Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Then again, these poor people are usually being paid peanuts to handle 
> thousands of emails per hour. So I guess we shouldn't be too harsh on 
> them.

  Yeah, it's impossible to know whether the answer was generic and useless
because the technical support guy was just being lazy, or because he is
honestly trying to help but is so busy with the hundreds of emails he is
getting that he simply doesn't have the time to scrutinize all the minor
details in every single one of them.

  In the latter case responding harshly is certainly not going to help his
day to get better.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b6893de$1@news.povray.org...
> Sometimes the hardest thing is figuring out why you're
actually writing
> something. Like, I mean, I *know* I have to write this
policy. But *who*
> is actually going to read it, and why?

Last year, my boss ordered me (in a very nasty tone) to
write something he couldn't define. When I asked him who was
going to read it, he told me it was none of my business... I
asked him why he needed such a document. He again said it
was none of my business. We went round and round on it... I
never wrote it... He hasn't spoken to me in over a year now.

Post a reply to this message

DungBeatle wrote:

> Last year, my boss ordered me (in a very nasty tone) to
> write something he couldn't define. When I asked him who was
> going to read it, he told me it was none of my business... I
> asked him why he needed such a document. He again said it
> was none of my business. We went round and round on it... I
> never wrote it... He hasn't spoken to me in over a year now.

Sounds like you got a good deal out of it!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4b689c97$1@news.povray.org...
> DungBeatle wrote:
> > never wrote it... He hasn't spoken to me in over a year
now.
> Sounds like you got a good deal out of it!

I don't like problems like this. I much prefer easy, open
discussion. I love doing my job, it's people that suck...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> fantastic features this software has but doesn't actually say... what... 
> it... does! >_<

I like the ones that say "use this feature just like the way it was three 
versions ago, only with a new name!"

Sort of like if POV 3.6 was documented in terms of differences from POV 3.1.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   Yeah, it's impossible to know whether the answer was generic and useless
> because the technical support guy was just being lazy, or because he is
> honestly trying to help but is so busy with the hundreds of emails he is
> getting that he simply doesn't have the time to scrutinize all the minor
> details in every single one of them.
> 

In addition, some places explicitly forbid the support people from 
exercising much creativity in their answers, but instead force them to 
select from a bank of pre-designed template answers.  So it might even 
be the case that the person knows what you're asking and wants to help, 
but couldn't because they didn't have the authority to answer it properly.

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:4b68a6b0$1@news.povray.org...
> In addition, some places explicitly forbid the support
people from
> exercising much creativity in their answers, but instead
force them to
> select from a bank of pre-designed template answers.  So
it might even
> be the case that the person knows what you're asking and
wants to help,
> but couldn't because they didn't have the authority to
answer it properly.

Now THAT is a new one... I can see it though, just surprised
me. By the time I'm calling for support, I coubt some list
of stock answers is going to help me. :) Not that I'm some
high-falootin' tech genius, but I do build and take care of
all the servers here in my department, all three of them! :)
Usually my problems aren't trivial. And not all of them are
caused by me!

Post a reply to this message

DungBeatle wrote:
> 
> Now THAT is a new one... I can see it though, just surprised
> me.
> 

I should mention that the only data point I have for this some of the 
Amazon.com customer service policies (and they probably aren't nearly as 
bad as I make them sound).  I'd hope that people don't do this in 
technical support, but given that he policy exists in customer service 
I'd wager that it's used in technical support some places as well.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> In addition, some places explicitly forbid the support people from 
> exercising much creativity in their answers, but instead force them to 
> select from a bank of pre-designed template answers.  So it might even 
> be the case that the person knows what you're asking and wants to help, 
> but couldn't because they didn't have the authority to answer it properly.

  Why would they do that? Who does it benefit? Why would a company
actively *forbid* a tech support person from giving an answer he
knows fits the question best and instead *force* him to give an
irrelevant answer? What for?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:06:38 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Sometimes the hardest thing is figuring out why you're actually writing
> something. Like, I mean, I *know* I have to write this policy. But *who*
> is actually going to read it, and why?

Yep, that is the hardest thing about writing.  If you don't know your 
audience, then all else becomes secondary.

