Is the waitlist system this smart?

[PacoDF]

Let us know what you can find, please.

 

[disneynutz]

This is what I was told verbatim by the Manager of DVC Operations, I would have no reason to think she does not know.

There could have been more than one cancellation, and they got the one listed before they got their waitlist notification. Or the team that monitors it daily could have seen the member had already booked it and moved on to the next person, which in my opinion they should.

I will ask her what happens in this type of situation.

You might do us a favor and ask her why Potrock's staff has put out the explanation that the matches are done at night after the end of business and the reservations are manually worked by CM's starting the next day?

Bill

 

[Sammie]

You might do us a favor and ask her why Potrock's staff has put out the explanation that the matches are done at night after the end of business and the reservations are manually worked by CM's starting the next day?

Bill

As I said, I am not sure how long the staff that monitors the system works, I will ask. It might be they are not there at night, which would mean the system would run but the matches would have to be seen by the staff when they arrive and then notify the member.

I can ask. I am pretty sure the system does not notify the member, so yes they have to have a staff that does that.

 

[HookdonWDW]

One of the problems with this idea is this:

Waitlists happen in this order:
Member A waitlists for days 1-4 at Resort X
Member B waitlists for days 1-2 at Resort X
Member C waitlists for days 3-4 at Resort Y
Member D waitlists for days 1-4 at Resort Y

With your scenario, Members A and D would have exact matches. Therefore they would just "swap" reservations. By doing this, you just bypassed Members B and C, and anyone else who only needed part of the reservation. Turn it into a larger chunk of dates, and it becomes a maze of trying to match up exact dates v. just cancelling reservations, and pulling from all the newly opened dates to match waitlist requests.

 

[Millionaire2K]

One of the problems with this idea is this:

Waitlists happen in this order:
Member A waitlists for days 1-4 at Resort X
Member B waitlists for days 1-2 at Resort X
Member C waitlists for days 3-4 at Resort Y
Member D waitlists for days 1-4 at Resort Y

With your scenario, Members A and D would have exact matches. Therefore they would just "swap" reservations. By doing this, you just bypassed Members B and C, and anyone else who only needed part of the reservation. Turn it into a larger chunk of dates, and it becomes a maze of trying to match up exact dates v. just cancelling reservations, and pulling from all the newly opened dates to match waitlist requests.

But as the system sits now Members A and B, C AND D ALL will be stuck with resorts they don't want.

Why should Memebr A and D suffer because someone else wants days that they can't even fill? In the current system member B and C get nothing because they need rooms to become free. Why should they expect anything just because others match? Should others not get because B and C don't? Also the system could match based on more then 2 rooms to make matches:

Member A waitlists for days 1-4 at Resort X
Member B waitlists for days 1-2 at Resort Y
Member C waitlists for days 3-4 at Resort Y

All matched!


Why should a person have to wait for all days to be free when another person with all the days could just swap?

I think its crazy that anyone would be against a way to INCREASE member "wishes" being granted.

I think the "don't give it to him because I don't get anything" attitude is childish.

I see no harm in the swap. With the swap method ALL the following (believe it or not) would be able to switch to what they want. It puts no one at a disadvantage as list can be filled in order they are received and people skipped if they can help the request. A smart enough system can make everyone's dreams come true.:

Member A – Has BLT – Wants WL Oct 17-22
Member B – Has OKW – Wants BLT Oct 12-15
Member C – Has AKL – Wants OKW Oct 9-15
Member D – Has BLT – Wants BW Oct 9-15
Member E – Has OKW – Wants BLT Oct 9-11
Member F – Has AKL – Wants WL Oct 3-9
Member G – Has BW – Wants OKW Oct 7-15
Member H – Has WL – Wants BLT Oct 17-22
Member I – Has WL – Wants AKL Oct 9-15
Member J – Has AKL – Wants WL Oct 10-15
Member K – Has OKW – Wants WL Oct 7-15
Member L – Has WL – Wants OKW Oct 7-8
Member M – Has WL – Wants AKL Oct 3-15


Also its dumb that as of now waitlist rooms go back to the public right away. A waitlist that has been on the books for weeks should have 1st crack at the rooms just made free. maybe even a few days in holding to help fill the request.

Bottom line is I just think the system could be made better for all. And the system can still fill request as they rooms become free. Adding another way to help fill the request hurts no one.

 

[Dean]

But as the system sits now Members A and B, C AND D ALL will be stuck with resorts they don't want.

Why should Memebr A and D suffer because someone else wants days that they can't even fill? The single days can match just as they do now. Why would a person have to wait for all days to open when another person with all the days could just swap? As it stands these rooms and waitlist that member A and D have would never open. Member B and C can match with others or when rooms open up as they do now. And the system can just run in order that waitlist was made.

Also one could argue that member B and C have a bigger advantage because they only want 2 days vs 4. "Why should they fill member B 2 days when I waitlisted first for 4 days" "they should give me the 2 days so I can shrink my waitlist.

I think its crazy that anyone would be against a way to INCREASE member "wishes" being granted.

I think the "don't give it to him because I don't get anything" attitude in childish.

