Archive for the ‘Business’ Category

Online check-in is a farce

Friday, August 27th, 2010

I’m a nervous traveller at the best of times, so by the time I turned up at the airport to fly to Zambia I was already wishing that fate would intervene in some non-fatal way to prevent me from having to go. As it happens, I almost got my wish.

The problem started when we got to the bag drop desk (having “checked in” online, whatever that means, the previous night). It turns out that British Airways attempt to enforce entry visa requirements at the home end of the journey, and won’t let anyone on the plane who doesn’t meet visa requirements. This makes sense, since it’s a waste of time and jet fuel to take someone halfway round the world just to find that they can’t enter the country.

Unfortunately BA don’t apply the Zambian visa rules, they apply their approximation of the Zambian visa rules, and it turns out we’re an edge case. In particular, in BA’s version of things you can’t go unless you have a return flight booked within 90 days. This makes no sense at all in practice, since we were travelling on a business visa, and could only get a 30-day initial allowance anyway (to be extended later). In BA’s version of events, travelling on a 30-day visa with an 89-day return date is OK, while using the same visa with a 110-day return date is forbidden.

This seems like another case of bugs in real world rules to me. The BA staff at Heathrow had clear instructions, which they followed to the letter. They were courteous and understanding, but the fault didn’t lie with them. The rules are, to stretch an analogy, written to ROM. In the end, we did what any programmer would recognise as a workaround: changed our return flight to an earlier date, flew, then changed it back.

Which brings me to my related complaint: what exactly was the point of “checking in” online the night before if it didn’t ensure we were cleared to fly? As far as I can tell, online checkin consists of nothing more than allocating your seat number and asking security questions, which get asked again anyway. The seat number is sometimes changed later at the whim of the airline as well. In terms of seat allocation, it’s turned an orderly process of arriving at the airport early to ensure you get your preferred seat into a competition to see who can get to an internet terminal closest (to the second) to 24 hours before the flight is scheduled. I was delayed 20 minutes because BA’s mobile web site was either broken or just not implemented, by which time half the plane was already full. What exactly does this online bun-fight achieve?

But enough of the whingeing. We made it here on schedule, and we’re settled into our new house. It’s much harder to pity yourself when you see the conditions many Zambians live in, but that’s a topic for another post.

Monetisation by advertising will always suck

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

You know when you’ve had an idea in your head, but not been able to articulate it cogently, and then someone else does? I think Richard Ziade’s just done that for me with a rant about web content:

In the never-ending quest to get page views, the choices writers and editors are making to attract eyeballs and drive traffic are creating a new breed of low-brow, gimmicky disposable content.  At its best it adds little insight and at its worst amounts to a slimy bait-and-switch (catchy headline, nothing to say in the article).

It’s the new clutter. The article itself has devolved into a flashing, animated pile of fluff. The casualty of the rat race towards ad impressions isn’t just crappy layout and thoughtless art direction. It’s awful and useless content.

To me, this seems to be an all but inevitable result of attempting to fund the majority of the web publishing economy with advertising, which in turn is a natural outcome of the post-2000-goldrush exuberance that in the future, everything will be FREE.

The problem with advertising is that a casual or dissatisfied eyeball pays off just as well as an engaged, satisfied eyeball—quite possibly the former pays better, since a dissatisfied mind is more likely to wander away from the content looking for gewgaws to purchase. People (and companies) respond to this incentive, and attempt to gain maximal payoff with minimal effort.

Compare the open web with the content in Amazon’s e-book store (or any paid-content service): sure, there are plenty of bad books, but the vast majority are honest attempts to provide something of value, even if the author’s skill is found wanting.

Curiously enough, it’s not the lack of income that causes this: in places where advertising isn’t possible (e.g. wikipedia, feedbooks etc.) the average quality of content is higher. What seems to be important is not the size of the incentive, but the direction in which it pushes.

Debugging in the real world

Friday, July 30th, 2010

As part of my preparations for living in Zambia, I’ve had to have some vaccinations. One of the recommended vaccinations was Hepatitis B. Luckily, the UK National Health Service provides Hep B vaccinations for free. Unluckily, they also provide Hepatitis A vaccinations for free, and the two are delivered as a combined vaccine. I’ve already been vaccinated for Hep A, so I can’t have the combined shot. This means I have to have the single Hep B vaccine, which isn’t free.

It seems odd that having immunity to a disease should drive up my costs for getting vaccinated for another disease. It seems downright bizarre that my making it easier (or at least, no harder) for the government to deliver the free service should mean I have to pay. It would be fashionable at this point to rail against the fundamental inefficiency of government-provided healthcare.

But I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. The mistake the NHS seem to be making here looks like the same sort of mistake that is made every day by thousands of software developers. The set of rules for Hepatitis has a bug in it (no pun intended).

It seems to me that in this case the bug is a leaky abstraction. The obvious goal is to provide immunity to both diseases, and a policy of providing a combined vaccine looks from a high level as if it fulfils that goal. When the details of the policy are implemented, an obvious refinement is not to provide a combined vaccine to someone who’s already had one shot (whether this is a matter of health or cost-saving I don’t know, but it doesn’t affect the argument).

Obviously this is an over-simplification; looking at the world through the eyes of a programmer, things naturally form into shapes and idioms that are common currency to the techie. But I think this there’s something to be gained from seeing the world this way. When people try and build rule sets, they get things wrong. Not because they are stupid, or unwilling, or corrupted, or bureaucratic, but simply because creating perfect rule sets isn’t something that humans are naturally capable of.