> But, IMHO, *the* hardest thing is figuring out all the stuff your
> audience doesn't know that happens to be trivially obvious to you. 

That also can be difficult, because it requires putting yourself in your 
audience's shoes.  I had a discussion with a coworker who does some 
course development recently, and he observed that another guy who has 
expertise with the software in question was involved in designing a 
course and was designing it to be something he'd *take*, not something 
he'd *teach*.  He was having a hard time explaining that the course being 
developed wasn't for the other guy to take because there wouldn't be a 
huge market for it.

> Like,
> I've read *so many* projects on SourceForge that tell you about all the
> fantastic features this software has but doesn't actually say... what...
> it... does! >_<

I see this in a lot of different areas, not just in technical areas.  
Even in advertising, I occasionally see a commercial where I get to the 
end and wonder what exactly it was they were advertising.

> even the vaguest clue what the software is for. This is so trivially
> obvious to them that they've completely forgotten about it.

Happens in professional development houses all the time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:36:15 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> He hasn't spoken to me in over a year now.

That must make the job - and performance reviews - interesting (to say 
the least).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:10:41 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> My favourit is when you email (say) the technical support for your ISP,
> saying "I know you offer features X, but I'm looking for something
> similar but slightly different" and they reply with "hey, have you heard
> about feature X?" And you're like "um, did you even ****ing READ what I
> wrote?"

A coworker shared an IM exchange with me that was along these lines:

CW:  Customers are having problems reaching <site>
CW:  When they go to <url> they get the following error: <error message>
HD:  Thanks for this information.
HD:  What site are they trying to access
HD:  And what is the problem they're having?

He had a similar issue that he reported where the site was down, and he 
gave the URL to the help desk person, and the help desk person responded 
"I can't get to that site now, it seems to be down - which means I can't 
reproduce the problem right now."

I'm sure there's a hole in his wall where he has been hitting his head 
repeatedly the past couple of months.

You can't make stuff like this up.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b68b0dd$1@news.povray.org...
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:36:15 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:
>
> > He hasn't spoken to me in over a year now.
>
> That must make the job - and performance reviews -
interesting (to say
> the least).--Jim

Very, no reviews for two years now and I don't expect one
this year. It doesn't really matter, I don't respect his
opinion anyway... :)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:27:23 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> Now THAT is a new one... I can see it though, just surprised me.

I actually had a discussion with a support guy for my ISP (based in India 
I believe).  I use Linux pretty much exclusively; if I use Windows, it's 
in a virtual machine.

I called my ISP's support line and specifically selected the option for 
"not Windows or Mac support".  I ended up with someone who supports 
Windows.

I mentioned that I had selected the option that should have gotten me to 
someone who knows Linux, and he confessed that he actually had a lot of 
experience with RedHat, but that the support organization management 
policies prohibited him from using that knowledge because he hadn't 
"certified" on providing Linux support.  So he knew what my problem was 
and how to fix it, but he was bound by policy not to tell me.

I convinced him to tell me anyways, and promised not to tell anyone from 
the organization who asked how I got help.  But it was one of the 
stranger support conversations I've ever had.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b68b240$1@news.povray.org...
> I convinced him to tell me anyways, and promised not to
tell anyone from
> the organization who asked how I got help.  But it was one
of the
> stranger support conversations I've ever had.--Jim

That was pretty cool of him. The last time I called my ISP
for support I finally said that the fix for my problem will
take the right person less than one minute to correct it,
find that person. Until then, I would not shotgun any
changes... The right guy called me back the next day, 30
seconds... Bingo!

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:08:38 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Actually, wait - any half-decent manager should still be able to spot
> this one. OK, you win the point.

Well, not really; the boss I had who got sacked (who I mentioned earlier 
today) was hired by the guy who hired me.  Randall (not his real name - 
but I need to call the boss who was fired something) was quite the 
salesman; he could've sold snowballs to eskimos.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   Why would they do that? Who does it benefit? Why would a company
> actively *forbid* a tech support person from giving an answer he
> knows fits the question best and instead *force* him to give an
> irrelevant answer? What for?
> 

I suppose that it helps ensure a uniform quality of service, although 
more to the point I think it means that they don't believe that their 
support people are good enough to answer questions on their own.  For 
instance, let's say you'd outsourced your support to a third party which 
was very cheap, but you have doubts as to their ability.  In such a case 
it might make sense to force the use of templated answers so as to 
replace an embarrassing shoddy chaos of customer support with a mere 
soul-crushing bureaucracy.

