Loading Profile...
Problems solved or not solved?
I just hate it when people forget (or are too lazy) to mark a topic as solved.
Don't you think it would be better to mark a topic as solved after a specific time range?
Let's say someone (official rep!) answers and if the topic starter doesn't reply within 2 weeks, the topic is marked solved. Or like what companies do with Trouble Tickets. When the support thinks topic solved, it's solved. Still open questions? A click and "ticket" is open again.
Here are hundreds of very old topics. 6 months old is nothing. Topics (Problems and questions only) that are non answered after X months should get a special mark.
Don't you think it would be better to mark a topic as solved after a specific time range?
Let's say someone (official rep!) answers and if the topic starter doesn't reply within 2 weeks, the topic is marked solved. Or like what companies do with Trouble Tickets. When the support thinks topic solved, it's solved. Still open questions? A click and "ticket" is open again.
Here are hundreds of very old topics. 6 months old is nothing. Topics (Problems and questions only) that are non answered after X months should get a special mark.
2 people like this idea
I like this idea!
Tell me when this idea gets some attention.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who like this idea, the more it gets noticed.
The company has no plans to do this.
The best point from the company
-
I think I see what you are saying; create a way for companies to do some curation, or rather, auto-curation of topics.
One problem with having a problem be automatically be marked as solved after a set amount of time is that it may not have actually been solved. We want to try and be a little more accurate than a typical trouble ticket system, which may be weighted toward getting as many tickets "solved" as possible, regardless of whether customers get their actual problem solved.
One way we tackle this: We allow companies to mark a problem with a status level. Companies can say that the problem is solved, but customers don't have to agree, which might more accurately reflect what sometimes happens!
Here's what the status setting looks like for company reps:
So, customers can say a problem has been solved (and not just the customer who reported the problem), and so can companies.
3 people think
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?I think I see what you are saying; create a way for companies to do some curation, or rather, auto-curation of topics.
One problem with having a problem be automatically be marked as solved after a set amount of time is that it may not have actually been solved. We want to try and be a little more accurate than a typical trouble ticket system, which may be weighted toward getting as many tickets "solved" as possible, regardless of whether customers get their actual problem solved.
One way we tackle this: We allow companies to mark a problem with a status level. Companies can say that the problem is solved, but customers don't have to agree, which might more accurately reflect what sometimes happens!
Here's what the status setting looks like for company reps:
So, customers can say a problem has been solved (and not just the customer who reported the problem), and so can companies.
3 people think
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?Another option that can be used (which is similar to the ticketing system I use at my work) is to have the capability for a company to mark a ticket as solved but the customer has the option to reopen the problem (perhaps within a timeframe, say 15 days).
The company should also have the capability to permanently solve the problem in such a way so that it is not possible to reopen it again. -
Inappropriate?db0, one of the things we try and do here @ get satisfaction is treat this place as a balance between companies and customers, without having either one get the upper hand. we also try to treat topics as outcome-oriented conversations, not tickets to be solved.
so allowing a company to "close" a topic, or "permanently solve it" -- in other words, to have the final word about whether or not it's actually answered cuts against the grain of what we think a conversation between customers and companies is all about.
that said, we are working on tools to make it easier for companies to a) set and reset status on problems, ideas, and questions (beyond what's already there for ideas and problems), and b) redirect users to a different topic when the one they're viewing is old or outdated. that and a whole bunch of other management tools we're working on over the summer.
and to the original point, i absolutely agree that we need to keep working on ways to get questions or problems accurately marked as answered or solved. we're definitely working on more ways to encourage users and companies to help out with that.
1 person thinks
this is one of the best points
-
Inappropriate?Thanks for the reply Lane. I'm with you on that and I do find your outlook on these as desirable.
However I'm afraid it might turn some companies off from participating, since they might be used to this absolute control. Indeed one of the responses I've seen in a place where I proposed GS, is that they don't retain this control.
At the end of the day, the best thing to do is discover the balance that makes both the users happy that they are not "lowly worms" (so to speak) and the companies happy that they at least have *some* control over their own support.
Generally speaking it's not on a companies best interest to act very authoritarian with support requests. From my first-hand experience, customers tend to get very annoyed when something they consider open is irrevocably closed. Even where I work, where we have the capability to close tickets permanently on a whim, we are very careful not to do it without the customer's consent.
I’m Thoughtful
-
Inappropriate?true, but there are multiple motivations for companies to participate, and those, like the one you describe, that opt for the status quo are going to discover the status hasn't been quo for a while. consider this scenario:
we have really good search engine optimization, better than most companies own sites. so if you enter in a topic about a company, odds are good it will get indexed by google and potentially end up on the first page of a search for that company. now it's just sitting there, unanswered.
if you were a company, wouldn't you think it would be a good idea to get in there and answer that question, so that your customers realize you're responsive? and if you were a customer, wouldn't you be wary of a company that can't even bother to respond to a simple question, when there's a clear and compelling opportunity to participate?
i think the key difference of get satisfaction is that it *isn't* about controlling your support. it's about the conversation that's happening around the edges of your business, whether you choose to participate or not. smart companies recognize this (just like smart companies recognize that google is their real home page! :) and jump in whenever possible -- and get satisfaction makes that real easy. less smart companies will figure it out eventually, and hopefully before one of their competitors figures it out first. ;)
so: add topics about that company to get satisfaction, even without their participation. then let's see what happens!
I’m decentralized
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE