3 ms·

I think it's all about staffing levels. This [1] maths isn't something I've checked, but it does make sense, alas, you'd need 20,000 staff to deal with 1 query

I think it's all about staffing levels. This [1] maths isn't something I've checked, but it does make sense, alas, you'd need 20,000 staff to deal with 1 query every 3 years from 0.1% of a billion users. [1] https://www.seroundtable.com/google-support-staff-limits-13916.html https://www.seroundtable.com/google-support-staff-limits-139...

moron4hire 10y ago
If any company could afford to staff 20,000 tech support people (who don't exactly command the highest salaries) it'd be Google. It's not a matter of cost. They choose not to.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
draw_down 10y ago
You know what would be even crazier is if they built stores to put those thousands of employees in, so that customers could talk to a real live person when they had problems or questions.... nahh that could never work.
irishsultan 10y ago
You read that incorrectly, he states 0.1% of users has an issue per day, which is equivalent to 1 query every 3 years from 100% or your users (3 times 365 times 0.1% is a bit more than 100%).
anbende 10y ago
I did a little back of the napkin math and came up with something similar. However, 20k staff would cost Google between $1b and $2b per year, which they absolutely have. They've been consistently posting quarterly earnings of around 5b, 20b per annum. They just don't want to pay for it, and the users don't care enough to force them to. In addition, I think google could probably solve the problem with paid support. That would limit volume and pay for itself. Then people who are having a serious problem (like being locked out of their Reb account) could have some recourse. Unless they already do this and I'm not aware?
- scholia 10y ago
  One option is to use premium rate phone lines, That way, people pay for support via their phone bills. It's far from perfect but it might be better than nothing...

moron4hire 10y ago

If any company could afford to staff 20,000 tech support people (who don't exactly command the highest salaries) it'd be Google. It's not a matter of cost. They choose not to.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

draw_down 10y ago

You know what would be even crazier is if they built stores to put those thousands of employees in, so that customers could talk to a real live person when they had problems or questions.... nahh that could never work.

irishsultan 10y ago

You read that incorrectly, he states 0.1% of users has an issue per day, which is equivalent to 1 query every 3 years from 100% or your users (3 times 365 times 0.1% is a bit more than 100%).

anbende 10y ago

I did a little back of the napkin math and came up with something similar. However, 20k staff would cost Google between $1b and $2b per year, which they absolutely have. They've been consistently posting quarterly earnings of around 5b, 20b per annum. They just don't want to pay for it, and the users don't care enough to force them to. In addition, I think google could probably solve the problem with paid support. That would limit volume and pay for itself. Then people who are having a serious problem (like being locked out of their Reb account) could have some recourse. Unless they already do this and I'm not aware?

scholia 10y ago
One option is to use premium rate phone lines, That way, people pay for support via their phone bills. It's far from perfect but it might be better than nothing...