Jump to content

Talk:Metcard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Objectivity?

[edit]

nothing wrong with melbtrip website

The article seems to be somewhat skewed and unobjective. The following statements in particular:

  • They replaced a functionally identical yet technically simpler system of punch tickets and scratchies. (yet, in theory, the Metcard system is far simpler to use - the scratchie system required the user to scratch off the date and time of use - a sort of "manual validation")
  • the machines used to purchase or validate the tickets are notoriously quick to break down. (whilst break-downs and problems occur, their "notoriety" is lileky less common than is implied by the text)
  • Subsequent validations are therefore technically unnecessary unless you plan to exit a gated rail station. (whilst technically so, it should be noted that re-validation is still legally required)
  • Ticket inspectors randomly check trains and trams, but their sometimes heavy-handed tactics have resulted in public discontent and even court cases, (firstly, for accuracy the correct term of "Authorised Officers" should be used, rather than "Ticket inspectors"; secondly, this statement seems to promote the unfortunate stereotype of all TIs/AOs being the "bully type" [whilst some have been rude and over-the-top in certain circumstances popularised by the media, this is generally not the case])
Firstly, the term "Ticket inspectors" is descriptive: the term "Authorised Officers" is a technical term with no evident meaning. Secondly, I didn't read "sometimes" as promoting a stereotype: I read "public discontent and even court cases" as an easily verified statement of fact.
  • Melbourne's chronic level of fare evasion (implies that fare evasion is an epidemic of sorts in Melbourne, moreso than general cities worldwide; in many cities where fines are simply the cost of the trip or entirely unenforced, fare evasion is rampant - moreso than in Melbourne, one would assume)
I'm sure it depends on what you compare with (Hong Kong and Singapore are two places near here that have much lower levels of fare evasion), but the important points are that fare evasion was (1) Much higher than predicted, and (2) Much higher than it had been in the 'old' system with Tram Conductors and Station Staff.

Also, I've corrected the following factual error: despite existing validators already supporting smartcards as well as magnetic cards. -- the current equipment supports an RFID-based system, which is far less capable and for an entirely different purpose that the future smartcard system. The current system does not support smartcards.

What was the "entirely different purpose" of the MetCard RFID system? If you had one, you swiped your "card with the embedded processor" past the RFID sensor at the gate, and the gate opened, so it looked to me like it could have been used as a smartcard system -- I always presumed that the limitation was in the networking or system software -- the difficult non-standard functions that have caused myki problems -- rather than in the gate hardware.203.206.162.148 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Naturally, I'd like to know what anyone reading thinks.

Cheers --Evan C 11:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very muchly so, I think this article could do with a rewrite....Some of this stuff is bullsh*t!

--AndrewH 09:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC +11)

  • It read like a PTUA flyer I've updated some parts, using 'actuals' from the TTA website and not hypotheticals / rhetoric / 'bring back conductors' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.34.63.1 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Much better! There're still a few bits I'm unsure of, but on the whole it's much better! --Evan C (Talk) 05:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what else you'd like changed, happy to help..

POV

[edit]

I've added a POV tag to the article. It seems that not much has been done since the last discussion on this, but I'd suggest a rewrite for the How Metcard Works section. Like most other articles about Melbourne's transport, it reads like a whinge from disgruntled customers: while many of the statements are correct, it's written in a tone that elicits a certain reaction. Argh, stupid "loss of session data" errors!invincible 10:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this sounds like some disgruntled person having a great old whine! Lordkyran 10:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of my business really, but looks neutral to me. 12.14.174.162 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zone2/3 changes

[edit]

I had read that the anomaly of zone 3 only existing in the outer east/SE, not all outer suburbs of similar distance, was one of the reasons for the change, as it was causing electoral discomfort for the local members in the zone 3 areas. However, I shall try and find the article to provide a reference. Natronomonas 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Myki Logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Metcard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Metcard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Metcard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metcard&oldid=1203984080"