Seems tasteless. Maybe the author doesn't understand, maybe ChatGPT wrote the article & incorrect reference, maybe this is an attempt at SEO.
[0]: https://pure.tue.nl/ws/files/2152975/632939.pdf [1]: https://doi.org/10.1080/15326340802427497
> A comparison between the Israeli queue and a regular queue
> It turns out that the Israeli queue is very efficient. To demonstrate this we calculate...
I downloaded it from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228675335_Polling_w...
The citation generator makes it clear the Jan/2008 version of https://doi.org/10.1080/15326340802427497 is to be cited.
Your linked Jul/2008 paper has no version or prior publication data, which makes it a bit gnarly to untangle. It does, however, mention reference [5] for "a sketch" (that doesn't exist), and links to itself as the source in the references section. There's something entirely suspicious about this version.
Kind of leaves a strange aftertaste for an otherwise useful concept.
In hindsight it's mildly surprising Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Borat) didn't author this one.
I'd call it an affinity queue, or perhaps an associative priority queue.
E.g., to implement an Israeli queue using a standard priority queue, you'd have to track the priority of each "friend group" in a separate data structure.
Concrete priority values are also difficult to reuse without accidentally inserting a new group in the middle of the queue - so the values are at the risk of overflowing.
Reminds of a triage in a hospital.
that would surely prove to everyone that I have an understanding on behalf of the effected group I imagined, whom I never asked
