Get Satisfaction thinks I don't have cookies enabled

Yes.

Hi Alexey,

I've seen this once before, from another user who was using noscript (I assume that is what you are using since you refer to allowing certain scripts to run).

However, I'm not familiar with how such extensions interface with the "noscript" html element, which is what we use to show that message. Using the latest versions of noscript, I cannot reproduce the problem. Given that, I would rather err on the side of caution and get some false positives (as in your case) rather than not show that message to someone who genuinely doesn't have scripts or cookies turned on.

Sorry for the frustration,
Scott

I'm not running noscript. I AM only allowing cookies for specified domains, however. GetSatisfaction.com is on the list of allowed domains, and yet I see the message above. I, too, can fully participate on the site, even when I see the message.

When I change the Firefox cookies setting to Allow, but "Ask me every time" how long to keep them, it asks me to set four different cookies at two different subdomains of quantserve.com.

Is your cookie/JS checking script checking to see if we allow these quantserve.com cookies?

The message is actually inserted using a Javascript document.write, so presumably it's a cookie issue. I have cookies allowed for getsatisfaction.com, what other domains need to be allowed as well?

Hi,
I use firefox with noscript and Cookie Monster to protect myself when browsing.
I have enabled "getsatisfaction.com" in both yet still get the:
"Get Satisfaction uses Javascript and cookies."
nag message.

Can somebody please:
i) explain why (it's annoying and confusing)
ii) fix it so that this error no longer occurs

Cheers, Steve.

Hello,
It's about a week on since Eric posted a happy sounding yet non-committal response.

Please will you kindly set my expectations effectively and clearly as to what priority you intend to give this and when I (we) should next expect a useful update.
If it's not a high priority for you (to fix this) then kindly say so.

Cheers, Steve.

Hello again - I just checked back to see if this had moved on at all.. apparently not.

Re Thor's most recent response...:
When requested
"kindly set my expectations effectively and clearly as to what priority you intend to give this and when"
you have an opportunity to be really clear about your intentions.
Why not TAKE that opportunity?
I clearly want to have an idea of "when" to expect a solution.. yet your response give no indication whatsoever - i.e. is not helpful at all.
Also - saying things like "this is not at the top of our list right now" is not really helpful either is it?
What does this mean beyond "we're not currently working on it"?

If this is something you INTEND to fix... please take the opportunity to "SET MY EXPECTATIONS" clearly and helpfully.
Vague and unclear responses don't help achieve the goal (of setting expectations) and are consequently a waste of time.
If you don't know... have no idea... say so.. admit it.
If this issue is not really important to you... say so... be clear.

FWIW i think this issue and your failure to fix it and your failure to make a clear statement about when you might fix it makes your site/service look a bit amateur and creates a very poor impression - especially given the role of getsatisfaction.com in helping CUSTOMERS to.. er... Get Satisfaction!
(Do you see the irony?)
I think this is precisely the OPPOSITE effect to the one you should be looking to create. i.e. I think getsatisfaction.com should take the opportunity to demonstrate (to other tardy companies/services) exactly HOW a site service like this CAN HANDLE tricky and techy problems (like this one) and HOW WELL customer expectations can be clearly set - targets set and monitored.

As it is you appear to totally happy to live with this defect and not bother to fix it OR at least tell users (me!) that in reality you have no intention of addressing the problem.

Comments from somebody in authority at getsatisfaction.com?

Steve.

I too am seeing this problem with a 3rd-party cookie manager. In this case I am using CookieSafe, not Cookie Monster (but using NoScript as well).

Some extra info that may help: The problem goes away if I tell CookieSafe to "Allow Cookies Globally." Any other setting causes the erroneous enable-your-cookies message, even if getsatisfaction.com cookies are enabled all the time (i.e. not just for the session).

Thor, thanks for confirming this bug is on your radar! :-)

Hello again,
Popping in to check on updates for this and I notice that it's not been updated for over 3 months.

