Hacker News Reader

Comment by bargle0 | Hacker News Reader

I don’t buy the queue argument. It would devolve in to a bunch of churn inevitably resulting in thrown hands and black eyes.

View on HN

The queue proposal sounds like a Monty Python skit.

If we adopt the rule that the next person to be served is the most recent person to join line, it's inevitable that a second line will form with people waiting to go to the first line and if someone tries to go to bypass the second line and go directly to the first line, the crowd in the first line will direct their rage at this person and compel him or her to queue in the second line - it's just as if there were only one line and the person had cut in that.

It has an obvious flaw, aside from being super annoying - just leave the queue and rejoin in front of the other person. Then they'll do the same to you. Get it going fast enough and perhaps the spin will generate free energy.

Agreed. I have a comment from a while ago unpacking the idea where I note that it will probably a) devolve into meta-queues that reproduce the original queuing system, and b) encourage anti-social behavior because people no longer value their position in line and have nothing to lose by not playing nice.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10182781

The whole article is embarrassingly bad, a bunch of stuff that sounds clever at first but wasn’t seriously researched or even pondered. Like the requirements to develop resources you buy or the incentive effects of paying off malicious behavior.

> Alas, the Landsburg rule can only be imposed in controlled environments such as a theme park, perhaps. But you might consider applying a dose of Landsburg’s logic to your own “to do” list: don’t add a new item to the list unless you’re willing to do it immediately.

I've got to ponder the to do list example though.

I think you'd end up with a similar amount of person-minutes of waiting overall, it just wouldn't be as apparent who is waiting for what.

As for the to do list, to me that suggestion amounts to nothing more than splitting my to do list into two, a "to do now" list, and a "to do eventually" list (well, I would call it a "two do" list), where I just move items from the second one to the first. That might have some value, but it's not a mind-blowing reversal of logic.

It’s a good lesson in the importance of picking the right things to measure/optimize for. Queue length is not a good thing to optimize for by itself.

Exactly, I don't get how that would increase throughput.

It's not about increasing throughout, it's about increasing user satisfaction. A system where 60 customers are served an hour, and none of them has queued, is theoretically better than one where the same amount are served, but each has queued for 10 boring minutes. You achieve this by disincentivising queueing.

So people would only go to a stand if there's nobody being served, because being behind the person currently being served is discouraged. Essentially, you'd just move the queue: people would wait for a "spot" to open up (a stand with no customer) and then go there.

If it's orderly, they kind of queue in the middle. If it's not, you'll have a large brawl as people try to get in front of each other.

I think you misunderstood the proposed queueing system.... The stand will never be 'open'.

People who arrive join the front of the queue, and are either served next, or someone else joins in front of them, pushing them back. When they're position 2 in the queue, they will only be served if 2 people are served and 0 arrive (low probably). If another person arrives, they're now position 3 in the queue, so 3 need to be served before any arrivals (even lower probably).

At some point, they decide the probability of being served drops low enough that they give up and leave - this will usually happen quickly.

The only way to 'game' this system is to look up the street and join the queue when it looks like nobody else is coming. If many people try to do this, then those people will be waiting forever (both want to join last - stalemate), and anyone who doesn't employ the tactic gets served.

In practice, you would just replace the queue with a disorganized rabble of people standing around, where as soon as the person currently being served leaves, there is a mad dash at the one secure spot, which is at the very front.

Those who really want your product now have to mob up outside your stall and hope they're the next lucky random fucker. They're still waiting.

Those who don't really want your product don't wait in a line for it anyways - the length of the line itself is a natural filter for availability of the good.

Basically - has satisfaction actually gone up if those who would be extremely satisfied by your product no longer receive it, and random folks who may or may not want your product do? I'd bet money the answer is a solid "NO".

Another way to look at it: with the queuing system, you spend 10 minutes, and you get what you want. How many minutes will it take with the no-queue system? It’s not like the thoroughput has increased. And how likely will it be for you to get what you want after that time? Is it definite?

I don't even see how it does that. Unless there is some factor that prevents you from leaving and immediately re-entering the line at the front.

I feel like I missed something.

Yes! I feel this is the main point that is totally missed. The first time I read Tim Hartford years ago he was talking about this idea uncritically and I thought it was stupid then and I don't have much respect for him.

The thing we are trying to optimise is not length of que, but how long and how reliable it is to get served.

Under the old system you may have had to wait 10 minutes to get served BUT you knew before you started queuing it would be about 10 minutes (and thus could make an informed choice) and you can clearly see your progress in the queue and if you are patient you will be served.

Under the new system it now may take you 1 minute to get served or 1 hour. Or you will try multiple times and never get served. And you will have no indication before you start queing how successful you will be.

Any UX designer would easily tell you which of these systems is going to piss people off more.

I feel like I've been a part of a queue like this -- at the airport in San Jose, Costa Rica. It was asinine and infuriating, and just thinking about it makes my blood boil.

I think I didn't really get the idea behind it. Wouldn't that be the same as just prohibiting of forming queues altogether? I.e. you're only allowed to order food of noone else is at the cashier?

Pretty much, yes.

I wonder where people will queue for the chance to pounce on that …

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29687474

The article should have clarified one more assumption: In a Landsburg's queue, it is compulsory for everyone arriving at the scene to *join the queue immediately*. Otherwise, people would just swarm around the head of the queue, fighting to join the queue as soon as the current customer gets served. In the following discussions, I assume such swarms are successfully prohibited.

# For those who end up going home

For those who end up going home, a traditional queue is still more efficient.

In a Landsburg's queue, if you decided to go home, it must be that there has been too many people joined the queue ("the queue got full"). *Their arrival takes time*. You would have waited for quite some time when you decided to bail out.

A traditional queue, on the other hand, allows those who end up going home to choose to do so immediately upon arriving at the scene. You arrive at the scene, look at the queue, judge that it would take unacceptably long period of time before you can get served ("it's currently full"), and decide to go home. You never join the queue. You wait for zero seconds.

# Arranging early arrivals is important

*Filtering for fans.* In the book _The Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life_, Landsburg himself stated that some businesses would prefer to serve fanatic patrons over mediocre customers. In an ordinary queue, customers can prove their loyalty by *arranging to arrive early*. On the other hand, by attaching the probability of getting served directly to the probabilistic nature of when one arrives, a Landsburg's queue does not allow/support proving patronage with early arrivals.

*An ordinary queue is an auction.* One of the main arguments that Landsburg proposed is that an ordinary, first-in-first-out queue is inefficient because it is not a market. I disagree to some extent. Let's re-examine the act of arranging early arrivals. By arriving early, you sacrifice the liberty of arranging the day's tasks liberally, often risking postponing a couple of other chores to the next day and/or losing opportunities for spending the morning somewhere else. This *cost of flexibility and opportunity* is a bid[^1] for guarantee/priority of service. Yes, it's still not a market where you trade spots in the queue, but its auction-like nature makes it a much closer implementation than Landsburg's queue.

[^1]: Well, it's technically a payment, since you don't get your money back should you lose the auction (i.e., decide to bail out from the queue). However, since it's not a game of chance, I can't call it a gamble either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com