Request Tool Effectiveness

[AreteX]

Ultimately, the request tool is here for staff to use to keep track of open items with players, whether it be a report, a question, a critical bug, or the like.  We'll definitely do our best to not close it before it is "resolved" to our knowledge and player knowledge, but if you (as the user) are not "done" after a request is closed, you may submit a new request.  I don't like the idea of forcing staff to wait for a player's response in order to close a request.  There are enough requests filed on a regular basis that I personally have to bump a few times for players that I feel that this would result in unnecessary request tool clutter.

Auto-close after 7 days of no activity. That's how I design every ticketing system I've had to implement.

I was actually going to suggest something along these lines.  When the staff resolves a report, have it open for a few days to allow a player to respond to the resolution.  There have been some times where I wanted to respond to the staff member who closed the report, but I would have to submit an entirely new request and just decided against it.

[Barsook]

Same, but you guys are beating the dead horse again.

[Nyr]

Seriously:  no, we don't want to do that.  We leave requests open if there is an ongoing discussion.  If we feel it's done, we resolve it.  If you don't feel like it's done, put in a new request.  We've already suggested that followup requests is something that we'd like to see implemented at some point so as to eliminate this conundrum in the first place.

Bringing up existing ticketing systems that do this doesn't matter because we don't want to do that.  We don't feel it would be effective.  We know what works for us.  While the player perspective is important and we have gone to great lengths to listen to and respond to player feedback for this communication system in order to make it easier for the player to use, it is there to make things easier for us to help you.  Changing that fundamental feature is a want of players that is unrelated to the purpose of the tool.

It is not presently on the table.  Stop bringing it up.  If we change our minds on it or have a solution we'd like to try that is different, we'll let you know!  Until then, you will probably not have an aneurysm over staff determining when the request is completed.  You can probably wait until there's a way to automatically create a followup request.

[Reiteration]

Is this effectiveness of the request tool really such an issue? I personally don't see any problem with it, you don't have to go hounding after staff like in another mud and if you really have an issue with waiting times, well, you get what you pay for.

[Lizzie]

Here's a work-around I just thought of, for players (like myself) who'd like more functionality with regards to responding to resolved/closed requests:

In my e-mail, I see that all request tool e-mails are numbered. In the Request Tool webpage itself, I don't see those numbers. Also, I see that the top column line that shows what type of data is in each column, is not sizeable. (Such as in a spreadsheet, you can click -between- columns, and size the columns).

My idea, is to add one more column - Request Number. And make the data sheet sizeable by column.

Currently, hovering over a column allows you to sort by that column. You could add a seperate sort feature, a drop-down menu, that allows people to sort if they want. Or even allow for a *double-click* of a mouse to sort in ascending/descending order by whichever column they double click on. But a single click, would highlight that column, and allow you to drag the column width wider or narrower.

I don't need that resolved column to be so wide, just because it has to allow the word "resolved" to fit in it. If it said "Reso" I'd know what it meant. Same with the column named "Category." If I could trim that down so that the most I could see was "General Discu" I'd know it means it's a GDB-related issue, and there'd be more room on my browser to widen the Details column to see at least one, maybe two or even three more words.

AND THEN! Now that there's a new Request Number column...

We players, when we want to discuss a Request that has already been closed, could reference that request number when opening a new request. We could just agree to all make it our standard protocol to type that in as the very first thing in the new request details. Example:

Request tool/general/question

Game Related - Question Request #37003 for Amos (Lizzie) :
Nyr, in your last response before closing, you said you were overwhelmed with joy that I graced you and Armageddon with my existence. Were you referring to my character Amos, or to me personally? Cause, if you meant me personally, how about tossing me a couple extra karma points? Or maybe send me a copy of your new Stravinsky tape. If you meant Amos, can he please please finally branch ass-kissing? He's been working on it for three years now, with emotes and thinks and everything. He should really get promoted to House Sycophant, don't you think?  Love and kisses, Lizzie.

