Poster: Yukaze at 9/2/2005 3:55:28 PM PDT
Subject: Quick question. |
| |
I would like to know how the CM's decide which threads/topics to respond to. Is it based on personal preferance or on importance? If it is on importance, I did not know that how the CM's come up with their names is more important than, lets say, a whole server having stability issues. I just would like to know how you decide which to post on...
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=4723906&p=#post4723906 |
| |
Poster: Caydiem at 9/2/2005 3:56:18 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Quick question. |
| |
It's based on information we have at hand, not importance. If we can answer something, we do, but if we can't (for one of a plethora of reasons), we may not be able to give a response.
- Caydiem -
/moo
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=4723906&p=#post4723913 |
Poster: Caydiem at 9/2/2005 4:33:26 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Quick question. |
| |
Q u o t e:
Instead of ignoring the Tier 2 question, why don't you just say "I can't comment on the Tier 2 stats at this time, if I have further info I'll give it to you". If you ignore every post, then the message you are sending to your customers is "I don't care about your issue", bottom line.
Ah, but herein lies the issue with that approach.
That's the default state for any topic brought up. We don't have any information to give right now. When we do, we'll give it, but until then, we simply won't have much to say on it.
Now, there are thousands upon thousands of new threads started on this forum every day. How many days of us posting that sort of message to every single thread do you think it would take for that statement to basically be termed as us "ignoring" the issue, since we give nothing more substantial? How many off-shoot threads do you think would be complaining that we haven't given X thread the default "we heard you" message when it was posted five minutes ago? Lastly, how much time out of our day do you think it would take to post these selfsame messages? I'll tell you -- a significant chunk, thus taking away from our time used to actually pursue the information you're requesting.
It's been discussed, but we don't think it's a viable means of dealing with the posts right now. We do read the forums; if we don't respond, we're not ignoring you, we simply have nothing to add.
- Caydiem -
/moo
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=4723906&p=#post4724328 |
Poster: Caydiem at 9/2/2005 5:52:49 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Quick question. |
| |
Q u o t e:
Why not respond to any thread that gets over X page limit? Like say, 10 pages, or even 15 pages. I think after 15 pages that most people are sincere enough to want at least a "we don't know right now" instead of silence.
In all honesty, that is not a proper way of gauging it, either... and this would simply cause people to fill their posts full of spam to meet that number.
- Caydiem -
/moo
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=4723906&p=#post4725005 |
Poster: Caydiem at 9/2/2005 5:59:24 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Quick question. |
| |
Q u o t e:
What if it is, say, a whole bunch of people asking a definitive question. And instead of just /bump or /spam, they state their questions over and over hoping for a response? If said thread took a few days to get to that size, then it probably isn't just /bump or spam spam over and over.
Honestly, still, it depends wholly on the subject matter.
- Caydiem -
/moo
|
| | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=4723906&p=#post4725065 |
