4 ms·

Shoot, ok, let me try again. 1) This was, in NO WAY, the customer's fault. At all. Not even a little bit. They did stuff that was totally normal for a customer

Shoot, ok, let me try again. 1) This was, in NO WAY, the customer's fault. At all. Not even a little bit. They did stuff that was totally normal for a customer to do. To remedy us not accidentally flagging totally normal stuff as fraud again, we talked about 7 steps we were taking (that was the first 7 steps in the blog). 2) IF, and only IF, you'd like to take ADDITIONAL steps to avoid us accidentally flagging you, we also offered three steps (at the end of the article). However, these were totally optional. Hope that helps.

mmt 8y ago
> 2) IF, and only IF, you'd like to take ADDITIONAL steps to avoid us accidentally flagging you, we also offered three steps (at the end of the article). However, these were totally optional. Getting warmer.. but: Even here, you're saying that the customer has (or could have) some role in preventing your error (accidental flagging). This is merely an issue with the wording (here, not necessarily in the OP blog). The "protect your account" wording of the blog post itself seems good, as do the specific reasons for each additional step. My only suggestions would be to add the concept of urgency in reachability to the phone number, as time sensitivity seems to be important to many (but not all) customers, and to substitute something for "don't miss important alerts" (which, again, could be read to imply blaming the customer) that has a more positive wording, that expresses that all the relevant parties would then be empowered to have visibility into those alerts (rather than avoiding the transgression of missing them). See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17567900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17567900 (which I have no idea as to the veracity of but figured I'd call your attention to) > Hope that helps. It does (at least IMO), and I hope you take my feedback in the contstructive spirit in which it is intended. (I don't personally have a strong opinion either way, as I lack enough direct experience).

mmt 8y ago

> 2) IF, and only IF, you'd like to take ADDITIONAL steps to avoid us accidentally flagging you, we also offered three steps (at the end of the article). However, these were totally optional. Getting warmer.. but: Even here, you're saying that the customer has (or could have) some role in preventing your error (accidental flagging). This is merely an issue with the wording (here, not necessarily in the OP blog). The "protect your account" wording of the blog post itself seems good, as do the specific reasons for each additional step. My only suggestions would be to add the concept of urgency in reachability to the phone number, as time sensitivity seems to be important to many (but not all) customers, and to substitute something for "don't miss important alerts" (which, again, could be read to imply blaming the customer) that has a more positive wording, that expresses that all the relevant parties would then be empowered to have visibility into those alerts (rather than avoiding the transgression of missing them). See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17567900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17567900 (which I have no idea as to the veracity of but figured I'd call your attention to) > Hope that helps. It does (at least IMO), and I hope you take my feedback in the contstructive spirit in which it is intended. (I don't personally have a strong opinion either way, as I lack enough direct experience).