot in the waitlist if they missed out. I am just a average joe really.

Tightening qualification times is about as fair as choosing everyone whose name begins with A, D, R & Z. It goes against what bush running is about (fun, camaraderie), but then so does all the whinging. The fairest way if ever it needed to be tightened has to be lucky dip.

Whats wrong with average joes doing the race ? I'm sure plenty of the volunteers are "average joes" (though I feel wrong using that term).

[knoddie]

It seems some people who ignored the advice that once they had entered their email address that they were in the queue, and instead refreshed their browser continuously rather than wait for the countdown, were able to enter.

On the other hand it appears a number of people who listened to the advice, and believed they were in the queue while watching the countdown repeatedly, ended up missing out.

That just doesn't seem fair to me (I got in by the way). Just have a lottery.

[Colin]

knoddie, on 07 December 2011 - 06:41 PM, said:

It seems some people who ignored the advice that once they had entered their email address that they were in the queue, and instead refreshed their browser continuously rather than wait for the countdown, were able to enter.

On the other hand it appears a number of people who listened to the advice, and believed they were in the queue while watching the countdown repeatedly, ended up missing out.

Knoddie, that's rubbish!

The advice that I gave on how the queue works once you are logged in came from the developer at Active himself. I followed this advice, as did others I asked, and it worked.
Do you have the record of all 870 that entered or are you only going by forum posters?

pastyboy, on 07 December 2011 - 07:35 AM, said:

Strong assertion, so I guess I dreamt up this HTTP session on the active server then...

And yes, this is one entry that was not in the queue, i.e. he did not successfully log his email address and bring up the 'personal details' screen.

It seems to be so hard for people to understand that there were more people trying to enter than spots available, whilst at the same time not accepting that the final entry list is anytrhing but random when you look at the 'veterans' list (people you know) in particular.
It is difficult to accept because if you missed out, you don't like to think that you didn't have a role to play.

Next year we will just use one of these clever IT guys to do it instead of experts who do it day in day out successfully...then we may have something decent to rail about.

[BeerPowered]

knoddie, on 07 December 2011 - 06:41 PM, said:

It seems some people who ignored the advice that once they had entered their email address that they were in the queue, and instead refreshed their browser continuously rather than wait for the countdown, were able to enter.

On the other hand it appears a number of people who listened to the advice, and believed they were in the queue while watching the countdown repeatedly, ended up missing out.

That just doesn't seem fair to me (I got in by the way). Just have a lottery.

It's not yet clear to me, from what has been posted, that people missed out if "they watched the countdown repeatedly". My experience was that the countdown went from 15 to 0 then stopped. I remembered the advice from somewhere (last year's thread?) saying that if you refresh you go to the back of the queue, and refused to refresh, despite my wife saying "it's not working - you have to refresh". After about 5 minutes I left that window, opened another one, and when that one went to zero and didn't move, I refreshed (and continued to do so every time it went to zero then didn't move). A couple of minutes later I got in on this second window. Score one for my wife's common sense... but I wonder if the issue here is that the system worked for people for whom the the countdown automatically refreshed when it got to zero, but not for those for whom it froze at zero (unless they refreshed). And if that's the case, then the reason for the countdown nor refreshing is what needs to be investigated.

I'm not tech savvy enough to know if the first window was holding my place in the queue, then I got in through the second one because I refreshed? But my point in posting is not to complain about the system but to provide more info on how the system worked for users - to provide some more evidence for whether there was some kind of issue that needs to be addressed.

For what it's worth, I don't favour a lottery. The current system is underpinned by some pretty sound logic. If there are any bugs in the system, then fix the bugs, don't throw out the system.

[Kato]

[jedfogs]

Another perspective of what happened around 9:00am on Sat

2 queues

Queue 1 - auto 15 sec retry to get to Queue 2
Queue 2 - the "offical queue" - when email address was entered

First people to get in before throttle applied skipped Queue 1, entered details, got in - everything sweet

Queue 1 not really a queue, just a 15 sec delay to attempt to get to the "official queue". Those who hit refresh, or opened other sessions, had more opportunities to get to the "official queue"

Queue 2, if you hit refresh here, probably bumped back to the end of the queue - the freezing of the countdown at zero probably still had you in the queue

The instructions did mention not to hit refresh, and to be patient

No stats on Queue 1 as no email address entered?

