DVC Availability Checker

[WilsonFlyer]

Wilsonflyer, I appreciate your defense of Disney IT in aggregate- and agree that the park IT systems seem to work pretty well. But back to the thread at hand, how on earth can you defend Disney IT as competent (at least for DVC) when they won't put together a wait list availability tool as valuable and agile as this one, that was created by a single DVC member?

And their response to this extremely useful tool, is to demand that it be shut down?

How is that competent corporate IT priority management?

Seems to me that this is akin to a company insisting on rotary dial phones at all desks. Then, when some customer comes in and starts to use a smartphone in their lobby, insisting that it be shut off and that the customer use one of the rotary dial units when it becomes available in six hours. Please explain to me, how that isn't essentially what DVC is doing here...

There may be a reason Disney doesn't want this functionality out there. I challenge you to look at the entire problem without the colored glasses and see if you can figure out why.

We all tend to get tunnel-visioned about what benefits us most. It's human nature. Unfortunately, we don't always see the impact of the entire picture when we look only in our own best interests.

 

[tjkraz]

Functionally, then, the filling isn't realtime--in an ideal system when the room opens up and there is someone on the waitlist, that should be filled. Before the room goes back on the books as open.

Problem is all nights in a wait list request must be available simultaneously in order for the request to be filled.

Imagine a scenario in which one member cancels the nights of 7/1 and 7/2 at 10am. At noon another member cancels the nights of 7/3 and 7/4...same resort, same villa size. This happens quite frequently at 7 months when members begin dropping one reservation for another.

Under the current batch system, all of those dates are combined to fill a wait list for 7/1 through 7/4. Change it to realtime and that member is bypassed and the dates are given to another member further down on the waitlist with a shorter request.

Believe me, there is no universally "fair" way to handle the wait list. If it were in realtime, we'd be having another (different) discussion regarding its shortcomings.

...how on earth can you defend Disney IT as competent (at least for DVC) when they won't put together a wait list availability tool as valuable and agile as this one, that was created by a single DVC member?

And their response to this extremely useful tool, is to demand that it be shut down?

How is that competent corporate IT priority management?

Shutting down the tool was completely foreseeable. It not only violated Disney's terms of service but it gave a small subset of owners--the hundreds of people aware of its existence--an unfair advantage over all others.

The problem with a system like this is that it's useful only if there are a very small number of users. Could DVC create something like this? Of course. But if it's sending out 1000 alerts every time one AKV club level is canceled for New Year's Eve, there isn't much point.

I wish we would hear from DeDobber. I hope he understands how much we all appreciate his efforts to make our DVC easier to manage.

It's entirely possible that you will never hear from him again on this matter. I've peripherally encountered similar (but different) situations in the past where Disney's communication is basically "you shouldn't have done what you did...stop immediately...and never speak of it again."

I don't have any first hand knowledge of this situation but if we don't hear from OP again, I suspect it's because he was explicitly told to discontinue any public dialogue. And even if that's the case, I'm sure he's still quietly reading the thread and appreciates everyone's gratitude.

 

[Msmithmd]

Now you've lost me. I'm not at all grasping how it is "colored glasses" to expect a wait list tool that always gives an available room to the first person on the list.

These boards are replete with stories of people who can't get rooms on the list while others have gotten the same room manually, and also of people who have logged on and booked the room on their own list without the system doing it as it should.

If you're saying it is biased to expect the member service that we all pay for to work efficiently, then I'm guilty of bias. But for the life of me, I can't come up with an intelligent reason that the DVC member service we collectively employ via our dues would "want it to be this way."

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Read Tim's scenario above.

 

[Sammie]

I love when Tim comes on and shares the realistic point of view,

 

[LisaS]

Now you've lost me. I'm not at all grasping how it is "colored glasses" to expect a wait list tool that always gives an available room to the first person on the list.

Wait lists have to be fulfilled in their entirety so any nights that become available do not necessarily go to the first person on the list. Unless all of the nights that first person needs become available at the same time, those nights would go to the first person on the list whose wait list can be completely filled.

These boards are replete with stories of people who can't get rooms on the list while others have gotten the same room manually, and also of people who have logged on and booked the room on their own list without the system doing it as it should.

If none of the WLs can be fully filled, the nights are left in the pool. It doesn't make sense to set those nights aside because the remaining nights needed to fill someone's list might never become available. DVC has sold enough points to book nearly every room, every night of the year so they cannot hold back inventory until all of those wait lists expire 7 days out. With those nights still in the pool, people are able to pick up a night here and there to start filling their own wait list.

If you're saying it is biased to expect the member service that we all pay for to work efficiently, then I'm guilty of bias. But for the life of me, I can't come up with an intelligent reason that the DVC member service we collectively employ via our dues would "want it to be this way."

Just speculating here but one reason they would want it to be this way is if it results in a larger percentage of rooms booked each and every night. There are enough points in members' accounts to book 97% (+/-) of all of the rooms, every night of the year. It's better for the system as a whole if members are able to grab nights that others are wait listed for, than to set those nights aside hoping that the rest of the needed nights eventually become available. Giving absolute priority to people on the wait list would result in some inventory being held until 7 days out when the wait list would finally expire unfilled, leaving many rooms unused. That could result in members being unable to use all of their points each year due to insufficient inventory. If that's the case then it's more important for DVC to maximize occupancy to benefit all members than to fill wait lists for individual members.

 

[Msmithmd]

I know all that, Lisa. But it still doesn't account for why people often can find their own wait list room available in it's entirety before DVC books it via the list.

That's why I find it annoying, and found DeDobber's tool so useful- it automated a process that in my opinion should be automated already by DVC.

Tjkratz post is an interesting theory- I get what he's saying about someone with a four day list being higher than two other owners with two day lists. It's a reasonable thought- except that it breaks down with the reality that DVC doesn't hold this availability back from the website for manual booking.

In this way, someone without a wait list at all can bypass all of Tim's theoretical three wait listed members. If this weren't the case, then the ****** would have been useless. Too bad that Disney decided to quash it, but we won't have any influence on their decision in that regard. Such is life I guess.

 

[holula]

I don't need an email alert when a room becomes available. From DVCs perspective, it's not practical to send an email for every person who has a waitlist for a certain day. That said, I loved being able to search all resorts for a certain type of room, without having to pull up each resort individually. DVC now only offers you options in similar located resorts, so if you are looking at BLT and there is nothing at BLT, VGF or VWL, you don't get any other options. I wish they would change it so that you could search all available studios, or all rooms available at BCV on a certain night. Or even just pull up any available studios on that night if you search in a location with no availability. (So if you search for BLT, and there is nothing, it would still pull up available OKW, SSR, AKL etc)

I also wish that DVC would let you modify a waitlist. Say you have a 4 day waitlist, and 2 of those days are magically available to book online. Why should you then have to cancel that waitlist and create a new 2 day waitlist, therefore putting you at the bottom of the list again?

 

[bookwormde]

Problem is all nights in a wait list request must be available simultaneously in order for the request to be filled.



Imagine a scenario in which one member cancels the nights of 7/1 and 7/2 at 10am. At noon another member cancels the nights of 7/3 and 7/4...same resort, same villa size. This happens quite frequently at 7 months when members begin dropping one reservation for another.

Under the current batch system, all of those dates are combined to fill a wait list for 7/1 through 7/4. Change it to realtime and that member is bypassed and the dates are given to another member further down on the waitlist with a shorter request.

Believe me, there is no universally "fair" way to handle the wait list. If it were in realtime, we'd be having another (different) discussion regarding its shortcomings.



Shutting down the tool was completely foreseeable. It not only violated Disney's terms of service but it gave a small subset of owners--the hundreds of people aware of its existence--an unfair advantage over all others.

