

Get Satisfaction: Help us review a new page design - rufo
http://blog.getsatisfaction.com/2009/04/08/help-us-review-a-new-page-design/

======
mdasen
If you really want to do the right thing, change "X is not yet participating"
to "Get Satisfaction has no affiliation with X". The second one is the truth.
The first one might have truth to it, but makes it sound like X is avoiding
the forum - like they have something to hide.

I know that your business plan is based on getting companies to pay you to
become their support system, but it would be nice if you didn't try to shape
your words to pressure them in that direction. You have no connection to the
company. You are unofficial. That's the truth. It's a small change, but a very
meaningful one. No one likes the implication that they're avoiding something.

Get Satisfaction is not yet responding to this criticism. ;-) Yeah, it feels
pretty crappy. For all I know, you haven't even read this or know it exists!
Yet, I'm implying that you're just ignoring it because you don't want to be
open. It might not sound like a big deal, but it's a huge change in how people
see the companies represented on your site. If you really want to be a good
steward, don't be playful with your words - be honest. I'm not saying you're
intentionally doing this, just that if you want companies to take you
seriously and trust you as a support mechanism, saying that you're unofficial
will get them on your side more than saying they aren't participating.

~~~
Semiapies
"If you really want to do the right thing"

Minor point: _they're not here_. Tell them that in their comments. :)

~~~
paulgb
I would be surprised to hear about any SF-based, consumer-facing web start-up
who didn't follow comments about them HN. Not to mention a company that is in
the customer satisfaction industry.

~~~
Semiapies
1) They're supposedly rather busy at the moment.

2) I can imagine their reluctance to visit here after the tone of the prior
discussions on this topic.

3) There is no centralized comment section for the web. Not Slashdot, not
Reddit, not here. They asked for comments on their site, not "please talk
about this somewhere on the web".

------
run4yourlives
I think you need to step back and figure out who your customer is first.

From my outside view, it seems like you are trying to be everything to two
very distinct entities - organizations and their customers. It seems you are
trying to insert yourselves in between this relationship, even if one party
isn't interested. I think this is the failure point.

It seems in my mind that the real customer here is the organization, since
they are the ones paying for the service. You act - intentionally or not - as
an advocate for the customer. Everything you do seems to be aligned with
goading the organization into giving you money. It is very off putting from
their perspective, which in the long run will probably end up hurting you.

If you want to be a voice for consumers, be that. If you want to provide a
service to organizations, do that. Don't attempt to insert yourself into an
already existing relationship - regardless of how functional it is.

------
tjic
Under "all press is good press", I note that whatever their sins,
getsatisfaction.com has achieved name recognition. I doubt that any other
startup posting "Help us design a web page" post would rise to the top of the
front page in 20 minutes...

~~~
judofyr
Well, in contrast to other startups, I think we can all agree that the current
page design has some serious flaws which needs to be fixed ASAP. By voting up
we show that we actually care about this issue and that Get Satisfaction is
doing the right thing.

~~~
brandnewlow
Why should people help a company with an unethical/shady business model. It's
not a "bad design" you had a problem with, it was a design that too-accurately
reflected your business model.

~~~
Semiapies
Even as a sharp critic of GS, I have to say rehabilitation is a good thing. If
they've been scared into straightening up, I'm happy to throw some suggestions
their way.

~~~
brandnewlow
You can't straighten an act that was, by design, crooked. Their whole business
model was problematic.

~~~
Semiapies
Not their entire business model, just their treatment of non-client businesses
and their customers.

------
cedsav
I'm not a native English speaker but the wording of "Ask a Question of
Cyberdyne Customers" seems odd. Did they mean "to Cyberdyne Customers"?

Also, "People-Powered Customer Support" doesn't really convey what they say it
conveys. All customer support is people-powered. 'Community-Powered Customer
Support' or 'Customer-Powered Support' would be more accurate.

And as others have suggested, "Get Satisfaction has no affiliation with X" is
much better that 'X is not yet participating'

~~~
tjic
> I'm not a native English speaker but the wording of "Ask a Question of
> Cyberdyne Customers" seems odd. Did they mean "to Cyberdyne Customers"?

Your phrasing might be more logical, but the phrasing that the page currently
has is the phrasing that sounds best to native speakers' ears.

The simples English words sometimes have the trickiest definitions.

I recall that "be" takes multiple pages of the Oxford English Dictionary.

With regard to "of", I think that definition #8 here

<http://www.yourdictionary.com/of>

"concerning; about; with reference to - 'think well of me'"

is the way it's being used.

~~~
teej
> Your phrasing might be more logical, but the phrasing that the page
> currently has is the phrasing that sounds best to native speakers' ears.

I disagree. I ask a favor OF someone. I ask a question TO someone.

~~~
calambrac
I think "Ask a question of" and "Ask a question to" are both wrong. Why not
just "Ask Cyberdyne Customers a Question"?

~~~
mdemare
Calambrac's correct, nobody uses the first two forms, as google will tell you.
But why not?

This is actually a very interesting question. You'd say "Cyberdyne Customers"
is an indirect object.

I give Cyberdyne Customers a cookie. I give a cookie to Cyberdyne Customers. I
ask Cyberdyne Customers a question. *I ask a question to Cyberdyne Customers.

Why is the last form incorrect? What rules apply here? If you're interested in
questions like this, I can recommend Steven Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought" (
[http://www.amazon.com/Stuff-Thought-Language-Window-
Nature/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Stuff-Thought-Language-Window-
Nature/dp/0143114247) )

------
thalur
I like what they've done to improve the page. The only thing that sticks out a
bit is the "yet" in "... is not yet participating". It sounds a bit pushy,
like they are trying to pressure the company into participating.

~~~
windsurfer
It sounds better than "...is not participating" as that sounds like the
company discredits the site. I think they should put "...is not officially
participating" as that sounds like the company may or may not be part of the
site.

------
natch
Your solicitation for feedback says:

"Most customer support communities on Get Satisfaction have some level of
employee involvement (about three-quarters), but the rest are added and
cultivated by customers."

OK. Just one point. This is kind of a meta-comment about how you are doing
this.

The above, quoted from your solicitation for feedback, ambiguously mentions
"employees" without clarifying whose employees they are. Employees of Get
Satisfaction? Or employees of the company in question? I _think_ I know the
answer, but really it is ambiguous. To someone who hasn't read more about the
back story, it is VERY ambiguous.

Ambiguity in the writing on your site seems to be a recurring theme. In fact,
if I understand the back story correctly, a problem with ambiguity is one of
the main reasons you did this new page design. Maybe you should try shuffling
the writing team around a bit; they seem to be having trouble stepping outside
of themselves to see the prose as others would see it.

------
brandnewlow
They should hire 37signals to design the page.

------
jcromartie
Sorry, I still think it sounds like extortion.

------
jjburka
The page does make it clearer when a company has endorsed the page or not. A
couple observations

* I don't think the "X has Opted Out of this Community" and "X is not yet participating" states are both needed. Just labeling it as unofficial in both cases should be enough.

* The wording in the post a topic to the forum (#6) is strange sounding to me. Maybe "Ask X customers a question"

~~~
Semiapies
Well, showing "Opted Out" might save someone at the company having to answer
eighteen hundred emails from people suggesting this cool service they should
use. ;)

------
Eliezer
Call me crazy, but as an uninvolved third party it seems to me that this
should fix the main problems identified and I'm impressed with Get
Satisfaction for fixing it.

------
markh
Fantastic followup! Classy.