Come on "somebody in authority at getsatisfaction.com" - let's have a useful and informative update.

Regards,
Steve.

Thor,
once again you are missing the opportunity to communicate clearly and helpfully.
3 months on I would expect you to be able to be a bit more precise and give the impression that:
i) Your dev team have this work scheduled and are confident as to when it will be rolled out
ii) You would have provided an update (on this thread) without having to be prompted.
iii) You don't need chasing and cajoling in order to provide timely, useful and clear information.

Do I expect too much?
Please try harder.

Cheers, Steve.

Thor,
You need to correct your tone here.
Your replies make it sound as though my taking an interest in this bug is in some way inconvenient to you (personally) and that you would prefer it if I stopped taking an interest. I don't mind that you (personally) don't understand why this bug should be important to a/some user(s) - BUT it SHOULD be important to Get Satisfaction.

GS Please hear my request:
Can somebody IN AUTHORITY at GS please (please please) make an authoritative statement on this. I suggest you ask Thor to stop working on this thread due to his lack of understanding and appreciation of why this bug needs addressing. i thihnk he is getting in the way. Get a dev on to speak up about it :-)

Despite this annoying and frankly clueless approach I am going to take the time and effort to give you some free and very clear and helpful advice (I trust it's appreciated)!

====
Here's a summary of why you really do want to fix this bug - first reported to you in this thread some 9 (seriously that's nine!) months ago:

1) BUG MANIFESTATION:
The bug manifests an incorrect error message. This makes it appear that either:
a) The user has a problem - creating concern/worry for the user (you may be aware that there are many concerns for users on the web - e.g. privacy, s/w compatibility, security compromises etc.
b) Your website is broken (in some way). You (and I now having chased it up and bothered researching it) know that it isn't really - it's just reporting an error when it shouldn't

2) FIRST IMPRESSIONS:
You need to understand that UI of your app (the website) creates a very strong impression for the users/customers. Even though you are confident this issue does not break functionality - a user won't know that.
If you are trying to attract both end-users (public) and corporate accounts (the BIG companies) and seriously expect them to take you seriously as a legitimate and competent channel to deliver support/service to THEIR customers - then you need to create a GREAT IMPRESSION (right?) - anyone at GS disagree with that statement?

3) SO WHERE ARE WE NOW:
Right now you have an annoying bug - reported 9 months ago which makes the site/service appear broken to some users.
I suggest these are typically sophisticated/savvy users who utilise privacy protecting browser plugins/methods. Such users are picky and expect good service, are intolerant of bugs and notice when things are broken.
Such users are also often great advocates and evangelists for services/products they like... so whilst they may bitch about little problems... they also preach about stuff they like!
That's why many web sites/services WORK REALLY HARD TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN such users.

Not only have you FAILED to fix this bug, but you also have openly suggested that you don't UNDERSTAND WHY it should be fixed quickly.
And.. to compound this.. when I have tried to help draw attention to this problem... help you notice it.. (tried to) help you to do a good job... your support service gives the impression of being "bothered" needlessly.

4) SO WHY DO I CARE?
Good question.
I care because:
i) I hate lousy service
ii) I love (the idea, the potential) of your site/service... yet it appears to me you are finding it difficult to attract sufficient numbers of the kind of big companies to take an active interest in using GS as a serious channel for customer service.
Saying things like "[fixing this bug and supporting it properly is]out of scope not just for us, but for any small company"
to me READS AS:
We do not have sufficient resources to do a competent job

Once again I respectfully and politely request a response on this bug/fix issue from "somebody in authority" at GS. I would also love to hear your feedback on my comments.

Regards, Steve.

hello Amy,
Thanks for jumping in.
Thor's the CTO?
Good grief! (let me guess - awesome coder... not so hot on the people skills?)

Please can you kindly bring my comments (last post here) about the importance of the UI (and creating a good impression etc.) to the attention of your User Experience head (Wendy Owen) - I can't see a way to message her directly (apologies if there is).

