Re: maybe even an easier plan to satisfy need for solid tech support?

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2000

It keeps the original formatting. numero = 26009
interpreted = N
texte = Sounds good to Me, to carry it further why can't it be marked as expert eg [EXP] from the start. The *Expert* posting should know if an expert type answer is required - Then if the system gets abused go for the *authorised post* concept.The system could work from the next post without SM having to set up another list etc. All we would need is for the *SM Experts* to action the questions, and lets face it if they don't, no matter how much we stuff around setting up a system, the whole exercise is a waste!-- Stuart TremainDigital Imaging DivisionThe Ad-Libitum Group48 Victoria StreetNorth Sydney 2060 AustraliaPhone: +612 9959 5633 Fax: +612 9929 4146email: stuartt@adlib.com.auhttp://www.adlib.com.auOn Tuesday, 28 February 1939, John Butler wrote:>If there is any aspect of democracy in the process of deciding>how we can reach a solution where SM/webcat engineers spend>even less time dealing with talklist issues, while users gets their best>stumper-issues answered, then I vote in favor of Ken's idea for>an expert talklist. It seems like it will satisfy all parties.>>But I also thought after some reflection that if SM doesn't>want to spend any time at all setting up a new system, it may>not even be necessary. Seems to me the very easiest plan would be for everyone>following the tech support thread of the last few days to agree>to some kind of protocol like this:>>1) When someone has an issue they post it like usual.>2) If after a (couple) days of kicking it around the way we>have been (newbies, experts, and others...) it still isn't resolved then...>3) Someone (the original person with the issue, or else one of>us who knows the protocol if the original person does not)>re-posts the issue very well defined, clear, and comprehensively with a subject>line like this- *~ExpertHelp?~* - (some keyword(s)).>4) This alerts the willingly participating 'experts'>(informally self-selected experts) - who have, if they wish,>turned on email filters to make such special posts appear in their own folder - to read>these posts carefully, knowing they are perhaps not just user>error or user lack of common knowledge.>5) So the original person and the 'experts' hash it out and>then if it is still not resolved then one of them posts the>issue to the regular ole list again but with a subject line like this->*~SMHelp?~* - (the keyword(s)). Posts such as this are what>webcat engineers read and respond to. They don't bother with>the others.>>Ken's idea for a restricted-post talklist would make sure of no>abuse, but using the above protocol anyone could abuse it, but>who would? I think it is as Kim said that no one wants to appear the>fool. We just create the atmosphere that posts with those 2>levels of special flags are reserved for deserving issues. The>first flag is only for when no one seems to be able to solve the issue after>a fair amount of time. The second flag is only used when it is>understood that the posting person (and others involved) have>read all the docs, FAQs, etc., and are very familiar with webcat and still>cannot solve the issue (or at least an expert signs off on the>issues unresolvability if the original person is not an>expert). I bet that the abuse would be even less than what occurs on the beta>lists which seems like hardly any... any engineers read that>much already.>>I think us just agreeing verbally or silently on the honor>system and SM (plus maybe one of us) putting up a page to>describe this protocol is enough to start the solution. Assuming SM engineers>agreed and committed. People who are on vacation now etc.,>will figure it out soon enough as we use the protocol.>>The main thing is just the need for SM to feel their time is>not wasted while users feel they have a *reliable* avenue to>get some attention when it truely deserves. Experts love to help (we all like>to be 'in-the-know'), so everyone but the experts have a>support system when the experts are happy. And all experts>need to feel happy is to know that SM is there to support them when they are>stumped.>>-John Butler>>>------------------------------------------------------------->Brought to you by CommuniGate Pro - The Buzz Word Compliant Messaging Server.>To end your Mail problems go to>.>>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to>>-------------------------------------------------------------Brought to you by CommuniGate Pro - The Buzz Word Compliant Messaging Server.To end your Mail problems go to .This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