Post a reply to this message

"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:4b68b653$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp wrote:
> >   Why would they do that? Who does it benefit? Why would
a company
>
> In such a case
> it might make sense to force the use of templated answers
so as to
> replace an embarrassing shoddy chaos of customer support
with a mere
> soul-crushing bureaucracy.

It sounds like maybe a customer brought legal action on them
because help desker offered incorrect advice outside of
their area of expertise and/or outside the company's
responsibility. Bad joo-joo...

Post a reply to this message

DungBeatle wrote:
> 
> It sounds like maybe a customer brought legal action on them
> because help desker offered incorrect advice outside of
> their area of expertise and/or outside the company's
> responsibility. Bad joo-joo...
> 

Yeah, I guess that also fits with the general theme: If you worry enough 
much about mistakes you'll have to inhibit your ability to do anything 
useful in order to avoid them.  I'm sure this same theme plays out in 
many varied ways in most large companies.

Post a reply to this message

DungBeatle <dun### [at] moscowcom> wrote:
> "Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
> news:4b68b653$1@news.povray.org...
> > Warp wrote:
> > >   Why would they do that? Who does it benefit? Why would
> a company
> >
> > In such a case
> > it might make sense to force the use of templated answers
> so as to
> > replace an embarrassing shoddy chaos of customer support
> with a mere
> > soul-crushing bureaucracy.

> It sounds like maybe a customer brought legal action on them
> because help desker offered incorrect advice outside of
> their area of expertise and/or outside the company's
> responsibility. Bad joo-joo...

  How can you sue a company on the grounds that the tech support didn't
give a template answer and instead the guy gave an answer based on his
own expertise? If the template answer would have been unhelpful, then
there's no grounds for a lawsuit, but if the answer was not a ready-made
one, then there is?

  Which law codifies this?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4b68bdbe@news.povray.org...
>   How can you sue a company on the grounds that the tech
support didn't
> give a template answer and instead the guy gave an answer
based on his
> own expertise? If the template answer would have been
unhelpful, then
> there's no grounds for a lawsuit, but if the answer was
not a ready-made
> one, then there is?
>
>   Which law codifies this?

Ya got me, I just figure it took some serious pressure to
cause the help desk to have to work under such restrictions.
That usually indicates a legal battle. So I was just
guessing. I figure if some help desk person provides a
solution that results in the loss of data or devices, I can
see an end user trying legal action... Just for example, I
received instructions from a help desk person who told me
how to plug in the cables to my router. He had me hook them
up backwards and it blew the router. I would have sued them
in small claims if they hadn't replaced the router... And
they did.

Post a reply to this message

DungBeatle wrote:
> By the time I'm calling for support, I coubt some list
> of stock answers is going to help me. 

You, perhaps, yes. But I read a statistic somewhere that something like 60% 
of the help desk phone calls for major appliances (washers, driers, fridges, 
etc) could have been avoided had the caller read that checklist at the back 
with "is it plugged in? Is it turned on? Is the fuse outside blown?" kind of 
questions.

And that's 60% of the people who *did* call. No telling how many people used 
the checklist first.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> the guy gave an answer based on his
> own expertise? 

If he gave a *wrong* answer based on his own expertise in the name of the 
company, I can see that.

Someone calls up, says they deleted a file by mistakae, helpdesk says "run 
this undelete program" and it screws their entire filesystem, perhaps.

In the USA (for reasons I won't get into here) there's what's called "strict 
liability" for products. If something happens that your product caused, 
you're responsible for it. If the toaster burns down your house, it's the 
fault of the toaster maufacturer.  So I can see this being more of a problem 
here than in countries where common sense works.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm sure there's a hole in his wall where he has been hitting his head 
> repeatedly the past couple of months.

