4 ms·
And why do you think this isn't intentional? Spending money on people solving company's screwups costs a lot of money. For the company the size of Google or Fac
by janoc 7y ago
And why do you think this isn't intentional? Spending money on people solving company's screwups costs a lot of money. For the company the size of Google or Facebook one client (or hundred) like this are peanuts, drop in the bucket. The cost of losing them is minimal over the costs of paying a support person to deal with problems.
Big client won't get banned - and if they do, they have also a non-public phone number to an account manager to make things right again too.
Sadly this is a common trend - e.g. with ISPs it is almost impossible to find a contact to an actual person, only some online chats or automated hotline that will waste your time with canned responses not solving your problem.
- jonknee 7y agoIt is intentional, I'm just saying it's ridiculous. the Google way is to treat everything like a programming problem. That works decently well for bits, but really breaks down when working with humans.
- Godel_unicode 7y agoThe thing is that it doesn't break down except in the extreme cases, and even then it's often less bad than the edge cases with traditional human-mediated customer service. Consider the Wells Fargo accounts snafu, or the Comcast customer nickname issue. Or PayPal just in general. Is Google actually worse, or are they the kind of better that makes their rarer screwups seem worse. Consider in your evaluation just how many people they deal with using their automated systems.
- jonknee 7y agoExtreme cases like using a popular new credit card to pay? Please. Google uses an algorithm to ban people for life without recourse, it's insane. Not everything can be reduced to an algo, sometimes you need to make exceptions. It can even make your algo better (thousands of people are going to try using their new Apple cards in the coming weeks).
- pb7 7y agoYou don’t have the data to conclude that it doesn’t work well. We could very well be commenting on an exception out of millions of perfectly executed automated fraud detections.
- lonelappde 7y agoOne person is an extreme case. Was everyone on Apple Card banned?
- bbarnett 7y agoAs others have mentioned, we only currently have one data point on this. However... Google is well known for terrible customer support. And if you think of it, it makes sense. After all, if you can server 100M users via an automated support systems and only 0.01% have issues a year, it's probably far, far cheaper to just drop those "problem" users, than hire thousands of customer support persons. Note: just threw the above numbers out, but you get the gist. EDIT: Speaking of algorithms, I wonder if the OP was below some adsense fiscal threshold of 'it's worth it to intercede here with a level 4 manager' or some blather.
- Godel_unicode 7y ago> ...with ISPs it is almost impossible to find a contact to an actual person... What ISP are you talking about? I've never had trouble getting a real person with Verizon, CenturyLink, or ATT. You might have to wait on hold for a few dozen minutes, but that's a separate issue.
- amaccuish 7y agoMaybe, shock horror, they don't live in America?
- skinnymuch 7y agoWhich ISPs? I’ve always gotten in touch with an actual person. Even if it takes time. Complete contrast to FB or Google.