At which point Nyr would probably dock me a karma point and ban me from the GDB, but this is just a hypothetical example of the mechanics

[Nyr]

Total list so far of things that are either neutral or positive with regards to improvement (adding a few in that we've discussed on our side too):

• allowing titles, binding that into the e-mail notification part of the system too for assisting organization and easy identification for staff/players
• development of a quick way to create a follow-up request linked from a previously resolved request
• ability for staff to use request tool to initiate dialogue with players
• fix the blank note/reply bug (current workaround:  if you cancel a reply, be sure to refresh the page, otherwise your next attempt at a reply will just go through blank)
• more robust text editing options to allow copying/pasting from external sources with the same formatting those original sources have (possibly other stuff here too but doesn't seem as imperative)

[bcw81]

Total list so far of things that are either neutral or positive with regards to improvement (adding a few in that we've discussed on our side too):

• allowing titles, binding that into the e-mail notification part of the system too for assisting organization and easy identification for staff/players
• development of a quick way to create a follow-up request linked from a previously resolved request
• ability for staff to use request tool to initiate dialogue with players
• fix the blank note/reply bug (current workaround:  if you cancel a reply, be sure to refresh the page, otherwise your next attempt at a reply will just go through blank)

• more robust text editing options to allow copying/pasting from external sources with the same formatting those original sources have (possibly other stuff here too but doesn't seem as imperative)

Wait, that doesn't already happen?

[Nyr]

Total list so far of things that are either neutral or positive with regards to improvement (adding a few in that we've discussed on our side too):

• allowing titles, binding that into the e-mail notification part of the system too for assisting organization and easy identification for staff/players
• development of a quick way to create a follow-up request linked from a previously resolved request
• ability for staff to use request tool to initiate dialogue with players
• fix the blank note/reply bug (current workaround:  if you cancel a reply, be sure to refresh the page, otherwise your next attempt at a reply will just go through blank)

• more robust text editing options to allow copying/pasting from external sources with the same formatting those original sources have (possibly other stuff here too but doesn't seem as imperative)

Wait, that doesn't already happen?

It doesn't consistently catch indents.  It gets everything else like color and style.

[Barsook]

I dig the request number column idea.

[bcw81]

Total list so far of things that are either neutral or positive with regards to improvement (adding a few in that we've discussed on our side too):

• allowing titles, binding that into the e-mail notification part of the system too for assisting organization and easy identification for staff/players
• development of a quick way to create a follow-up request linked from a previously resolved request
• ability for staff to use request tool to initiate dialogue with players
• fix the blank note/reply bug (current workaround:  if you cancel a reply, be sure to refresh the page, otherwise your next attempt at a reply will just go through blank)

• more robust text editing options to allow copying/pasting from external sources with the same formatting those original sources have (possibly other stuff here too but doesn't seem as imperative)

Wait, that doesn't already happen?

It doesn't consistently catch indents.  It gets everything else like color and style.

>.> I haven't noticed this in any of my requests, but I do suppose I use bullets and numbering to get my indents in... Huh. Well, good to know.

[Twilight]

I'd like the forms for certain request types to be a bit more tailored.  To give a couple of examples:

Ye olde mastercraft submission:  It is basically one big text box, with some pre-populated data to remind us of what we need.

It would be more useful if each of the sections had its own text box, with the pre-populated data as headings for those boxes.  So "Short Description" and then a text box for inputting your short description.  This would also allow you to set the max char length for each of the input boxes to the same length as the max char length that the mud uses for each of the elements.  I've been tripped up on this form both in copying and pasting stuff in (still not sure what was happening, too long I think so the bottom disappeared) as well as submitting things with descriptions that were too long.  Have a big box at the bottom for anything else the player wants to include, comments, edescs, etc.  But a text box and validate for each of the required elements.

Character Reports:  I ususally use the subject list at the top then numbered topics type format myself.  But others use other formats.  So I know you probably wouldn't implement a single form supported format over a big text box unless that is what the staff side wants, makes sense.  I think it would be useful, in my experience, to break out any direct questions for staff.  Like a + box, click for a text box to put in a question, click again for another box.  Only reason is that even though I put ? at the end of some of my sentences, I don't always get an answer back to those sentences.  And I try to avoid rhetoricals.  This would be a "I am putting it in here because I really do want an answer on this" place.

[Barsook]

I dig this.

[Morgenes]

We are in the process of adding the titles, currently our subjects for emails follow these conventions:

[<TAG>] <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID> for Account <AccountName>

or

[<TAG>] <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID> for <characterName> (<AccountName>)

If it's clan related, TAG is the name of the clan, otherwise it's 'Armageddon MUD'.

What would help you guys the most with this?

Would you rearrange the order of these to make things stand out, here are some examples:

If no Title is provided, and there is a character:
[<TAG>] <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

If no Title is provided, and there is not a character:
[<TAG>] <AccountName>'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

If Title is provided, would you put it right after the tag?  Would you want to see the rest of the subject we would have put, or would you have it replace the <Category> and <Type> or what?