I'm interested in a conversation regarding my comments about WHY GS should be taking this bug (and it's implications) seriously - and why I should take GS seriously if the responses from your CTO are so ill-informed.

Happy to engage with her away from this forum if appropriate/preferred.

If Wendy/GS would prefer not to have the conversation you need only say so :-)

Cheers, Steve.

Hi Scott,
I welcome your comments/involvement and would like to understand where specifically you think I am out of line.

I have become frustrated by what (to me at least) appears a degree of cluelessness - and I've spent some significant time explaining in detail what should be really obvious (i.e. WHY a bug like this should be fixed quickly, the need to create the right impression, the need LISTEN to what users are saying).

Re: "Perhaps you don't agree with their assessment of their priorities"
I don't UNDERSTAND their priorities (9 months to make little error go away?!?!?)

Question to you Scott: How can a service like this attract BIG brand name companies to use GS to support their customers/services IF GS is prepared to say (in a public forum!) that they don't sufficient resources to prioritise fixing a bug like this one within 9 months... and beyond that.. refuse to give a proper ETA for a fix beyond vague "Q3" timeline?

Is this issue worth this much of my time?
No - i must be silly spending the time.

Are GS listening and improving their service?
Apparently not.

Is my interest welcomed... and are my concerns worth addressing by GS?
Apparently not.

Again - I find the attitude (given the opportunity to show HOW to "do support") here very odd.

Apologies to anyone for any offense caused - and well done to you Scott for sticking up for GS/Thor if you think I am "out of line".

Meanwhile of course - the site still gives me (and others, how many?) ongoing
"Get Satisfaction uses Javascript and cookies.
You'll need to enable Javascript and cookies to log-in and participate."

For every page I load.

Cheers, Steve.

Hi Amy,
Thanks for your further comments and taking the time to get involved here.
In an effort to show my appreciation for your interest, to provide wise and useful feedback ;-) and to hopefully clear the air and redeem my good character i have written the following long post.
I trust it is welcomed and appreciated.

Please note that anything ending in a "?" is a question and would be great if you answered them (they're not rhetorical) :-)

>> Re: Q1, Q2, Q3
of course - that's pretty standard.
Given that if you hit that target it will be in the next ~20 days - why not update this log/thread *pro-actively* saying something like:

"We have implemented the fix on our dev/test environemt and plan to roll it out during the week commencing Monday 21st September. We'll confirm it here once it's live and we would appreciate it if you guys could give it a test for us and confirm it's all working"

if you can't (or don't value) be pro-active - at least be re-active when helpfully prompted - and give some details.. engage your users... welcome their input and interest... grow the relationship.... help them to... feel like their time is valued - indeed that they are...:
GET(ing) SATISFACTION
Again.. if GS can't be a good example of how a tool/service like this can be used to build trust with users... how is that selling the concept and service to other (bigger) companies?

>> Re: I understand that this bug has caused serious inconvenience for you
and I apologize for that.
No it hasn't!
It's an unnecessary ANNOYANCE - but we (people on this thread) have proved that it doesn't break the functionality of GS (by trial and error and contributing to a thread like this).
The apology is welcome but I'd rather you didn't take 9 months to fix little bugs.

The ISSUE (your issue actually) is that it creates DOUBT about the service (i.e. if that's broken - what else is?) - this is compounded by a FAILURE TO FIX it for 9 months... this is further compounded by taking a poor attitude in how you converse with your users (lack of clarity and detail, lack of welcoming feedback, poor engagement, missed opportunities to "impress the users")

>> Re: However, we ask that you understand that we have millions of users and so far, only 6 people have reported having this issue.
Sure - and how many have experienced it and not reported it, how many have been put off the service.. it's the point about CREATING the RIGHT IMPRESSION.

