4 ms·

It’s seems like a pretty cynical take to say that simply having a modern, standard platform for national parks (or whatever gov service) necessitates that platf

It’s seems like a pretty cynical take to say that simply having a modern, standard platform for national parks (or whatever gov service) necessitates that platform must be cost inefficient. I don’t see how improving the status quo and asking/enforcing federal contractors charge reasonable prices should be mutually exclusive. Even if the contractual approach remained the same (Eg charge lottery fees and use that to pay Booz) presumably the point of this suit is to ensure that Booz are charging only charging a reasonable overhead for their services. If it turns out their overhead is unreasonable one could either scale the fees down, or scale down Booz’s cut and give the rest to the specific parks for their own use.

solardev 3y ago
I agree with you. I hope the suit results in either the elimination of the fees, or that a large portion (90%+) goes to the parks instead of the contractor.
asdff 3y ago
Cost efficiency is like jumbo shrimp when it comes to government and you as the customer. OK, this website is now "profitable" charging x for y. Well, its not like Y was produced out of thin air beforehand. The taxpayer always pays. Its in the name. A system like this merely moves where the point of sale happens from one point in the stream to another. It's not any more profitable than what came before really, especially considering all this "profit" effectively is shot into the sun out of the system as it enters booze allens checkbooks instead of having it go back into the public purse.
- sh1mmer 3y ago
  Surely it’s a question of which tax payers. Is it the tax payers using national parks (and entering lotteries or making reservations) or all tax payers? Charging for service also allows non-tax payers to contribute too. I’m not saying I’m for either approach but I still the cost efficiency is orthogonal to how it’s funded. If it were more transparent how much Booz were making, and how much web traffic, reservations, lottery entries, etc they were dealing with then the reasonable profit overhead for their work could be more easily be understood by the public.
  - asdff 3y ago
    > Surely it’s a question of which tax payers. Is it the tax payers using national parks (and entering lotteries or making reservations) or all tax payers? Charging for service also allows non-tax payers to contribute too. The thing is they aren't contributing to anything but booze allen hamiltons bottom line. None of this money goes into the parks department. Them taking a "reasonable profit overhead" amounts to parasitic loss. There's no magic sauce with web development, plenty of people understand it. This can be done in house at cost just as easily as its done in booze allen hamilton's house.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Experience with government sites tells me otherwise.
      - asdff 3y ago
        I use plenty of good government sites. I think pubmed is an example of how powerful a site can be when its designed purely for function versus advertising. You can do all sorts of interesting operations both in search and with an accompanying command line utility that directly interfaces with the database. There's probably a higher percentage of "bad" private sites than bad government sites imo.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
        I have never used a site built by the government that I would say is anywhere close to as good as recreation.gov
        asdff 3y ago
        Yet here we are in a thread about how this website is facing lawsuits so I don't think its a great success.
    - solardev 3y ago
      As both a web dev and a parks lover... have you tried to use the agencies' own sites much? Even for a flagship park like Yosemite (https://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm https://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm), it's hard to figure out how the different permits work. They're way down the page, requires going through several similar-sounding pages, all to no obvious next step. Even something as basic as having clear calls-to-action aren't there. And figuring out where to go in the park... what's the difference between Plan Your Visit and Things to Do and Places to See? Why is it so hard to get a cohesive map that shows not just where to sleep but also the best places to visit and the recommended driving/hiking routes? What's the difference between a standard map, a brochure map, a simple map, a park map, and a valley map? Why aren't road closures and other alerts reflected on the maps? Why doesn't the Fees page talk about permit or camping fees at all? Which areas of the park are reservation-only, which are permitted, which are first-come-first serve? These are just basic examples I pulled off one site. Most NP sites are like that. And remember this is for Yosemite, one of the country's (if not the world's) most visited tourist destinations, and they couldn't even do basic UX well. This isn't for a lack of knowledge (the on-the-ground rangers are awesome! talk to one next time before you venture forth!), but digital isn't a priority to them. It's not even an afterthought. It's more often than not "oh, I don't know how that works or who works on it or who pays for it". Before Recreation.gov and ReserveAmerica before it, digital efforts WERE often done in-house, to disastrous effect. Even now, you will usually find better visitor's guides and resources outside of official NPS sites, like on Alltrails or random blogs or "best of" lists. There is no magic sauce in web development, but it does take a particular type of agency to be able to make good pages with a focus on the end-user. Maybe to you and I such a site is relatively simple to set up. But that is NOT the NPS's strong suit at all, and it would be a forever uphill battle to convince their administrators and the Department of Interior and Congress to focus on usability. I doubt many of them have ever tried to book their own reservation. Many of their parks don't even run their own restaurants and lodging[1] (which any tourist destination usually would), but you expect them to do well running a multi-agency, multi-site, multi-rule booking system? It's just not practical given the current staffing and skillset. [1] If you think outsourcing to Booz is bad, yeesh, the hospitality concessionaires like Aramark are even worse. Talk about overpriced and poor quality =/

solardev 3y ago

I agree with you. I hope the suit results in either the elimination of the fees, or that a large portion (90%+) goes to the parks instead of the contractor.