[<TAG>] <Title> - <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

[<TAG>] <Title> - <AccountName>'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

Remember we also receive copies of these, so it also needs to be informative from the staff side as well.

Also note that any changes will mess up some mail reader's ability to thread responses to these.

[X-D]

Hey, I think I was the first one to come up with titling! It was and still is one of my main gripes about the change.

I also dislike that I cannot target a certain staffer, Now true, I have only had a very few cases where I was interacting with one staffer then another pops in, but that, even being rare is HORRIBLY annoying, as usually the staffer to "pop" In does not have the information from past requests and usually will ask for that very information. Which leads to another problem...that of closed requests. As staff has already said, If your problem has not been addressed and the request got closed then just start another one. The problem with that is then -I- have to spend a bunch of time tracking down everything in the request tool that pertains to the problem at hand and add them to the new request (another point in which email was faster and easier).

Now, I understand that being able to target staffers is unlikely to happen because staff changes more often then most anything else already in the request tool...clans etc.

But on the second part, would it be all that hard to add in the ability to "link' past request/request strings to a new one?
Kinda like CC? just a button that sends you to your request history and you can tag 1 or 2? And on staff end these just show as links...So they do not get spammed but if it is a staffer that needs to refresh memory or one that has not dealt with this subject before they can just poke and check.

[Morgenes]

Linking requests is a fair idea that has come up before. I'll add it to the list.

[Morgenes]

I've updated the request tool to allow a user specified title.  Since I didn't get any feedback, I decided to have it prepend to the subject (after the clan/game marker).  Let me know if you have any issues.

Edited to add:  Note that the subject line for all emails related to requests have changed, so you won't get the proper reply handling in mail clients that handle it for current requests.  Sorry.

[Maso]

I've updated the request tool to allow a user specified title.  Since I didn't get any feedback, I decided to have it prepend to the subject (after the clan/game marker).  Let me know if you have any issues.

Edited to add:  Note that the subject line for all emails related to requests have changed, so you won't get the proper reply handling in mail clients that handle it for current requests.  Sorry.

This?


[<TAG>] <Title> - <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

Yup. Title should definitely be early on, so it can actually be seen in the subject line in our inboxes. Yayyy.

Thank you!

[Lizzie]

I didn't respond because I was having trouble seeing the "results" in my head on what everything looked like to the end user. Sorry!

[Morgenes]

I've updated the request tool to allow a user specified title.  Since I didn't get any feedback, I decided to have it prepend to the subject (after the clan/game marker).  Let me know if you have any issues.

Edited to add:  Note that the subject line for all emails related to requests have changed, so you won't get the proper reply handling in mail clients that handle it for current requests.  Sorry.

This?


[<TAG>] <Title> - <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

Yup. Title should definitely be early on, so it can actually be seen in the subject line in our inboxes. Yayyy.

Thank you!

It ended up being:

[<TAG>] <Title> : <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> - <Type> Request #<RequestID>

[A Large Bag]

Create two separate text boxes for Character reports. One for OOC information and one for IC information being reported. You select character report and then input your report information into the appropriate boxes so it's separated out for the staff receiving it.

[Maso]

It's not really that hard to format a character report so the two parts are separate and it's intuitive enough for staffers to understand...is it?

[titansfan]

I don't think so, no. Using the bolding, italics, and underlining tools do wonders I think for helping Imms see where you're starting something new and adding on to a current topic. It shouldn't be diffcult at all to make it clear, just take a little time at it.

[A Large Bag]

I'm not saying it is. But since we're taking about ways to improve the request tool even in minor aspects it is something that could be done while they're at it. Fucking people on this board, sheesh. Always looking for excuses to be negative or piss on other's ideas.
If it were done this way it would make the format the same for everyone across the board and I imagine it would make it just a tad easier from the other end of things.

[titansfan]

I wasn't being negative or pissing on any idea. Simply giving my input on how I would do it and I've gotten no complaints. Imms allow you to do it your own way so that people aren't complaining that the formatting is difficult or restricting. People write differently and prefer to do things differently. Chill.

[bcw81]

Honestly, I'd find that to be more work. As it is, I write up my reports in Open Office Writer, format it so that IC info is towards the top, and my thoughts and questions are towards the bottom, then copy and paste it into the request. If they were to split up the sections, that would require me to copy and past half the report, then repeat the process with the second half.

I mean, it doesn't add a whole -lot- of work, but why add something that adds any more work at all? That's silly.