The opening up of the waitlist was probably a WTF moment, and a sign of good management to shut the registration site down - excellent decision under the circumstances

Attached Files

•  001.PNG   29.08K   38 downloads

[halfwaydown]

BeerPowered, on 07 December 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

For what it's worth, I don't favour a lottery. The current system is underpinned by some pretty sound logic. If there are any bugs in the system, then fix the bugs, don't throw out the system.

Well put.  I know of no more thought out race entry system anywhere.  

[Colin]

Kato, on 07 December 2011 - 10:05 PM, said:

Dilbert image

Good dig by someone who wanted to be 'part of the system' and now leading the chorus.

I have been advised by others to "not respond to the whingers". I believe that to be an arrogant stance, because whilst anomalies can be listed without response, I cannot in good faith allow people who don't know how it worked, and have no evidence of 'patterns' of failure, to get away with direct inaccurate blaming of 'one' person and the 6FT brand as well. I will protect that.It is more arrogant to ignore people.
If you think it is arrogant, then hand your entry to someone else. then be free to say what you want. Don't have your cake and eat it too.

I will relate a totally different thing that happenned over the last couple of days.

I was pretty much in lock down and a large federal govt institution with an engineer I got over from France to do an installation and training of an analytical/laboratory system I suppled them 12 months ago.

Everything was 100% out of the box, worked well with both our computers, and did all we had to, calibrations on gases, ran gas samples etc etc. Absolutely no issues and signed off last night.
However, in between that, we had issues running it on both their computers- one Win7 the other XP-SP3- communication not possible despite the connection recognised on device manager. Two IT uber geeks of 'the institution' gave us a number of reasons why it was our software and not their computers. We finally ignored them to get on with the user training via our computers.
After all the engineer has a plane to catch today, otherwise we could continue to let them stuff around because I was charging them $3,500/day for his services.
Yesterday afternoon I went to a computer shop, got a board I was after, put it in the win7 PC- and one IT guy said reluctantly ok- and late yesterday we ran the system on their PC same as ours.

I guess you can see where my cynicism of 'IT support people' comes from....I face them in every large organisation and they always know better than those who built your system and software.

So moral of story if you really want me to be arrogant rather than just defend 6FT:

If you are happy to pay me $3,500/day I will listen to anything any IT (or non IT) guy tells me of 'how the system failed' and what can be done better.

Otherwise, I would rather believe the 870 people and the developers who know a bit more than you guys how it worked.

cheers

Edited by Colin, 08 December 2011 - 08:18 AM.

[knoddie]

jedfogs, on 07 December 2011 - 10:53 PM, said:

Another perspective of what happened around 9:00am on Sat

2 queues

Queue 1 - auto 15 sec retry to get to Queue 2
Queue 2 - the "offical queue" - when email address was entered

I think you maybe onto an answer. It certainly explains why those in queue 1 who kept refreshing their browser appear to have had more success than those who waited the 15 seconds...as they were hitting the server for another chance to enter queue 2 every second, rather than every 15 seconds.

[AlunDavies]

Colin, on 08 December 2011 - 08:09 AM, said:

However, in between that, we had issues running it on both their computers- one Win7 the other XP-SP3- communication not possible despite the connection recognised on device manager.... Two IT uber geeks of 'the institution' gave us a number of reasons why it was our software and not their computers.

Sorry, but there's no issue in comms. between Windows 7 and XP provided you 'optimise' the Windows 7 system for best performance as opposed to best display to operate with the XP system (it's a mere selection of a radio button on the right settings page).

Sorry ... couldn't resist ... I'll get my coat ... but not before saying that not all IT Support is bad ... don't blame the staff, blame the management ... oh, wait a minute, that's me.

[EverReadyBunny]

Colin, on 07 December 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:

Knoddie, that's rubbish!

The advice that I gave on how the queue works once you are logged in came from the developer at Active himself. I followed this advice, as did others I asked, and it worked.
Do you have the record of all 870 that entered or are you only going by forum posters?

Knoddie commented that some got in by refreshing and some who waited did not get in.

No doubt this is true. I have spoken to a number of people about their experience and have enough anecdotes about people logging in on one computer which should be ahead in the queue and then logging in on another computer up to 10 minutes later and the 2nd computer is the one that got in. This came up in conversation. Nothing to do with this thread. No ulterior motives, just true stories.  