My favorite was

"Your email server is down.  It's not my computer, because when I telnet to 
port 25, I get no connection. Is your server down?"

"I can't help you with that, but I can help you reinstall your email client."

"That has nothing to do with it if your server is down. Can *you* get to the 
server?"

"No, but that might be due to any number of r easons."

D'oh!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b68c2e7$1@news.povray.org...
> DungBeatle wrote:
> > By the time I'm calling for support, I doubt some list
> > of stock answers is going to help me.
>
> You, perhaps, yes. But I read a statistic somewhere that
something like 60%
> of the help desk phone calls for major appliances
(washers, driers, fridges,
> etc) could have been avoided had the caller read that
checklist at the back
> with "is it plugged in? Is it turned on? Is the fuse
outside blown?" kind of
> questions.
>
> And that's 60% of the people who *did* call. No telling
how many people used
> the checklist first.

You're probably right, and I'm also the one who reads ALL
the instructions! :) Yes, I would go through the checklist
before I'd call... Too bad they almost always figure you
haven't...

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b68c440$1@news.povray.org...
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > I'm sure there's a hole in his wall where he has been
hitting his head
> > repeatedly the past couple of months.
>
> My favorite was
>
> "Your email server is down.  It's not my computer, because
when I telnet to
> port 25, I get no connection. Is your server down?"
>
> "I can't help you with that, but I can help you reinstall
your email client."
>
> "That has nothing to do with it if your server is down.
Can *you* get to the
> server?"
>
> "No, but that might be due to any number of r easons."

I must have talked to the same guy a few years back. He
wanted me to reset all my usenet news groups and I kept
saying their server must be down... I won...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> > I'm sure there's a hole in his wall where he has been hitting his head
> > repeatedly the past couple of months.
>
> My favorite was
>
> "Your email server is down.  It's not my computer, because when I telnet to
> port 25, I get no connection. Is your server down?"
>
> "I can't help you with that, but I can help you reinstall your email client."
>
> "That has nothing to do with it if your server is down. Can *you* get to the
> server?"
>
> "No, but that might be due to any number of r easons."

yes, the main reason is that people don't like to read and thus they don't
educate themselves and thus get dumb like this.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Now that the IT Director is gone, I'm going to make a serious attempt to
> get permission to take my disaster recovery plan home with me.
> (Obviously, being written as part of my job, my employer owns the IP for
> that, so I need written permission to disclose it outside the company.)
> I think it's a damn fine piece of writing - and I have the likes of
> Roche and Pfizer agreeing with me.

Well, I think you should change the text so it doesn't actually explain the 
specific case of your company. You get to publish your writing but not the 
details of your company's backup system. Randomize some numbers, for a start 
:P

As for the writing, what you need is for its copyright to be owned by you 
and not your employer. I have no idea how hard it'd be to convince them of 
that, though.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> fantastic features this software has but doesn't actually say... what...
>> it... does! >_<
> 
> I like the ones that say "use this feature just like the way it was three
> versions ago, only with a new name!"
> 
> Sort of like if POV 3.6 was documented in terms of differences from POV
> 3.1.

Try iPhone jailbreaking. Websites telling you about the new releases of 
yellowsn0w, blackra1n, pwnagetool, etc and not telling you what they DO!

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I love working at home for this reason - far fewer distractions.

I don't have a job, but I can tell you that for me, "working"* from home 
doesn't mean less distractions. My mom has the radio on all day, my dad 
sometimes works from home (<5 meters away from me) and talks loudly on the 
phone.

(* open source stuff)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:10:53 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I love working at home for this reason - far fewer distractions.
> 
> I don't have a job, but I can tell you that for me, "working"* from home
> doesn't mean less distractions. My mom has the radio on all day, my dad
> sometimes works from home (<5 meters away from me) and talks loudly on
> the phone.