The problem with a system like this is that it's useful only if there are a very small number of users. Could DVC create something like this? Of course. But if it's sending out 1000 alerts every time one AKV club level is canceled for New Year's Eve, there isn't much point.



It's entirely possible that you will never hear from him again on this matter. I've peripherally encountered similar (but different) situations in the past where Disney's communication is basically "you shouldn't have done what you did...stop immediately...and never speak of it again."

I don't have any first hand knowledge of this situation but if we don't hear from OP again, I suspect it's because he was explicitly told to discontinue any public dialogue. And even if that's the case, I'm sure he's still quietly reading the thread and appreciates everyone's gratitude.

There was no information on the site that every member could not get on their own, except the 11 month VGC data, which would bring up the "unfair issue" that indicate. It is just a convenience, so it not unfair at the base data level.

From what I can see the site was beginning to look "commercial" and that is where it stepped over the line

Dis shared data so that was not an issue then.

My guess is that DVD is very concerned that prospective buyers who find this type of information will not be able to "delude" themselves that booking well ahead is not really needed (even though we tell them often here). A simple disclaimer that that information is not up to date and that members must check the reservation website for accurate information would address the issue of it not being current. if DVC wanted to proved this member service they could (although disney IT would likely not do it as well), clearly they do not.

 

[LisaS]

I know all that, Lisa. But it still doesn't account for why people often can find their own wait list room available in it's entirety before DVC books it via the list.

We don't know exactly how the WL process works but the fact that people sometimes do find all of the nights they need available online suggests that it works as a batch process run one or more times a day and that nights that partially fill a WL are not held back.

Example: Let's say someone has a WL for the nights of Oct 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Someone cancels a reservation that leaves Oct 1, 2 and 3 available. MS runs the WL process at some point and if no WL needing those nights can be filled in its entirety those nights remain available for anyone to book. The next day someone else cancels and Oct 4 and 5 become available. Until the WL process is run again, all of the nights needed to fill that WL are available online. Provided no one grabs any of those nights in the interim, the next time MS runs the WL process it should grab all of those nights and fill the WL.

Before online booking became available, this approach probably worked well enough most of the time. Now that we can see available inventory, members are seeing how many of their wait listed nights are in fact available and can grab them as they become available. Unfortunately, those lower down on the list or not on the wait list at all can also snatch them away.

That's why I find it annoying, and found DeDobber's tool so useful- it automated a process that in my opinion should be automated already by DVC.

But it also made it easier for anyone else to grab them too, even those who aren't on the wait list for those nights.

Tjkratz post is an interesting theory- I get what he's saying about someone with a four day list being higher than two other owners with two day lists. It's a reasonable thought- except that it breaks down with the reality that DVC doesn't hold this availability back from the website for manual booking.

In this way, someone without a wait list at all can bypass all of Tim's theoretical three wait listed members. If this weren't the case, then the ****** would have been useless. Too bad that Disney decided to quash it, but we won't have any influence on their decision in that regard. Such is life I guess.

Yes, ****** did make it even easier for someone to bypass those on the wait list. I'm not suggesting that that is why Disney told him to shut it down but it did give an advantage to those who knew about it.

 

[Jenntx]

Thank you for your service through the app. My husband has used it so often & it's been such a huge help. He was just on there yesterday and noticed that Disney made you shut the app down. So sorry!! Just wanted to let you know how much we appreciated your time and energy that you gave to us DVC members.

 

[ludari]

I just went to the DVC Availability Checker and disappointed to see that Disney made you shut it down. It was so much more easier using your site for availabilities then to log into the DVC site or call member services. So bumbed

 

[crisi]

Uhm. . .where are you getting this from? I've looked at their job postings for some allied fields in the past, just for chuckles and grins, and from what I've seen they're nothing special as companies go, just par for the course as per a non-techy company.

If you have something to back this assertation up, I would love to see it. DH keeps making noise about moving to Florida. . .

They don't pay enough to hire top coders - from a payscale standpoint, Disney's is - well, not as laughable as some - but no one is leaving Google or Apple for Disney's pay.