>> Re: This doesn't mean we won't pay attention to it, but we do have to prioritize.
Sure -of course - I wouldn't expect anything other than that.
My Opinion: I don't understand why you can't do it in less than 9 months - this too reflects GS in a bad light. Coupled with the poor attitude and performance in this log/thread you have MISSED the OPPORTUNITY to IMPRESS users.
Beyond this you seem comfortable to continually give the impression that you are a "small team and can't cope with the workload". Whilst I understand and sympathise - isn't that the OPPOSITE of the impression you would want to give?

>> Re: We are constantly striving to improve our service.
Good :-)
>> I'm sorry that you feel otherwise.
I may be unfairly judging you on this specific issue... but this is one where I notice you and you haven't performed well. The failure on this issue has put me off using the site/service. Based on the experience I've had I have decided to not put more time/effort into using it. However - as I love the concept and would love to see it done well - I have maintained my interest in this issue (hence the daft amount of time I am spending explaining stuff to you in the hope that some of it will stick!)

>> We've also tried to be as responsive as possible to you in this topic.
No you haven't!
See my example pro-active text above. Took me 2 mins to type - not difficult to do - basic expectation management and target setting.
Reasons to NOT do that?
What Thor has done is behave like an "IT Department in a large company" with monopoly powers and captive users.. "You'll get the fix when it's ready - now go away".
Instead of seeing user/customer interest and enthusiasm as a virtue - it is actually seen as annoyance and unwelcome.
Duh!
Embrace your passionate users.... listen to what they say... go the extra mile to impress them... if you're going to disappoint them (inevitable some of the time) carefully manage it and explain clearly - it will be understood and appreciated.
All this takes time/effort... maybe you need to employ some experienced customer service people who know how to do this (e.g. ITIL, Service Management) - what do you think?
Get good community/service managers to interface between the devs/CTO and your users.

>> Again, I'm sorry that you have not been happy with our responses.
Thanks for the apology - I understand and accept that you have a busy service, a small team and limited resources. I accept your right to set your own priorities (of course!) even if I don't share them :-)

>> As I mentioned before, we'll post an update when we have one.
Great. How about adopting (something like) the text I suggested above and clearly and pro-actively manage expectations, demonstrate willingness and gain customer confidence?
HERE IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR GS TO DO A FANTASTIC JOB ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE - could even create a template/method for doing this stuff better going forward :-)

Finally let me apologise for any annoyance or offence caused in this thread.
Reading back (as prompted by another user - Scott, thx Scott) on my comments i see that what was intended as "slightly sarcastic and ironic barbed comments" can come across as disrespectful.
In my defence I can only offer my Britishness (we do like a bit of irony and sarcasm!) and state that my frustration with both the tone and lack of detail in the responses I received form GS.
So - sorry for any disrespect or annoyance caused.

Looking forward to seeing the bug fixed and better, more pro-active and detailed posts in the thread.

Regards, Steve.

Thor and Amy, I think you have provided excellent responses to the newest comments here, above and beyond the call.

For the public record, I do not see this problem anymore. Today I am using Firefox 3.5.2, NoScript 1.9.8.8 (with getsatisfaction.com set to "Allow"), and CookieSafe 3.0.5 (with getsatisfaction.com set to "Session" and without the global-allow setting that I mentioned before). I have not experimented with Cookie Monster.

The code in question (in application.js) is


var cookieEnabled=(navigator.cookieEnabled)? true : false
if (typeof navigator.cookieEnabled=="undefined" && !cookieEnabled){
document.cookie="testcookie"
cookieEnabled=(document.cookie.indexOf("testcookie")!=-1)? true : false
}


and I think I found the Mozilla bug.

Could you put in a Gecko-specific path where you ignore the state of the global cookieEnabled flag and check the result of setting a cookie value, like it does above only if the global flag isn't found?

Hi All,
*Note - this post delayed due to Yahoo's OpenID system failure earlier today (I couldn't login here).

Thor. Thanks for your detailed update and conciliatory message - it's appreciated :-)

A couple of thoughts - specifics and in general:

>> This is a Mozilla bug that has effected a very small number of people on our site, is annoying not fatal, and is an issue we were told by Mozilla was something they were going to fix.

