4 ms·

There is certainly a high level of jerkiness in making fake reservations, but I think it's overblown in the article. If a restaurant is exclusive and popular en

There is certainly a high level of jerkiness in making fake reservations, but I think it's overblown in the article. If a restaurant is exclusive and popular enough to require reservations, and people are willing to pay $5-10 for a reservation, why don't they just charge $5-10 for reservations themselves, or require a small membership fee to make reservations, or start rejecting customers who can't prove they are the "Dick Jerkson" who made the reservation, etc? (That last one would only need to be a temporary measure, as most people are going to ditch the app after being turned away once or twice.)

neilk 12y ago
I don't understand your logic. Just because countermeasures could exist, it doesn't mean that the original offenders aren't so bad. Nor does that place any new responsibilities on the restaurant, to piss off their customers who by now might have been going to the same restaurants for decades, with the informal system. Furthermore, an ID check isn't as painless and easy to implement as you say. Often, other guests arrive before the person who made the reservation. Public figures make reservations under assumed names. And the name on someone's ID may not match the name they typically use (read patio11's brilliant piece http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b...). And then there's just the offensiveness of requiring people to carry ID in the first place.
- neurobro 12y ago
  I'm not saying the app is less bad because countermeasures exist, only that the app is not as bad as the article makes it out to be, and countermeasures exist. Restaurants constantly have to adapt to changing conditions, which is how they end up with reservation policies in the first place. The point of the ID suggestion (which was only one idea) would be to somehow identify users of the app, let them travel all the way to the restaurant with their date or client, and reject their reservation. This will kill the app faster than begging the developer to be less of a jerk.

neilk 12y ago

I don't understand your logic. Just because countermeasures could exist, it doesn't mean that the original offenders aren't so bad. Nor does that place any new responsibilities on the restaurant, to piss off their customers who by now might have been going to the same restaurants for decades, with the informal system. Furthermore, an ID check isn't as painless and easy to implement as you say. Often, other guests arrive before the person who made the reservation. Public figures make reservations under assumed names. And the name on someone's ID may not match the name they typically use (read patio11's brilliant piece http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b...). And then there's just the offensiveness of requiring people to carry ID in the first place.

neurobro 12y ago
I'm not saying the app is less bad because countermeasures exist, only that the app is not as bad as the article makes it out to be, and countermeasures exist. Restaurants constantly have to adapt to changing conditions, which is how they end up with reservation policies in the first place. The point of the ID suggestion (which was only one idea) would be to somehow identify users of the app, let them travel all the way to the restaurant with their date or client, and reject their reservation. This will kill the app faster than begging the developer to be less of a jerk.