3 ms·

It's not about increasing throughout, it's about increasing user satisfaction. A system where 60 customers are served an hour, and none of them has queued, is t

It's not about increasing throughout, it's about increasing user satisfaction. A system where 60 customers are served an hour, and none of them has queued, is theoretically better than one where the same amount are served, but each has queued for 10 boring minutes. You achieve this by disincentivising queueing.

luckylion 5y ago
So people would only go to a stand if there's nobody being served, because being behind the person currently being served is discouraged. Essentially, you'd just move the queue: people would wait for a "spot" to open up (a stand with no customer) and then go there. If it's orderly, they kind of queue in the middle. If it's not, you'll have a large brawl as people try to get in front of each other.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  I think you misunderstood the proposed queueing system.... The stand will never be 'open'. People who arrive join the front of the queue, and are either served next, or someone else joins in front of them, pushing them back. When they're position 2 in the queue, they will only be served if 2 people are served and 0 arrive (low probably). If another person arrives, they're now position 3 in the queue, so 3 need to be served before any arrivals (even lower probably). At some point, they decide the probability of being served drops low enough that they give up and leave - this will usually happen quickly. The only way to 'game' this system is to look up the street and join the queue when it looks like nobody else is coming. If many people try to do this, then those people will be waiting forever (both want to join last - stalemate), and anyone who doesn't employ the tactic gets served.
  - becuzThrowaway 5y ago
    In practice, you would just replace the queue with a disorganized rabble of people standing around, where as soon as the person currently being served leaves, there is a mad dash at the one secure spot, which is at the very front.
horsawlarway 5y ago
Those who really want your product now have to mob up outside your stall and hope they're the next lucky random fucker. They're still waiting. Those who don't really want your product don't wait in a line for it anyways - the length of the line itself is a natural filter for availability of the good. Basically - has satisfaction actually gone up if those who would be extremely satisfied by your product no longer receive it, and random folks who may or may not want your product do? I'd bet money the answer is a solid "NO".
mcphage 5y ago
Another way to look at it: with the queuing system, you spend 10 minutes, and you get what you want. How many minutes will it take with the no-queue system? It’s not like the thoroughput has increased. And how likely will it be for you to get what you want after that time? Is it definite?

luckylion 5y ago

So people would only go to a stand if there's nobody being served, because being behind the person currently being served is discouraged. Essentially, you'd just move the queue: people would wait for a "spot" to open up (a stand with no customer) and then go there. If it's orderly, they kind of queue in the middle. If it's not, you'll have a large brawl as people try to get in front of each other.

londons_explore 5y ago
I think you misunderstood the proposed queueing system.... The stand will never be 'open'. People who arrive join the front of the queue, and are either served next, or someone else joins in front of them, pushing them back. When they're position 2 in the queue, they will only be served if 2 people are served and 0 arrive (low probably). If another person arrives, they're now position 3 in the queue, so 3 need to be served before any arrivals (even lower probably). At some point, they decide the probability of being served drops low enough that they give up and leave - this will usually happen quickly. The only way to 'game' this system is to look up the street and join the queue when it looks like nobody else is coming. If many people try to do this, then those people will be waiting forever (both want to join last - stalemate), and anyone who doesn't employ the tactic gets served.
- becuzThrowaway 5y ago
  In practice, you would just replace the queue with a disorganized rabble of people standing around, where as soon as the person currently being served leaves, there is a mad dash at the one secure spot, which is at the very front.

horsawlarway 5y ago

Those who really want your product now have to mob up outside your stall and hope they're the next lucky random fucker. They're still waiting. Those who don't really want your product don't wait in a line for it anyways - the length of the line itself is a natural filter for availability of the good. Basically - has satisfaction actually gone up if those who would be extremely satisfied by your product no longer receive it, and random folks who may or may not want your product do? I'd bet money the answer is a solid "NO".

mcphage 5y ago

Another way to look at it: with the queuing system, you spend 10 minutes, and you get what you want. How many minutes will it take with the no-queue system? It’s not like the thoroughput has increased. And how likely will it be for you to get what you want after that time? Is it definite?