The thing is because these people made it in they are not posting here.

That's all I will say. I got in. I am a happy camper but to say the system worked as it was supposed to is somewhat naive.

Kato's I like your cartoon. A bit too close to the bone but that's the value of Dilbert.

Colin. I know you are in a hard position and work tirelessly for Six foot with what sometimes seems little appreciation and I am not having a go at you. I appreciate everything the vollies and yourself do. Without them we wouldn't have any events. I am just saying if we can get some useful information from this forum to improve the entry process it is certainly worth pursuing.

[shortfastloud]

I missed out..for 2012. Plenty more proverbial fish in the sea.

Came across this yesterday:
Victory awaits him who has everything in order - luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck.
Roald Amundsen on Scott.

Edited by shortfastloud, 09 December 2011 - 07:32 AM.

[Wine trail runner]

SFT - where the entry reports may just be as good reading as the race reports. Thank you very much.

[Nova]

Firstly thanks for organizing the event.  I appreciate all the hard work that goes into it including the emotional energy you spend at entry time.

My experience for your review:

I have wanted to do the event for a few years so I book marked the web page 3 months ago (have had problems receiving the newsletter).  However I read and retread the instructions for entry.  I knew my chances of entry we small because of demand.  I had an alarm on my phone set months in advance (It was not needed because I was that keen).

At 8.55 I was at my computer and retreading the web page to plan my strategy.  I had a second web page open with AEST clock telling me precisely when 9am was.  I kept checking the website because I wasn't sure when it would go live.  (I had a practice run two days earlier with the entry form to familiarize myself with the procedure.)

I missed the start by seconds and did not get straight on.  I refreshed to get the option to enter my email.  I thought I was in...then it dropped into the 15 second refresh screen when I hit continue.  I let in count down once (my mind raced, do I refresh or not...I remembered the instructions No One Can Jump the Queue).  I wasn't convinced so I opened another tab in my browser and tried again and successful entered.  Game on let the training begin.

If I was unsuccessful I would have done one of 3 things: been very disappointed but accepted that not every one can enter a popular race with field restrictions; or complained that the instructions where not correct and the IT system was doggy; or complained that the race entry process is unfair because I was keen to enter.

As a novice entry my constructive suggestion is to have focus groups read the 2013 entry instructions and give feed back.  Chose runners that are keen to enter but have never experienced this event or entry process before and choose some of the disgruntled customers from this year.  
Importantly, I think,  try not to give too many instructions make it simple.  Try not to make it too prescriptive let people make there own decisions about how to play the "entry game".  E.g. People interpreted that they were in a queue when they were not, and other were in a queue and did not know it for certain.
I am sure some people who had friends or family entering would have tried to open a second page once they were into the details page of their own entry.  I guess there is not rule to stop people helping others to enter?  When 2013 entries close you will have the same complaints, even Ticketek website crashes when demand outweighs supply, and some people always complain when they miss out.  Next year there will be more than 1000 people sitting at computers, on iPads, in Internet cafes, or on their smart phones waiting for a gold ticket and not everyone will be successful in their entry.

I love the story of the guy who used his phone at his daughters swim lesson to enter.  He did exactly what we all did and he was lucky enough to get in this year.  I feel sorry for those who were so disappointed when they missed out.  Perhaps 10 people on the waiting list could be drawn out of a hat to have a priority place in 2013?

All the best with the rest of the organization I hope the days ahead go well.  See you at the finish

Edited by Nova, 09 December 2011 - 05:51 AM.

[cjr]

Reading all this as an impartial observer indicates clearly that it is very much a lottery. In future years it is going to get worse as more and more people try to enter and it becomes more of a technology contest. Technology is never perfect and never will be

So why not just officially make it a lottery. Then everyone knows and can't complain.

[johnnyboyrun]

i dont get the lottery idea.. you guys have come this far, why not work through the issues and iron out the bugs and make it better for next year. Im sure the guys at Active would enjoy the challenge!

[Colin]

AlunDavies, on 08 December 2011 - 01:49 PM, said:

Sorry, but there's no issue in comms. between Windows 7 and XP provided you 'optimise' the Windows 7 system for best performance as opposed to best display to operate with the XP system (it's a mere selection of a radio button on the right settings page).

Sorry ... couldn't resist ... I'll get my coat ... but not before saying that not all IT Support is bad ... don't blame the staff, blame the management ... oh, wait a minute, that's me.