Re: maybe even an easier plan to satisfy need for solid tech support? (John Butler 2000)
Re: maybe even an easier plan to satisfy need for solid tech support? (Stuart Tremain 2000)
maybe even an easier plan to satisfy need for solid tech support? (John Butler 2000)

Sounds good to Me, to carry it further why can't it be marked as expert eg [EXP] from the start. The *Expert* posting should know if an expert type answer is required - Then if the system gets abused go for the *authorised post* concept.The system could work from the next post without SM having to set up another list etc. All we would need is for the *SM Experts* to action the questions, and lets face it if they don't, no matter how much we stuff around setting up a system, the whole exercise is a waste!-- Stuart TremainDigital Imaging DivisionThe Ad-Libitum Group48 Victoria StreetNorth Sydney 2060 AustraliaPhone: +612 9959 5633 Fax: +612 9929 4146email: stuartt@adlib.com.auhttp://www.adlib.com.auOn Tuesday, 28 February 1939, John Butler wrote:>If there is any aspect of democracy in the process of deciding>how we can reach a solution where SM/webcat engineers spend>even less time dealing with talklist issues, while users gets their best>stumper-issues answered, then I vote in favor of Ken's idea for>an expert talklist. It seems like it will satisfy all parties.>>But I also thought after some reflection that if SM doesn't>want to spend any time at all setting up a new system, it may>not even be necessary. Seems to me the very easiest plan would be for everyone>following the tech support thread of the last few days to agree>to some kind of protocol like this:>>1) When someone has an issue they post it like usual.>2) If after a (couple) days of kicking it around the way we>have been (newbies, experts, and others...) it still isn't resolved then...>3) Someone (the original person with the issue, or else one of>us who knows the protocol if the original person does not)>re-posts the issue very well defined, clear, and comprehensively with a subject>line like this- *~ExpertHelp?~* - (some keyword(s)).>4) This alerts the willingly participating 'experts'>(informally self-selected experts) - who have, if they wish,>turned on email filters to make such special posts appear in their own folder - to read>these posts carefully, knowing they are perhaps not just user>error or user lack of common knowledge.>5) So the original person and the 'experts' hash it out and>then if it is still not resolved then one of them posts the>issue to the regular ole list again but with a subject line like this->*~SMHelp?~* - (the keyword(s)). Posts such as this are what>webcat engineers read and respond to. They don't bother with>the others.>>Ken's idea for a restricted-post talklist would make sure of no>abuse, but using the above protocol anyone could abuse it, but>who would? I think it is as Kim said that no one wants to appear the>fool. We just create the atmosphere that posts with those 2>levels of special flags are reserved for deserving issues. The>first flag is only for when no one seems to be able to solve the issue after>a fair amount of time. The second flag is only used when it is>understood that the posting person (and others involved) have>read all the docs, FAQs, etc., and are very familiar with webcat and still>cannot solve the issue (or at least an expert signs off on the>issues unresolvability if the original person is not an>expert). I bet that the abuse would be even less than what occurs on the beta>lists which seems like hardly any... any engineers read that>much already.>>I think us just agreeing verbally or silently on the honor>system and SM (plus maybe one of us) putting up a page to>describe this protocol is enough to start the solution. Assuming SM engineers>agreed and committed. People who are on vacation now etc.,>will figure it out soon enough as we use the protocol.>>The main thing is just the need for SM to feel their time is>not wasted while users feel they have a *reliable* avenue to>get some attention when it truely deserves. Experts love to help (we all like>to be 'in-the-know'), so everyone but the experts have a>support system when the experts are happy. And all experts>need to feel happy is to know that SM is there to support them when they are>stumped.>>-John Butler>>>------------------------------------------------------------->Brought to you by CommuniGate Pro - The Buzz Word Compliant Messaging Server.>To end your Mail problems go to>.>>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to>>-------------------------------------------------------------Brought to you by CommuniGate Pro - The Buzz Word Compliant Messaging Server.To end your Mail problems go to .This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list .To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Stuart Tremain

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Re: maybe even an easier plan to satisfy need for solid tech support?

2000

Top Articles:

Related Readings: