For my "normal" itins I'm getting fares like $22,000 (Or $599,000 for 2+ stops ) instead of the $1400 I have found (and booked and flown) in the past..
Weird... and irritating.
Due to frequent user requests, we recently made a change to default the sales city (and currency) to that of the origin of the trip. You can override this in the initial form.
Could it be that you are seeing prices in a currency that is different than what you expect?
If not, please PM me with the details and I will look into it.
__________________
hacker: (n) 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even obsessively)... The Jargon File
Basically it takes minutes now to accomplish what I did in seconds with matrix1.
I echo this. The withdrawal of matrix1 is a truly dreadful development.
matrix2 may be good for the occasional flyer, but in a couple of days of playing with it, it's proving to be as bad as most dumbed-down interfaces. The worst thing is that using it is so dreadfully slooooooow.
Personally, I would pay to have access to matrix1. It's saved me a lot of time, effort and money over the years.
Personally, I would pay to have access to matrix1. It's saved me a lot of time, effort and money over the years.
If they sense enough demand from people willing to do the same, I'm sure they'd offer it. Opening it back up free, now that the service is much more widely known and popular, would be pretty expensive to support. I don't have any of the same issues described by people in here. Seems just as fast, and as the database it pulls from is the same, the results are the same. There's a line for the advanced code if you still want to use it, and there are simple workarounds for many of the changes if you don't like them (via your browser settings or otherwise). On the other hand, Matrix 2 provides some key benefits to me and I suspect the common user, such as better sorting with the sliders.
__________________ 15% off all Marriott stays, plus many more bonus points, discounts & tricks. See the Master Thread.
If they sense enough demand from people willing to do the same, I'm sure they'd offer it. Opening it back up free, now that the service is much more widely known and popular, would be pretty expensive to support.
I think just the opposite. You have to think like Google at this point. If there was enough demand, they would offer the service for free, and find a way to use the data. If there were enough technically savvy users, and it could be done without revealing proprietary algorithms, Google would release the code as open source and allow the users to maintain it as they see fit. For example, when major clients/partners (representing millions of users) report bugs in older releases of Android, Google informs them that they have access to the source code and should feel free to modify it to suit their needs.
The one thing I absolutely cannot imagine Google doing is accepting a nominal amount of money (can anyone imagine paying more than $10-$100 per month?) and agreeing to support an obsolete platform for a small group of users. You're talking about a company that prefers to release its major products as "beta" (and leave the products in beta status for years) to reduce the expectations of stable, supported products.
I really don't think a group of of a few thousand hobbyists are going to be able to pitch in a few dollars a month and change Google's business practices. If you really want a paid service like that, you would be better off trying to approach ExpertFlyer or KVS or FareCompare - some company that has shown willingness to provide custom tools for a small group of users at a nominal price.
Programs: UA Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron, Hyatt Plat, Priority Club Plat, HHonors Pyrite
Posts: 3,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowly
Matrix2 is a disaster! Hate the autocomplete, it just slows down everything and makes changing search harder [...]
Most of all I hate javascriptization of links. In matrix1 I was able to ctrl-click on a price in the month view to open it in a new tab - without losing the month view. And then ctrl-click on a price in the day view to get the details on that itinerary in a new tab, again without losing list of other possible itineraries in that day. Then ctrl-click again on rate rules to open them in new tab.
Now with javascript links I have to click on (counterintuitively positioned) "Show Flights" button in the month view and it opens day view in the same page, losing the month view. To view another day in the month I have to click back, it reloads month view, then click on another day.
Basically it takes minutes now to accomplish what I did in seconds with matrix1. Do they think people who use more that one tab are mega-advanced users?…
This. Nails. It.
ITA Hacker, I really hope you guys are paying attention.
I think just the opposite. You have to think like Google at this point. If there was enough demand, they would offer the service for free, and find a way to use the data.
By "charge", I'm including ad-based revenue, which wouldn't require a subscription. I agree with you in principle, but the problem is that the government is all over Google because they don't understand what they do or how they operate, so they misuse antitrust laws to restrict their behavior. If Google could do as you suggest, they would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janetdoe
If there were enough technically savvy users, and it could be done without revealing proprietary algorithms, Google would release the code as open source and allow the users to maintain it as they see fit. For example, when major clients/partners (representing millions of users) report bugs in older releases of Android, Google informs them that they have access to the source code and should feel free to modify it to suit their needs.