 

[crisi]

I know all that, Lisa. But it still doesn't account for why people often can find their own wait list room available in it's entirety before DVC books it via the list.

That's why I find it annoying, and found DeDobber's tool so useful- it automated a process that in my opinion should be automated already by DVC.

Tjkratz post is an interesting theory- I get what he's saying about someone with a four day list being higher than two other owners with two day lists. It's a reasonable thought- except that it breaks down with the reality that DVC doesn't hold this availability back from the website for manual booking.

In this way, someone without a wait list at all can bypass all of Tim's theoretical three wait listed members. If this weren't the case, then the ****** would have been useless. Too bad that Disney decided to quash it, but we won't have any influence on their decision in that regard. Such is life I guess.

If it were my requirements set, any reservation cancelled more than fourteen days out would not have its associated rooms go into available status until after the waitlist is run that night (or maybe a few times a day, depending on what sort of manual effort and systems load was there). They'd go into a holding status where they would only be available to fill waitlist requests (along with rooms still in open status). The next day (or in a few hours) when the waitlist was run and there weren't any positive matches, those rooms would be released for general availability.

You'd still have a gap - if the 1,2, and 3 of October, was released today, but the 4th and 5th were still not available, the waitlist wouldn't give you your 1-5 reservation, the 1, 2 and 3rd would go back into the pool. If the 4th and 5th were released the next day, you'd only get your reservation if the 1,2 and 3rd hadn't been grabbed. But it would be more fair that what I suspect happens now, which is an immediate release of rooms into open inventory.

At some point - 30 days? fourteen days? seven? You'd release rooms immediately to make sure you have maximum occupancy.

 

[tjkraz]

If it were my requirements set, any reservation cancelled more than fourteen days out would not have its associated rooms go into available status until after the waitlist is run that night (or maybe a few times a day, depending on what sort of manual effort and systems load was there). They'd go into a holding status where they would only be available to fill waitlist requests (along with rooms still in open status). The next day (or in a few hours) when the waitlist was run and there weren't any positive matches, those rooms would be released for general availability.

Under that scenario, members looking to book rooms online could find no availability due to rooms in this holding status, even though the accommodation is actually available. This would happen often right at 7 months when there is a lot of turnover with members switching out of their home resort.

For instance, at noon "Member A" cancels BWV (home) reservation and books BLT. At 2pm "Member B" is looking for BWV but finds no availability because "Member A"'s cancellation is still being held.

Later that day or the next morning the BWV room is finally released and "Member C" ends up with the room, simply because he/she happened to check first after it was released.

Granted "Member B" could have use the wait list himself but it's not a perfect solution given limits currently in place. And some members simply don't want to deal with the uncertainty.

Every time I hear of a member finding their wait list accommodation on-line, I can't help but think they would have had the same result when the wait list batch was run a few hours later. Generally speaking there are not packs of vultures circling every cancellation as it occurs, stealing them out from under wait list requests. While hardly scientific, our wait list success over the years is upward of 80%.

We could certainly debate the fairness of any wait list process but none would be perfect. Any modifications would be a trade of one set of problems for another.

 

[AmyB2006]

Just realized this website got shut down Sad.

 

[lodge]

They don't pay enough to hire top coders - from a payscale standpoint, Disney's is - well, not as laughable as some - but no one is leaving Google or Apple for Disney's pay.

I wonder if this means they determine the product as "good enough" or if they are trying to improve. I haven't read any posts that would indicate why it is designed as such

 

[disneynutz]

I have been told by CM's working in the DVD/DVC executive offices that the waitlist batch program is run after MS closes. The program has the ability to hold inventory for matches but that the actual booking and modifying of reservations are done by CM's during the next day or two.

IMO DVC doesn't like the waitlist option, that's why they made changes to waitlist policy, and why they don't improve the operation. They know that you will have to book sometime so spending money, effort and time probably isn't high on their list.

Bill