5 ms·

To preface, I do not intend to defend Google nor do I work with them or represent them. That said, I have been in similar situations with large scale customers

To preface, I do not intend to defend Google nor do I work with them or represent them. That said, I have been in similar situations with large scale customers. It is hard. Some percentage of customers are pathological, and even after you fix their problem refuse to stop continuing the rumors. Once it’s fixed, I want all communication forward looking. Some percent of people are flat out insane, incompetent, or just assholes. Sometimes you have to lock the thread in order to stop a conversation about something that is already fixed. Large scale customer bases are just a different beast. Once you experience it, you know what I mean. That doesn’t mean Google took the right path - only people with a comprehensive perspective can evaluate that, and I’m just some idiot on a forum who knows nothing about the specifics.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
- starttoaster 3y ago
  It could be victim blaming. It could be rational. Have you never been in a situation where a frantic user didn't understand that you gave them the solution to their problem and they just continued lashing out? Sometimes victims are done right by, and they just create victims out of another party.
  - edmundsauto 3y ago
    And someone can be a victim of data loss and simultaneously a bully for trying to harangue Google. Being a victim in one area is not a “get out of being called an asshole” card. Especially when it comes to data loss, where ultimately the data owner is the responsible party.
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  Victim blaming is problematic in general, I agree. But when “shit happens” (as it did here, assuming nobody think Google deleted the data on purpose), at some point victims become aggressors. It sucks to lose your data. It might suck more for the Google employees who lost the data. Have a little empathy for both sides - those who don’t can eat rocks.
  - danaris 3y ago
    ...I'm sorry; are you saying that it sucks more for the poor Google employees (making mad bank, by the way) because they have to deal with knowing there are angry customers out there that they don't have to interact with anyway because Google outsources that kind of support to community forums... ...than for people who lost months worth of work because they trusted, in good faith, that the platform Google promotes as being a great place to keep your data safe, would keep their data safe?
beeboobaa 3y ago
If you lose customers their data, fail to recover it, and then want all communication to be "forward looking" you are either flat out insane, incompetent or just an asshole.
- dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
  —-> What logicallee said…
- ars 3y ago
  Pretty sure the person you replied to is saying that Google, did NOT fail to recover it. You should read the post you replied to again, I don't think you understood it.
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  Or, you realize the past cannot be changed. And the customers who only want to rehash the past, rather than saying “where do we go from here”, are pathological. If I run a business and someone communicates to me that they are pathological and cannot be satisfied unless I invent a Time Machine, I am not going to be particularly concerned about their outcomes. They’re just not worth it - fire your shitty customers, for the sake of your business and employees.
  - beeboobaa 3y ago
    Good way to burn your rep & attract lawsuits. Step one, lose customer data. Step two, refuse to do further business with them.
    - edmundsauto 3y ago
      Only if the number of customers is significant and they are litigious organized and funded. My point is that any time you have >1M customers, you will have many pathological people whom you don’t want to do business with in the first place. The right amount of “firing your customers” is nonzero. Anyone who has worked in a customer service role has experienced this.
logicallee 3y ago
The part I quote below resonated with me, if you have an email I could reach you at I would like to ask your opinion about how to handle a situation. It is very private. > I have been in similar situations with large scale customers. It is hard. Some percentage of customers are pathological, and even after you fix their problem refuse to stop continuing the rumors. >Once it’s fixed, I want all communication forward looking. Some percent of people are flat out insane, incompetent, or just assholes. Sometimes you have to lock the thread in order to stop a conversation about something that is already fixed. >Large scale customer bases are just a different beast. Once you experience it, you know what I mean. That doesn’t mean Google took the right path - only people with a comprehensive perspective can evaluate that, and I’m just some idiot on a forum who knows nothing about the specifics.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  Added my email to my profile, feel free to reach out. I don’t have any special experience in this area but do know how complex it can be.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    post the question here, rely on the wisdom of crowds!
runnerup 3y ago
Maybe the “right” grayhat/blackhat way to handle it is to use high-quality, convincing sock puppet accounts to manufacture consensus against the “conspiracy theorists”. It’s not ethical but its the more effective alternative if you’re already at the point of locking threads where people continue to point out that you still haven't fixed the problem.
- henriquez 3y ago
  Great idea. Google could even use their fake AI to respond in real-time to negative YouTube videos and find the hidden positive user sentiment under a cup.
  - runnerup 3y ago
    Also just realized it could be an FTC violation.
pas 3y ago
> It is hard. Of course. Doing the right thing at the moment is also hard. But that's the right thing. Google is famously under-communicating and opaque, locking a thread is par for the course. Again, of course, their reputation loss doesn't show on their bottom line. (How would it? They let loose the whole CFO army, and we don't really have the convenience of a randomized trial.) But incidences like these are accumulating the kindling to slowly but surely chip users away from the behemoth.