Yeah, it's definitely not for everyone - if I had small children around 
the house, it wouldn't work for me either.  It does help, though, that I 
have noise-canceling headphones that I can put on when things are a bit 
busier than usual.  Just put some tunes on and dive in.  I sometimes lose 
track of time, though, when I do that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:11:32 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b68b0dd$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:36:15 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:
>>
>> > He hasn't spoken to me in over a year now.
>>
>> That must make the job - and performance reviews -
> interesting (to say
>> the least).--Jim
> 
> Very, no reviews for two years now and I don't expect one this year. It
> doesn't really matter, I don't respect his opinion anyway... :)

Oh, I've had bosses like that as well, but it's always useful to at least 
pretend when bonuses or pay raises are involved. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:17:36 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4b68b240$1@news.povray.org...
>> I convinced him to tell me anyways, and promised not to
> tell anyone from
>> the organization who asked how I got help.  But it was one
> of the
>> stranger support conversations I've ever had.--Jim
> 
> That was pretty cool of him. The last time I called my ISP for support I
> finally said that the fix for my problem will take the right person less
> than one minute to correct it, find that person. Until then, I would not
> shotgun any changes... The right guy called me back the next day, 30
> seconds... Bingo!

Yeah, another reason why I stick with my ISP; I could do faster with 
cable, but the service terms for Comcast are not really to my benefit; my 
ISP basically agreed that their TOS were "we lease you a pipe; what you 
do with it is your business as long as it isn't illegal or disrupting 
other customers".

One of the *best* companies I've ever worked with for support is 
Bindview.  I could pick up the phone and be talking to a breathing person 
within 5 minutes.  What's more, the person had deep knowledge of the 
product, could understand what I wanted no matter how complex my request 
was, and if s/he didn't know the answer, they'd call back within 30 
minutes with an answer from the developer.  Every single time, without 
fail.

And if the need I had wasn't in the product, there was a better than 50% 
chance that it was entered in as an enhancement request for the next 
product release - which we would get at no charge, and probably would be 
within the next 6 months at the most.

Pricey product, but it paid for itself in 6 months.....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:07:08 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>> In addition, some places explicitly forbid the support people from
>> exercising much creativity in their answers, but instead force them to
>> select from a bank of pre-designed template answers.  So it might even
>> be the case that the person knows what you're asking and wants to help,
>> but couldn't because they didn't have the authority to answer it
>> properly.
> 
>   Why would they do that? Who does it benefit? Why would a company
> actively *forbid* a tech support person from giving an answer he knows
> fits the question best and instead *force* him to give an irrelevant
> answer? What for?

Because some companies are afraid of being sued if one of these 
"creative" problems causes a catastrophic failure of some sort.  It's all 
about liability and fear.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:33:03 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> "That has nothing to do with it if your server is down. Can *you* get to
> the server?"
> 
> "No, but that might be due to any number of r easons."
> 
> D'oh!

It's amazing what happens with support like this, isn't it?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Sounds like you got a good deal out of it!
> 
> I don't like problems like this. I much prefer easy, open
> discussion.

Well, yes, that's far better...

> I love doing my job, it's people that suck...

Heh, I'm sure a lot of people have that problem.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Actually, wait - any half-decent manager should still be able to spot
>> this one. OK, you win the point.
> 
> Well, not really; the boss I had who got sacked (who I mentioned earlier 
> today) was hired by the guy who hired me.  Randall (not his real name - 
> but I need to call the boss who was fired something) was quite the 
> salesman; he could've sold snowballs to eskimos.

Most of the managers my company employs are excellent at selling 
themselves. Which is just as well, because they suck at everything else!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:33:09 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Actually, wait - any half-decent manager should still be able to spot
>>> this one. OK, you win the point.
>> 
>> Well, not really; the boss I had who got sacked (who I mentioned
>> earlier today) was hired by the guy who hired me.  Randall (not his
>> real name - but I need to call the boss who was fired something) was
>> quite the salesman; he could've sold snowballs to eskimos.
> 
> Most of the managers my company employs are excellent at selling
> themselves. Which is just as well, because they suck at everything else!

LOL, everyone's gotta have at least one thing they're good at. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Most of the managers my company employs are excellent at selling
>> themselves. Which is just as well, because they suck at everything else!
> 
> LOL, everyone's gotta have at least one thing they're good at. :-)

So what am *I* good at?

Oh yeah: worrying. :-/

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:53:57 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> So what am *I* good at?

