End-user support in 'real world' -- was [Re: A cache problem of some sort?]
On 11/30/2019 08:45 AM, Andy Smith wrote:
Hello,
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 08:36:19AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
Thank you. Monday I'll make a followup report referencing this thread.
I don't think that the person you are corresponding with will be
technical as such;
That is a _fundamental assumption_ .
they'll have less knowledge of HTTP, caches, last-modified, Debian
and Linux than you do
Definitely!
and mentioning any of this and/or directing them here I think
will likely only confuse them.
We almost agree. See below ;/
I would just say that I checked again more than a week after they
advised it had been updated and it still reads the same, as
confirmed by several
one <> "several"
other people around the country and indeed the
world. > Perhaps ask that they look at the page themselves to confirm.
That should be enough for any person to understand that the change
hasn't actually happened
*THAT* is your *ERROR* !
(if not why).
If Reco is on the right track [I suspect he is], they will use tool(s)
available to *THEM* and denigrate/dismiss my report.
If they do have to pass it on to someone more technical,
BUT will they???
I want to give them the appropriate support to encourage passing me "up
the chain".
Fundamentally, I presume my correspondent *HAS "corrected"* the problem
I observed. That it did not _solve_ my problem is *NOT* his/her fault.
that person is already going to know more about the actual
architecture of their systems and likely isn't going to need a
pointer to a debian-users thread!
You are making an _unwarranted assumption_.
You ASSUME that my correspondent can see what I see. *ROFL*
He sees a _LOCAL_ copy.
I not local.
BTW, I've ~half-century of real world experience in "customer support".
In THIS case, I *B* customer/user.
Based on Reco's post(s), I suspect there may be *multiple* levels of 3rd
party support.
I *sympathize* with my contact.
I *HAVE BEEN* customer service for ~half-century.
*PUT UP* or .....
Cheers,
Andy
Reply to: