Show HN: Better Seater – Wedding seating chart optimizer

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Optimizing wedding seating charts turns out to be a surprisingly hard problem, touching on NP-hard constraint solving as well as messy social realities like feuds, friend groups, accessibility, and budget limits. Commenters explore how tools like Better Seater and libraries such as OptaPlanner/Timefold can generate “good enough” arrangements using heuristics and genetic algorithms, while emphasizing that humans still need to tweak results based on unquantifiable preferences. There is also debate over product direction and viability: whether to target wedding planners and venues, support complex constraints (table sizes, locations, priorities, tags), and how far to go beyond a simple drag‑and‑drop UI before it becomes too complex to be useful.

Overall reception

  • Many find the idea fun and technically interesting, especially the use of optimization/constraint solving.
  • Several report having tried to build similar tools (for weddings, kennels, classrooms, camps, etc.), validating that the problem is real and tricky.
  • Others say they ultimately reverted to manual planning because of complex “soft” constraints and human judgment.

Optimization & algorithms

  • Multiple comments note the problem (keeping people together/apart under constraints) is NP-hard.
  • Consensus: exact optimality isn’t necessary; “good enough” heuristic solutions are fine.
  • The tool uses OptaPlanner under the hood; Timefold (a fork) is suggested as a faster successor.
  • Other solvers mentioned: MILP solvers, SAT encodings, genetic algorithms, Google OR-Tools; performance and usability vary.

Use cases & constraints

  • Typical scenarios: 100–600 guests, variable table sizes, couples/groups that must sit together, enemies who must be separated, language clusters, proximity to stage, toilets, bar, or dance floor.
  • People want to encode priorities: who should be close to the couple, mix of interests, avoiding social drama, encouraging new connections without over-optimizing.
  • Some want only table assignments, not specific seats.

UX and feature feedback

  • Requests include:
    • Better onboarding and documentation.
    • Flexible table counts/sizes and tolerances.
    • Locking manual placements and optimizing around them.
    • Tags/attributes for interests, diet, language, etc.
    • Handling couples/groups and multi-group membership.
    • Version comparisons, duplicate detection, import from spreadsheets.
    • Optional randomization and multiple distinct “good” solutions.
  • Some see value in printable charts and phone-friendly seat finders (e.g., QR-code lookup).

Business model and target users

  • Strong suggestion to target planners and venues (recurring use, lower churn) rather than only individual couples.
  • Ideas include free/basic tools for lead generation and paid tiers for saved data and advanced features.

Cultural views on assigned seating

  • Some cultures/events rarely assign seats and see it as unnecessary.
  • Others argue seating plans provide reassurance, structure, and help solo guests and disparate friend groups.