Can anyone explain why FS Support is directing a user to raise their own query
Comments
-
@SerraNola - is this one for you? (sorry!)
Just as an aside, can anyone explain why FS Support appears to be directing a user to raise their own query here for picking up by other parts of FS, instead of passing the query on to the correct FS team themselves? Am I missing something about the organisation of FS Support?
3 -
It's certainly not the first time we've seen a poster report that Support sent them here, to the Community, Adrian.
2 -
I can probably answer that question for you since I am a support agent. My answer only applies to issues within our various historical records collections.
When there is an issue with historical records that the user can't correct, support agents no longer have an escalation path. Nor do we have a communication path to allow us to reliably learn about changes in record access. We see some of the changes that are coming, but not all.
In most instances, Feedback buttons exist on the pages where a user is reporting an issue and we can suggest that the user click Feedback to report issues. But using Feedback buttons can be a frustrating experience as the users rarely if ever gets a response from the developers who receive the feedback.So, we will often suggest that a user report issues with historical records in Community > Ask a Question > Search. We have noticed the excellent job that @SerraNola does in investigating and reporting issues. She also provides helpful explanatory responses to the user who submitted the issue. Issues still linger a very long time, but at least users are not feeling so much like they are sending their concerns into a black hole.
So, don't beat up on the lowly volunteer support agents so much. We do what we can.
7 -
@N Tychonievich - thanks for that reply. Having worked on Second Level Support, downstream from First Level Support teams (i.e. those who take calls from end users), I appreciate their situations and I have always tried to help others, on all sorts of sites, to understand that (for instance) working through a script is not just the best that First Level Support can do, it's the only practical thing that they can do.
I'd just note your comment that "When there is an issue with historical records that the user can't correct, support agents no longer have an escalation path." Hmmm. Clearly this is not the fault of the agents!
My thanks to everyone who's been doing their best (and yes, @N Tychonievich, I well remember the help we had from you in this Community in the past)
4 -
Thank you very much for your clear intervention.
I can see another good reason for the Community to get involved, in that this shares the issue and its solution for the future benefit of other FS users.
But is the current lack of an escalation path for Support agents expected to be resolved in the near future, do you know? I have come up against this myself. It is clear (again from my own experience) that, despite the best efforts of the mods here, not all issues and questions have a formal escalation path via Community either.
1 -
@MandyShaw1 I agree that posting here in Community is a good way to share issues and solutions (or the lack thereof) more broadly.
The lack of an escalation path for Support agents ONLY applies to issues with historical records. Other sorts of issues are escalated every day by support agents. In discussion with those who make decisions, the decision was made to not provide the needed licenses that would allow the HR leader among support agents in North America (that's me) to escalate issues. I have no idea what is done in other homelands. I concurred with that decision for a couple of reasons:
—Feedback buttons are in place that allow the user to report directly to developers in many cases.
—We agreed that it is best for one person to take care of those issues that need to be sent on to developers so that she can also keep track of what has already been reported, thus reducing duplication. @SerraNola has the ability to discuss things with engineers that a volunteer support agent doesn't have. It only makes sense for her to be the person who is sending the reports and keeping track of things.1 -
Thank you, that makes sense.
The ticket I mentioned above related to the negative effects of the BYU Record Linking Lab's activities on Family Tree (see
The ticket was not a Historical Records issue (or not directly) and was raised in Europe. Support did respond in a positive way. However I was told that, although a team existed that might be able to move the matter forward, I could not be put in touch with them directly (which is understandable), but also (https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/603475/#Comment_603475) that no mechanism existed that would allow Support to track the progress (or lack of it) of the ticket with them (which I would have thought was an essential aspect of escalation). No perceptible progress at all has been made on the issue in the intervening 6 months.
1 -
"—Feedback buttons are in place that allow the user to report directly to developers in many cases.
—We agreed that it is best for one person to take care of those issues that need to be sent on to developers so that she can also keep track of what has already been reported, thus reducing duplication."
Both of these things may very well be true…however, this is really all about FS internal structure and functions that most users wouldn't have any idea about and make reporting problems with historical records very frustrating!