This little bit of detail is:
- reassuring: demonstrates you are indeed on the case, have done some investigation and (to some extent) add credibility/backs-up any claim that you will fix it
- interesting: Ok - in a geeky way - but nice to know.. and why not share :-)
- (potentially) useful:
- A user could decide to learn more (as Larry and Ali demonstrate in their posts) and bring back what they learn to share here (like Ali has).
- A user could comment to the vendor (Mozilla) and/or log/join a bug thread to add weight to get it fixed.
- A user may decide it's worth the effort to upgrade - especially if prompted by your team

>> Also, when it was originally reported 9 months ago, our developer Scott was unable to reproduce it, and filed it as related to a third-party plugin.

Understood. But I saw no request or effort to get us (the users) to give more specific feedback (version nos etc.) or request to try alternatives.
I expect many (of us) users have the ability (multiple environments) and (potentially) the will to help out with some testing/verifying.
In order for (companies like) GS to leverage and benefit from such users you need to engage and encourage them.
Sure - this little bug is trivial (technically, impact, no of users affected) - but the next one might not be.... wouldn't it be great to have (been building) a community of users who see the benefit in "helping out" where they can?

>> In a world where we have to test against and optimize for at least six major Web browser/versions, edge cases like this have to take second priority to items that affect significant numbers of people. I don't know of any web apps company that approaches it differently.

I understand and sympathise... however I believe THIS IS the world in which YOU CHOSE to set up, operate and attract users to this site/service.
Therefore - I believe it's part of your company's job/role (Raison d'être) to deal with this stuff - tough as it may be. Again - I sympathise but that doesn't mean I accept it's OK for your site to give a prominent error message on EVERY page I load - nor should you want me to accept that for > a few months.

(Unfair) analogy: I go to my doctor and with symptoms of a new (non life threatening but annoying) illness. I'm not really that happy if she tells me she would prefer only to deal with other illnesses and that this one is a bit tricky. It happens to be the one I have - so whilst it's inconvenient I'm afraid I will expect her to deal with it :-)

Of course you can at any time tell users (me) I'm not welcome - or won't let me in "wearing that browser with those plugins" (and some companies of course do that!) - but I think (hope & pray!) that attitude and those companies won't survive for long.

>> "kind of specificity you're asking for"
OK. I understand. I'm more sympathetic/tolerant if you (as you now have) add some flesh on the bones and explain the issues and some details.
Sure it takes a bit of time... however I believe (of course I have the luxury of not running a growing Web2.0 company!) this effort will be repaid/provide value by growing your user base of interested and committed users/customers - and as I mentioned before likely recruit an informal bunch of testers/commenter's which will be of great value you to you IF you recognise and use it (Can we say "Community"?).

Final thoughts:
============
Thankfully you (GS) are still small enough to engage (in this way) with your users. Try having a conversation with Google or Yahoo! (and many others) about their services!

So your time and effort in responding and contributing here is appreciated.

Questions:
- Would this useful engagement have happened without (someone like) me making a big fuss/noise?
- Will this exercise lead to lessons learned and improved support processes in the future?

Thanks again for your interest and responses - and for overlooking any disrespectful comments.

Steve.

PS. I'm currently on:
Ubuntu (Linux) 8.10
Firefox 3.0.13
NoScript 1.9.8.8
Cookie Monster 0.98.0

Happy to try some alternatives if appropriate and requested.

Thanks for the update.
Actually - it *should* have been fixed months ago!

I can confirm that GS no longer gives the error message for me - same versions of s/w as mentioned in earlier post.

Glad to see this fixed at last - well done.

Scott,
Was that a response to me?
Assuming it is (and apologies if I read it wrongly)... response to you:
What is "unbelievable"?
Do please kindly explain yourself as you have me mystified - and I assume that was not your intention.

I'll happily explain my comments and thoughts to you (if you are genuinely interested) - but please do make yourself clear first.

Steve.