Lots of stuff, see all the previous threads where we've told you. :-)

> Oh yeah: worrying. :-/

Well, that's a skill, too - but one that you shouldn't focus a lot of 
time on developing further.  ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> I had an e-mail earlier today from a developer I work with who wrote a 
> single run-on sentence about a two-line code change he was making; it 
> wasn't clear to me what it was he was intending to accomplish with this 
> (though I could - and did - guess, I've found it's best to be clear up 
> front before coding begins with this developer), so I restated it back to 
> him with "do I understand that this will [....]" and he sent me a one-
> word reply:  YES.
> 
Great! I wonder what his documentation is like, if he does any.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh yeah: worrying. :-/
> 
> Well, that's a skill, too - but one that you shouldn't focus a lot of 
> time on developing further.  ;-)

....IT'S POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP FURTHER THAN THIS?? O_O

I'm SO not trying that!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

DungBeatle wrote:


>I never wrote it... He hasn't spoken to me in over a year now.
> 
> 

Jammy B ;-)
-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3-2-2010 19:29, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Sounds like you got a good deal out of it!
>>
>> I don't like problems like this. I much prefer easy, open
>> discussion.
> 
> Well, yes, that's far better...
> 
>> I love doing my job, it's people that suck...
> 
> Heh, I'm sure a lot of people have that problem.

There's also a lot that don't.
Most of the colleagues at my work are sort of friends and I always had 
good contact with the patients.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:48:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> I had an e-mail earlier today from a developer I work with who wrote a
>> single run-on sentence about a two-line code change he was making; it
>> wasn't clear to me what it was he was intending to accomplish with this
>> (though I could - and did - guess, I've found it's best to be clear up
>> front before coding begins with this developer), so I restated it back
>> to him with "do I understand that this will [....]" and he sent me a
>> one- word reply:  YES.
>> 
> Great! I wonder what his documentation is like, if he does any.

Difficult to read at best, nonexistent at worst.  Which reminds me, I had 
meant to mention that his latest svn commits were done improperly. <sigh>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:50:28 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Oh yeah: worrying. :-/
>> 
>> Well, that's a skill, too - but one that you shouldn't focus a lot of
>> time on developing further.  ;-)
> 
> ....IT'S POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP FURTHER THAN THIS?? O_O
> 
> I'm SO not trying that!

That's good.  And yes, it is - I've known people who would frequently 
make themselves physically ill because they worried about things so 
much.  I'm talking ill enough to not be able to leave the house.  Ever.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b69ff87$1@news.povray.org...

> That's good.  And yes, it is - I've known people who would
frequently
> make themselves physically ill because they worried about
things so
> much.  I'm talking ill enough to not be able to leave the
house.  Ever.
> Jim

It happened to me last year. A situation at work got me
extremely upset and worried. I lost a lot of sleep over it,
my blood pressure shot up to 240/120! I wound up in ER, had
to take nitro glycerin and morphine. The high BP caused a
kydney stone (one that I must have been carrying for a few
years) to break loose and lodge in my ureter, doc was
concerned about sepsis). Had to have emergency surgery to
have it removed (I was pissing what looked like grape juice
for two weeks). The high BP also caused a rupture in my
right retina, and more emergency surgery (I still have blood
clots in my right eye). I have learned to take things easier
now. I have to be very careful about getting worked up. I
take pharms for the BP, but it's always a bit too high...

~db

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:08:08 -0800, DungBeatle wrote:

> It happened to me last year.

I was partially thinking about hypertension and related issues - so sorry 
to hear you went through that, it's not fun to do (I've not done it 
myself, but I have family who has).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:48:36 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 

>> Great! I wonder what his documentation is like, if he does any.
> 
> Difficult to read at best, nonexistent at worst.  Which reminds me, I had 
> meant to mention that his latest svn commits were done improperly. <sigh>
> 

I’m writing configuration documents ATM so I had better make them 
comprehensible, after all I’ve said about the current documentation.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:03:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> I’m writing configuration documents ATM so I had better make them
> comprehensible, after all I’ve said about the current documentation.

That would probably be a good idea.

Jim

Post a reply to this message