I have reported problems a couple of times. Each time, I've used whatever method of reporting that I could find (and I don't recall finding it easily). Apparently I've selected the wrong method, because I get a message back along the lines of "That sounds terrible. You should report it." Er, I just did?
I'm not sure why the messages can't be forwarded to the correct team. If they can't be, it would be great if there were a very clear option (link, button, etc.) in the contact/help list to send a message to that team to start with.
Now when I come across these problems, I don't report them, because I know that before I didn't have the option to report it to the correct team and I'll just get a message back telling me I did it wrong.
1 -
When I was at work, @Regan8 , I'd have got figuratively shot if I'd told a user to report a fault again to IT using a different mechanism - I'd have been told to pass the report on to the correct team myself. However, that was my employer not FamilySearch, who are entitled to have their own process. So I sympathise with you (and my previous employer).
0 -
@N Tychonievich refers to the support agents being volunteers, which is a new fact from my perspective and which may explain some of this rather muddled picture - corporate IT support usually involves service level agreements, which would clearly be hard to enforce on a volunteer workforce.
1 -
And I was once corrected for replying that this forum is not support. Apparently, we are all volunteer members of the support system.
2 -
It would make more sense if there was a single (and ideally 24x7) support structure covering online, 'phone, and email requests (and abuse reports), and with a clear mechanism for effective escalation, tracking, and prioritisation ('website unavailable', 'abuse causing data corruption', 'record/image access rights issue', right down to 'user just needs standard introductory material'). It really shouldn't be necessary for people to raise their issue more than once (even us having to ask users to re-post on specific Community Groups feels wrong to me).
1 -
Here's my perspective and a little context:
Support utilizes a ticket service management system, while Engineering operates within an "issue management platform". When the Support Escalation team determines that a ticket should be transferred to Engineering, an engineer will assume responsibility and either create a new “Issue” or associate the ticket with an existing one. Engineering work is then tracked within the issue management system, with updates relayed back to the ticket and the escalation team and/or user.
A significant volume of tickets escalated to Engineering have historically pertained to Historical Records-related issues. The FamilySearch record engineering teams are incredible in their responsiveness to patron concerns; however, they have previously experienced high volumes of user reports requiring considerable effort to accurately define each problem. The result was massive amounts of backload. In 2024, I was asked to be involved in piloting a new process for managing Historical Records errors:
- Triage patron reports to determine what occurred, as well as the impact and scope.
- Monitor Historical Records “Feedback” channels for relevant cases. (Engineers also read Feedback).
- Consolidate similar errors to minimize the number of reports.
- Provide engineering a comprehensive report detailing the issue.
- Create the “Issue” for the targeted records team--directly in the engineering management system, skipping standard tickets.
- Get alerts when actions are taken on the Issue.
- Maintain open communication with engineering.
- Update users within Community.
The success of this approach is largely attributable to the active engagement of our users in the Community. It appears that Support Management have recognized this as a way to alleviate workload pressures on engineers. As @N Tychonievich explained, non-Historical Record issues continue to be escalated via the ticketing system, which functions effectively. Reports submitted here in the Community or through dedicated support volunteers DO continue to be directed to the appropriate team.
3 -
Thank you for explaining that, @SerraNola, and for all your hard and effective work in making the process happen-hopefully we'll see it used more widely soon!
0 -
@SerraNola - thanks for that description of a logical process.
I think your description alights on something that I had been feeling uneasy about with my "Support, not the user, should raise the issue with the next lot" principle, namely the probable need to collect further data about the particular error before submission to the Engineers (or whoever). I think that can only be done with the Original Poster and that is probably best done in a conversation with the OP in the Community.
Therefore, I'd make the suggestion that if Support does request the user to raise their query in the Community, they do so with an explanation something like "In order to get full details, we ask that you raise the query in the Community where people can analyse your issue…" That way it doesn't sound like an abdication of responsibility, which it can do currently.
Just as a flippant aside, it probably says something about my former work environment that I immediately read "HR" as "Human Resources"… Oops
2 -
Me too, re 'HR'!
0 -
Me 3 on "HR" - good to know it's not just because I'm in the US!
1 -
I guess I'm picking up engineer lingo and too lazy to type out Historical Records.
2 -
Alright, I decided to edit and save the confusion for others. 😊
3
