For anyone interested, the support process at Giza is documented (see bottom of this post), and we've made very slight tweaks to it, given that the Support Team is expanding to keep up with Giza's growth.
- Please use the support process. We're achieving 97% success with that—thank you. Most tickets come to Support and not Dr. Farrell. We'd like to get to 100%. CC-ing him on support tickets just distracts from what he needs to accomplish.
- Please understand the limits of the Support Team's scope. It may seem like wizardry, but we can't actually do magic. If something is working properly in all tests on our end, and we can't reproduce your issue (e.g. we can log in as you, or as a similar user, and the system works), or we regard the system as working *as intended* (even if not as preferred), then we close the ticket. Support has there reached the limits of its scope.
- We stop upon determining the system works as intended. Even if that doesn't satisfy a given user, we're not actually 'customer service'; we're not there for comfort. We fix broken things and correct errors. If we determine the system works as intended, if you're still having an issue, the best we can do is suggest you try again or refer you to a local technical person (or someone you know with advanced technical skills—obviously, if the system is working, you're reaching out to technical support because of a need for a particular skill set).
- We cannot offer desktop, internet, or email server support. We can't, for instance remote in to a user's computer, see what security suite might be interfering or what browser plugin is causing a problem. We can't determine why a credit card doesn't work or why a user isn't RECEIVING a password reset email which our system confirms is being SENT. Many users would not LET us have the access and control needed to do those things, anyway, or else have security software that would interfere with that process just as it might be interfering with the ability to utilize the Giza platform (hence our most common support issue in the FAQ). Referring you to local technical support, or a friendly 13-year old with technical skills, is the next escalation step if we determine an issue exceeds the scope of the Support team.
- Please afford team members the same courtesy you would Dr. Farrell. That might seem surprising, but there are not 'classes' of people at Giza. As the community grows, we have been adding additional Support Team members and, while not all of them are partners in the Giza enterprise, they work for the partners and are not disposable. If they're telling a user something, it's in the attempt to serve that user and the community, even if it doesn't immediately solve the problem. We do overlook a certain amount of railing, bluster, and swearing (probably 5% of our tickets) which 'nerds' are used to. But at some point we'll ask a user to go elsewhere, and appeals to a 'higher power' won't make any difference.
- It's a small team—we can't do walkthroughs or phone support. We do, however, have a group of minds in the forum. 24/7 round the clock support with live walkthroughs, real-time remoting in, and a full 'customer service' staff is possible, but the extra handholding would mean we have to *significantly* increase the cost of memberships, which have gone up only a dollar in the lifetime of the site. The cost would need to be shared by everyone. But we think keeping the team small, scrappy, and limited in scope is more effective. It addresses 99% of issues. It does mean we'll be very direct, blunt in our answers, and focused on resolving items quickly. It also means one escalation point is the Forum. We may say "look we can't reproduce your issue - we can log in as you, watch vidchats as you, reset the password, any number of things, and you're saying you can't. Maybe ask if anyone else in the Forum has had the experience and what they did. We have to close the ticket since we can't reproduce it.
- It's not lizard people. As much as we may sympathize with the belief that George Soros is sitting in a cave in the arctic blocking your comment, it's probably not that. And if it were, we couldn't solve it anyway. Whenever there's a blip on the site, we get a certain amount of tickets asking if some group is trying to stop the discussion. 99.999999% of the time, it's just the server admins doing maintenance without telling us, and they didn't think anyone would notice. The other .00000001% is George Soros. But we don't know WHICH .00000001% so we can't pursue that line of inquiry.