Don't know what your reply is about...I didn't explain in detail, but its clear it wasn't as per what you are responding to...don't know why you are referring to 'display' either. Said it worked on "none of their computers, whatever the OS" it worked on two unrelated non-customer computers...what is the common factor?? The customer's management of the settings on their computers, their protocol.

It is standard in our industry (current and previous companies) to tell the end user (a lab guy)..."these are the computer specs, buy a new one, and we will install the system to run with that. I will support any software issues free of charge. If you let any IT guys (staff and management) near the computer, then future software communication problems are your responsibility, or I charge you $220/hr".
It is not that IT support is bad, they have there way of setting up there computers that sometimes conflict with the way our systems/software was designed...they do not know more than the developers of our software.

And that is the same here.

Edited by Colin, 09 December 2011 - 09:18 AM.

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

EverReadyBunny, on 08 December 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Knoddie commented that some got in by refreshing and some who waited did not get in.

No doubt this is true. I have spoken to a number of people about their experience and have enough anecdotes about people logging in on one computer which should be ahead in the queue and then logging in on another computer up to 10 minutes later and the 2nd computer is the one that got in. This came up in conversation. Nothing to do with this thread. No ulterior motives, just true stories.  

The thing is because these people made it in they are not posting here.

...and neither do the people who didn't get in email 6FT their complaints, so they are only taking it out on a public forum only then?
Repeating, 870 did get in, and if we didn't close it that would have been as high as you like.

You have "no doubt it is true"...you also 'know' how the system behaved better than me and the software developers and the successful entrants.

Ref what people are telling you, I have posted Active's responses on the 6FT Info thread.

Agai, the outcome on the list does not display a 'randomness' to me..far from it. The people on list, and on waitlist are fairly common from year to year.

EverReadyBunny, on 08 December 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Kato's I like your cartoon. A bit too close to the bone but that's the value of Dilbert.

You like it that he calls me arrogant because I won't 'produce' any more spots. The cartoon is far from the bone, it deals with production, and we don't have an option to create more spots.

What we can do is make the criteria very tough and/or raise the price a lot...is that arrogant too??

Everybody won't get a spot, we do not promise that, neither is everybody entitled to one.

EverReadyBunny, on 08 December 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Colin. I know you are in a hard position and work tirelessly for Six foot with what sometimes seems little appreciation and I am not having a go at you. I appreciate everything the vollies and yourself do. Without them we wouldn't have any events. I am just saying if we can get some useful information from this forum to improve the entry process it is certainly worth pursuing.

I agree, and I thought it was to collect anomalies which I have taken to Active, and I have placed their responses on another thread.

But some people- you included- can't resist listing the anomaly and placing blame elsewhere, saying 'its alottery', 'it is unfair' etc etc...why do you not expect a response in kind?

6FT and Active have no control over what people do with their computers from day to day, tehir settings etc. If you seriously want a spot in a race that sells in minutes then you make sure your setup is ready and you try and take control over your entry.

cheers

Edited by SixFootTrackMarathon, 09 December 2011 - 09:41 AM.

[B1orB2]

Is there a way to get an indication of how may veterans (people who have supported the event in the past) missed out on entry into 2012? I was thinking along the line of the number of hits to the veteran registration page from various computers against the number of successful applicants? If not then you can start the list with me on it.

I like the idea of staggering entries for veterans and novices by an hour or so. It gives veterans the opportunity to get in and would reduce the number of people eagerly sitting there waiting for entries to open. Then if there is a technology problem then veterans have to opportunity to resolve it (before suffering the feeling of loss and despair). The flip side to this is how many places would be left for novices? The event needs novices to; increase the profile of the sport, to not become elitist and prevent 6ft from becoming a geriatric run. Being on either the start list or wait list certainly helps with motivation when it comes to training, and as seen in the last few year we have seen all runners on the wait list given the opportunity to run.

I also like the idea of tightening the qualification criteria for 6ft. It would certainly help the BOP's to lift their performances, myself included. But to make 6ft a purely elite event would detract from what makes trail running so good in that it is a friendly sport where walking is acceptable.

[cjr]

johnnyboyrun, on 09 December 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:

i dont get the lottery idea.. you guys have come this far, why not work through the issues and iron out the bugs and make it better for next year. Im sure the guys at Active would enjoy the challenge!

In 20 years of working in IT I have yet to see software that works perfectly all of the time under all scenarios, and very few software developers that are prepared to admit that about their product.

[cjr]

Colin, on 09 December 2011 - 09:16 AM, said:

It is standard in our industry (current and previous companies) to tell the end user (a lab guy)..."these are the computer specs, buy a new one, and we will install the system to run with that. I will support any software issues free of charge. If you let any IT guys (staff and management) near the computer, then future software communication problems are your responsibility, or I charge you $220/hr".

That's fine as long as it does not need to go anywhere near the corporate network! Unfortunately many software vendors (and I am not saying you) don't consider things like security policies, antivirus updates, OS patches etc etc

Edited by cjr, 09 December 2011 - 09:52 AM.

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

A no finger pointing post, gets a different toned response of course

B1orB2, on 09 December 2011 - 09:40 AM, said:

Is there a way to get an indication of how may veterans (people who have supported the event in the past) missed out on entry into 2012? I was thinking along the line of the number of hits to the veteran registration page from various computers against the number of successful applicants? If not then you can start the list with me on it.

Firstly, novices have tracked at exactly 45% of field between 1997 and 2009 when the limit was capped. This included you at some stage. In otherwords whilst the race was growing, it came with that proportion. The majority of people do one 6Ft only over 50% who have ever done 6FT.

Now since the advent of the limit, it is the novices that have made the most sacrifice-and complained the least- last year novices only got 35% of spots and this year they were allocated 36%. I actually want to get the novice number up to reflect the natural pattern based on demand, rather than down.

In the demand itself on the day, novices outpointed the veterand by 20% in completion of entry rate, but by far more in demand. Hence more of them would have seen the 'throttle' page which was designed to slow the rate they got in queue (something many still find hard to fathom)...and again, they complained less about that too.

I understand veterans saying they need preference because of support, the flip side says they had a shot already, and the reality is that the race has always depended on there being 45% novices.

B1orB2, on 09 December 2011 - 09:40 AM, said:

I also like the idea of tightening the qualification criteria for 6ft. It would certainly help the BOP's to lift their performances, myself included. But to make 6ft a purely elite event would detract from what makes trail running so good in that it is a friendly sport where walking is acceptable.

Further qualification tightening is possible without making it elitist. There is merit in age based criteria, but it will create more work too, and/or much more options/filtering on system increasing complication.

[thomo]

An interesting statistic for me is that there are 139 "vets" who have competed in 1 six foot track only.

I wouldn't consider having done one race as supporting Six Foot Track & be given preference over novices. There would be novices who would be a vet only if there fingers / computers / friends, etc, etc had worked quicker or their circumstances had been better.

There should be, in my opinion a lifting up of the number of SFT's to qualify as a vet.

I fell into the novice entry and did manage to get in by following the procedures as given by R.D. Last year, I followed the instructions givenat the time and missed out. My bad luck, nothing more, nothing less.

Happy the cards landed the right way this year.

[AlunDavies]

Colin, on 09 December 2011 - 09:16 AM, said:

Don't know what your reply is about...I didn't explain in detail, but its clear it wasn't as per what you are responding to...don't know why you are referring to 'display' either. Said it worked on "none of their computers, whatever the OS" it worked on two unrelated non-customer computers...what is the common factor?? The customer's management of the settings on their computers, their protocol.

Just a joke Colin, a favourite in my area at the moment when tech's can't be bothered is to blame supposed incompatibility between XP and 7.  Nothing more.

You know my view of things.

[Espie]

Thought I'd throw in another view now the dust has settled somewhat.  I got a spot for my second 6Ft as a "veteran".  I logged on at 9, got the countdown a few times, entered email address a few times, figured the queue thing wasn't working as expected so launched another browser session and got in after a couple of countdowns.

This year I liked the split of entries into 3 categories.  I appreciate that the advice about the way the entry "queue" worked was offered in good faith and made the entry process one of the most transparent I've seen.  In terms of next year I'd stick with a similar process, but without any special advice about queues etc.  Just let everyone have a go at entering as per any other over-subscribed event.  I'd prefer to stick with that rather than a lottery i.e. have a process that involves some luck but at least requires commitment to be poised and ready to enter at a particular time.

Looking forward to the race, lots of hills to run between now and then.

Simon.