asdff 3y ago

Cost efficiency is like jumbo shrimp when it comes to government and you as the customer. OK, this website is now "profitable" charging x for y. Well, its not like Y was produced out of thin air beforehand. The taxpayer always pays. Its in the name. A system like this merely moves where the point of sale happens from one point in the stream to another. It's not any more profitable than what came before really, especially considering all this "profit" effectively is shot into the sun out of the system as it enters booze allens checkbooks instead of having it go back into the public purse.

sh1mmer 3y ago
Surely it’s a question of which tax payers. Is it the tax payers using national parks (and entering lotteries or making reservations) or all tax payers? Charging for service also allows non-tax payers to contribute too. I’m not saying I’m for either approach but I still the cost efficiency is orthogonal to how it’s funded. If it were more transparent how much Booz were making, and how much web traffic, reservations, lottery entries, etc they were dealing with then the reasonable profit overhead for their work could be more easily be understood by the public.
- asdff 3y ago
  > Surely it’s a question of which tax payers. Is it the tax payers using national parks (and entering lotteries or making reservations) or all tax payers? Charging for service also allows non-tax payers to contribute too. The thing is they aren't contributing to anything but booze allen hamiltons bottom line. None of this money goes into the parks department. Them taking a "reasonable profit overhead" amounts to parasitic loss. There's no magic sauce with web development, plenty of people understand it. This can be done in house at cost just as easily as its done in booze allen hamilton's house.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Experience with government sites tells me otherwise.
    - asdff 3y ago
      I use plenty of good government sites. I think pubmed is an example of how powerful a site can be when its designed purely for function versus advertising. You can do all sorts of interesting operations both in search and with an accompanying command line utility that directly interfaces with the database. There's probably a higher percentage of "bad" private sites than bad government sites imo.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        I have never used a site built by the government that I would say is anywhere close to as good as recreation.gov
        asdff 3y ago
        Yet here we are in a thread about how this website is facing lawsuits so I don't think its a great success.
  - solardev 3y ago
    As both a web dev and a parks lover... have you tried to use the agencies' own sites much? Even for a flagship park like Yosemite (https://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm https://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm), it's hard to figure out how the different permits work. They're way down the page, requires going through several similar-sounding pages, all to no obvious next step. Even something as basic as having clear calls-to-action aren't there. And figuring out where to go in the park... what's the difference between Plan Your Visit and Things to Do and Places to See? Why is it so hard to get a cohesive map that shows not just where to sleep but also the best places to visit and the recommended driving/hiking routes? What's the difference between a standard map, a brochure map, a simple map, a park map, and a valley map? Why aren't road closures and other alerts reflected on the maps? Why doesn't the Fees page talk about permit or camping fees at all? Which areas of the park are reservation-only, which are permitted, which are first-come-first serve? These are just basic examples I pulled off one site. Most NP sites are like that. And remember this is for Yosemite, one of the country's (if not the world's) most visited tourist destinations, and they couldn't even do basic UX well. This isn't for a lack of knowledge (the on-the-ground rangers are awesome! talk to one next time before you venture forth!), but digital isn't a priority to them. It's not even an afterthought. It's more often than not "oh, I don't know how that works or who works on it or who pays for it". Before Recreation.gov and ReserveAmerica before it, digital efforts WERE often done in-house, to disastrous effect. Even now, you will usually find better visitor's guides and resources outside of official NPS sites, like on Alltrails or random blogs or "best of" lists. There is no magic sauce in web development, but it does take a particular type of agency to be able to make good pages with a focus on the end-user. Maybe to you and I such a site is relatively simple to set up. But that is NOT the NPS's strong suit at all, and it would be a forever uphill battle to convince their administrators and the Department of Interior and Congress to focus on usability. I doubt many of them have ever tried to book their own reservation. Many of their parks don't even run their own restaurants and lodging[1] (which any tourist destination usually would), but you expect them to do well running a multi-agency, multi-site, multi-rule booking system? It's just not practical given the current staffing and skillset. [1] If you think outsourcing to Booz is bad, yeesh, the hospitality concessionaires like Aramark are even worse. Talk about overpriced and poor quality =/