Releasing ITA's code in open source would be akin to releasing their search engine code. It would be giving away their IP and allowing others to use what they built to compete. Android is a different animal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janetdoe
The one thing I absolutely cannot imagine Google doing is accepting a nominal amount of money (can anyone imagine paying more than $10-$100 per month?) and agreeing to support an obsolete platform for a small group of users.
I can't either, because there's not enough demand for it versus the current version that they might deem has broader appeal to the common user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janetdoe
I really don't think a group of of a few thousand hobbyists are going to be able to pitch in a few dollars a month and change Google's business practices. If you really want a paid service like that, you would be better off trying to approach ExpertFlyer or KVS or FareCompare - some company that has shown willingness to provide custom tools for a small group of users at a nominal price.
Agreed.
__________________ 15% off all Marriott stays, plus many more bonus points, discounts & tricks. See the Master Thread.
ITA Hacker, I really hope you guys are paying attention.
I assure you they've listened. The problem is that for every person who doesn't like the differences, there might be multiple people who do. They can't make everyone happy, and they might not be inclined to support multiple versions of a product that has become wildly popular and is still free unless they are permitted to monetize it in the optimal manner (they are prohibited from doing so).
__________________ 15% off all Marriott stays, plus many more bonus points, discounts & tricks. See the Master Thread.
The one thing I absolutely cannot imagine Google doing is accepting a nominal amount of money (can anyone imagine paying more than $10-$100 per month?) and agreeing to support an obsolete platform for a small group of users.
Surely it wouldn't be a different platform as such, but just a different interface? Wouldn't the underlying search and analysis functions be the same as those that drive the new interface? That's how I'd thought that matrix1 and matrix2 worked when they were offered side-by-side - it would have to be so if matrix1 and matrix2 offer the same results.
Programs: UA Epsilon-Minus Semi-Moron, Hyatt Plat, Priority Club Plat, HHonors Pyrite
Posts: 3,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by mooper
I assure you they've listened. The problem is that for every person who doesn't like the differences, there might be multiple people who do. They can't make everyone happy, and they might not be inclined to support multiple versions of a product that has become wildly popular and is still free unless they are permitted to monetize it in the optimal manner (they are prohibited from doing so).
Although I fully agree with those propositions in principle, I don't see what conceivable bearing they have on the error -- for an error it is -- of javascriptization of links. Seriously, where are the "multiple people" clamoring for this? Is there even one such person??
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
Posts: 22,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by beltway
Although I fully agree with those propositions in principle, I don't what conceivable bearing they have on the error -- for an error it is -- of javascriptization of links. Seriously, where are the "multiple people" clamoring for this? Is there even one such person??
Well I posted above that I am a happy user of Matrix 2. I use it quite a lot actually. Maybe I'm on a fast internet link here in Europe, but I don't find it slow at all.
Well I posted above that I am a happy user of Matrix 2. I use it quite a lot actually. Maybe I'm on a fast internet link here in Europe, but I don't find it slow at all.
You don't notice all the extra mousing around that is required? Count the clicks it takes to do ANYTHING and compare to the original.
I suppose if you're not a hacker / programmer / nerd type, you probably are used to using the mouse a lot anyway. Some of us are 10-20x more efficient in a UNIX environment where we can TYPE! If you're not, you wouldn't notice. i.e. we are NOT talking about connection speed here.
I don't have any of the same issues described by people in here. Seems just as fast, and as the database it pulls from is the same, the results are the same. There's a line for the advanced code if you still want to use it, and there are simple workarounds for many of the changes if you don't like them (via your browser settings or otherwise).
I might kindly suggest that perhaps the reason that you, in particular, don't use the Advanced features is that your airline is Delta, and their routing rules all but eliminate any creative mileage runs. So perhaps you just wouldn't understand.
And if you're not using the Advanced features, why not just go use Kayak or something? The whole point of using ITA was that it was designed for the tech savvy -- it was never targeted to average users!
) instead of the $1400 I have found (and booked and flown) in the past..
I worked it out this morning.. well after posting that comment of course!