There are several things they could do to improve a given person's chances such as holding any days that match the dates until they have them all. They could do as you suggest but have elected to use a first come priority system and in doing so, I think they need to keep the integrity intact. It's not as simple as the 4 person scenario noted above plus I think you're assuming that the people at the top of the list may not match and everyone is stuck from there. I can't speak for others but for me it's not a worry that someone matches or doesn't but rather than the system be consistent within the rules as set up. Once you start picking and choosing for whatever reason you open up (or increase) the possibility of shenanigans both by CM's and members alike. Personally I think they'd should require points be committed to any wait list which would require points to hold both the current reservation AND to WL.

 

[Millionaire2K]

There are several things they could do to improve a given person's chances such as holding any days that match the dates until they have them all. They could do as you suggest but have elected to use a first come priority system and in doing so, I think they need to keep the integrity intact. It's not as simple as the 4 person scenario noted above plus I think you're assuming that the people at the top of the list may not match and everyone is stuck from there. I can't speak for others but for me it's not a worry that someone matches or doesn't but rather than the system be consistent within the rules as set up. Once you start picking and choosing for whatever reason you open up (or increase) the possibility of shenanigans both by CM's and members alike. Personally I think they'd should require points be committed to any wait list which would require points to hold both the current reservation AND to WL.

The way I see it is IF you don't match we go to the next person. Why should everyone else get nothing because 1 person has a wild waitlist.

I just don't see the harm in an = swap between members with already booked rooms.

What if Guest A and D from above met on a fourm and agreed to stay at the others rooms. A check D in and D checked A in.

A worst thing are members using their resort advance to book up rooms and sell them to people!!.

If a magical computer system can "automagically" figure out the matches there would be a less chance of "shenanigans". Right now as the system is there is plenty of room for shady dealings. Many members create waitlist and do crazy things to get what they want. I even have herd of people not getting their waitlist because MS said they didn't have enough points when they did. Now someone else has that room.

Maybe the waitlist system should just work automatically ALL the time. Then the system can hold rooms till MS confirms them.

 

[Dean]

The way I see it is IF you don't match we go to the next person. Why should everyone else get nothing because 1 person has a wild waitlist.

I just don't see the harm in an = swap between members with already booked rooms.

What if Guest A and D from above met on a fourm and agreed to stay at the others rooms. A check D in and D checked A in.

A worst thing are members using their resort advance to book up rooms and sell them to people!!.

If a magical computer system can "automagically" figure out the matches there would be a less chance of "shenanigans". Right now as the system is there is plenty of room for shady dealings. Many members create waitlist and do crazy things to get what they want. I even have herd of people not getting their waitlist because MS said they didn't have enough points when they did. Now someone else has that room.

Maybe the waitlist system should just work automatically ALL the time. Then the system can hold rooms till MS confirms them.

In large part it's philosophy from my standpoint, first come first served being the most fair but I do understand your point. My guess is it's far more complicated to set up such a WL than it seems on the surface. At the present time they can't even seem to keep rooms that open up from going to those other than on the WL. Disney is not known for the quality of it's iT or computer systems.

 

[Millionaire2K]

In large part it's philosophy from my standpoint, first come first served being the most fair but I do understand your point. My guess is it's far more complicated to set up such a WL than it seems on the surface. At the present time they can't even seem to keep rooms that open up from going to those other than on the WL. Disney is not known for the quality of it's iT or computer systems.

I also suspect that Disney would rather DVC members struggle to get rooms at non home resorts. This would increase the amount of people buying at multiple resort. So my guess is they just have the WL system as basic as possible.

I mean If I could always get a BW, BLT or VGF room that I want, why would I own all those home resorts? I would only have SSR.

 

[CarolMN]

I also suspect that Disney would rather DVC members struggle to get rooms at non home resorts. This would increase the amount of people buying at multiple resort. So my guess is they just have the WL system as basic as possible.

I mean If I could always get a BW, BLT or VGF room that I want, why would I own all those home resorts? I would only have SSR.

IMO, the waitlist was most likely instituted to reduce calls to MS. Too many calls mean increased cost to both Disney and the membership.

The over arching DVC system objective is to have someone booked into every room every night. The system as a whole doesn't care which members are in a particular villa.

FWIW, I personally would prefer DVC spend my annual dues making other online improvements over making the waitlist more "fair" or efficient.

 

[Dean]

I also suspect that Disney would rather DVC members struggle to get rooms at non home resorts. This would increase the amount of people buying at multiple resort. So my guess is they just have the WL system as basic as possible.

I mean If I could always get a BW, BLT or VGF room that I want, why would I own all those home resorts? I would only have SSR.

I doubt it's purposeful from that standpoint.

 

[nalajms]

A worst thing are members using their resort advance to book up rooms and sell them to people!!.

Personally I think the worst thing are members booking at 11m, then canceling it after the 7m mark when they could have canceled at prior to 7m. It leaves the room wide open to anyone diligent enough to search constantly and the other home resort owners on the WL are just SOL!


So what's stopping someone from creating a tread for "May Cancel Reservations" like the ADR threads? If it's one of the no-nos on the stickies, sorry I must have missed it

 

[Wanna be Ariel]

Personally I think the worst thing are members booking at 11m, then canceling it after the 7m mark when they could have canceled at prior to 7m. It leaves the room wide open to anyone diligent enough to search constantly and the other home resort owners on the WL are just SOL!


So what's stopping someone from creating a tread for "May Cancel Reservations" like the ADR threads? If it's one of the no-nos on the stickies, sorry I must have missed it

A cancel thread would have helped me out for our upcoming trip since all I do is wait and wait and hope for someone to cancel. I like the idea