NotYourLawyer 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

starttoaster 3y ago
It could be victim blaming. It could be rational. Have you never been in a situation where a frantic user didn't understand that you gave them the solution to their problem and they just continued lashing out? Sometimes victims are done right by, and they just create victims out of another party.
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  And someone can be a victim of data loss and simultaneously a bully for trying to harangue Google. Being a victim in one area is not a “get out of being called an asshole” card. Especially when it comes to data loss, where ultimately the data owner is the responsible party.
edmundsauto 3y ago
Victim blaming is problematic in general, I agree. But when “shit happens” (as it did here, assuming nobody think Google deleted the data on purpose), at some point victims become aggressors. It sucks to lose your data. It might suck more for the Google employees who lost the data. Have a little empathy for both sides - those who don’t can eat rocks.
- danaris 3y ago
  ...I'm sorry; are you saying that it sucks more for the poor Google employees (making mad bank, by the way) because they have to deal with knowing there are angry customers out there that they don't have to interact with anyway because Google outsources that kind of support to community forums... ...than for people who lost months worth of work because they trusted, in good faith, that the platform Google promotes as being a great place to keep your data safe, would keep their data safe?

beeboobaa 3y ago

If you lose customers their data, fail to recover it, and then want all communication to be "forward looking" you are either flat out insane, incompetent or just an asshole.

dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
—-> What logicallee said…
ars 3y ago
Pretty sure the person you replied to is saying that Google, did NOT fail to recover it. You should read the post you replied to again, I don't think you understood it.
edmundsauto 3y ago
Or, you realize the past cannot be changed. And the customers who only want to rehash the past, rather than saying “where do we go from here”, are pathological. If I run a business and someone communicates to me that they are pathological and cannot be satisfied unless I invent a Time Machine, I am not going to be particularly concerned about their outcomes. They’re just not worth it - fire your shitty customers, for the sake of your business and employees.
- beeboobaa 3y ago
  Good way to burn your rep & attract lawsuits. Step one, lose customer data. Step two, refuse to do further business with them.
  - edmundsauto 3y ago
    Only if the number of customers is significant and they are litigious organized and funded. My point is that any time you have >1M customers, you will have many pathological people whom you don’t want to do business with in the first place. The right amount of “firing your customers” is nonzero. Anyone who has worked in a customer service role has experienced this.

logicallee 3y ago

The part I quote below resonated with me, if you have an email I could reach you at I would like to ask your opinion about how to handle a situation. It is very private. > I have been in similar situations with large scale customers. It is hard. Some percentage of customers are pathological, and even after you fix their problem refuse to stop continuing the rumors. >Once it’s fixed, I want all communication forward looking. Some percent of people are flat out insane, incompetent, or just assholes. Sometimes you have to lock the thread in order to stop a conversation about something that is already fixed. >Large scale customer bases are just a different beast. Once you experience it, you know what I mean. That doesn’t mean Google took the right path - only people with a comprehensive perspective can evaluate that, and I’m just some idiot on a forum who knows nothing about the specifics.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
edmundsauto 3y ago
Added my email to my profile, feel free to reach out. I don’t have any special experience in this area but do know how complex it can be.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  post the question here, rely on the wisdom of crowds!

runnerup 3y ago

Maybe the “right” grayhat/blackhat way to handle it is to use high-quality, convincing sock puppet accounts to manufacture consensus against the “conspiracy theorists”. It’s not ethical but its the more effective alternative if you’re already at the point of locking threads where people continue to point out that you still haven't fixed the problem.

henriquez 3y ago
Great idea. Google could even use their fake AI to respond in real-time to negative YouTube videos and find the hidden positive user sentiment under a cup.
- runnerup 3y ago
  Also just realized it could be an FTC violation.

pas 3y ago

> It is hard. Of course. Doing the right thing at the moment is also hard. But that's the right thing. Google is famously under-communicating and opaque, locking a thread is par for the course. Again, of course, their reputation loss doesn't show on their bottom line. (How would it? They let loose the whole CFO army, and we don't really have the convenience of a randomized trial.) But incidences like these are accumulating the kindling to slowly but surely chip users away from the behemoth.