Comment by kelvin0 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelvin0 | Hacker News Reader

I've posted many times on HN an anecdote of mine regarding using Google (paid) services. Basically got my ex-employer (30 people) company on board to using google docs accounts to share documents. Since this is a corporation we decided to go with the 50$/user/year, which we duly paid each year.

Things went swimmingly well, until a user reported seeing an error message, and then not being able to access the document at all. Escalation was a joke, and after a whole week of not having access to the critical google spreadsheet, Google was still fumbling around. Finally we got the document back, because one of the employees had kept the email containing the URL of the document (sent out when a document is shared with a group of people).

If it wasn't for that old email kept by an employee, we'd probably never would have 'found' the document again. Google's support was at best incompetent.

Beware dancing with the Dragon that is Google! Backup your files, keep important document URLS!

Hope this helps a poor soul somewhere.

This is basically the opposite of Microsoft. I've only had to call Microsoft less than a handful of times in my career because for the most part, their stuff just works... however on those occasions when I did call them I was able to get quickly through to a person and have my issue resolved within 24 hours.

As a matter of fact, with every MSDN subscription - you get two support incidents worth $500 each and if you tell them it's an emergency, they'll stay on the phone with you until the matter is resolved.

> if you tell them it's an emergency, they'll stay on the phone with you until the matter is resolved.

That seems like a terrible idea. How many times has someone entered a "CRITICAL URGENT" support ticket regarding not being able to change their background image, or being blocked from downloading a game or something?

Those support calls are screened- "is this a work-stopping event for some % of your business" is a standard screening question. They are also expensive.

Would someone paying you $500 for a support call to change their background image be unwelcome?

My experience with Microsoft was different. Back in the day, I installed IIS server ( MS official web server) and it wiped my system. I called customer support and they said that I needed to reinstall to fix it. I re-installed everything. Installed IIS and everything was wiped again. Customer Support said that they could not help and I should wait for the next patch.

Sounds like you didn't choose the paid support option.

When you pay them, they stay until it's fixed.

They stay until they exhaust all reasonable chances of fixing the issue, which is different.

There are limits to what tech support can fix, but getting to the point of "wipe it and start over" can be pretty quick.

He said he did this and it happened again.

I remain neutral on the story's truthfulness but I think there's a difference between the quality of Google's engineers and the customer facing employees they hire.

Are you doubting that a Google spreadsheet disappeared from Google documents, and that support reps had a difficult time finding it?

That seems like a pretty weak criticism to make up. And the account your questioning has a history here, and is not promoting another product, so why would they make that up?

I've seen comments similar to this before. Why would it matter? As an end user, knowing it was Department A rather than Department B that gave you a crappy experience is meaningless.

The company is responsible, whether that's down to culture or management or whatever else. If they focus on getting the best engineers but don't put the same effort into setting up the best customer service, that is very telling.

Enjoyable user experience isn't a high enough priority for Google. They have the resources and they choose where to focus them.

maybe I wasn't making it clear. I didn't mean they should be different. I'm merely saying their customer facing staff don't seem to be as brilliant in customer service as their engineers in engineering. But reading it twice, i realise it can be interpreted either way. I don't disagree with you.

Why couldn't you just search drive? It's not that big of an organization.

Just to be clear, ALL our documents were wiped out from view. We could not search anything.

Your original comment said it was one file, and finding the original URL found it. (Also BTW, everyone who is shared on the file can look in "Shared With Me" in Drive, no need to hunt for e-mails.)

Now you're saying that your entire organization's files were all gone from Drive, in other words total and complete organization-wide data loss, and that Google wouldn't help you...?

And yet finding one URL fixed all that again...?

We only had 3-5 documents online. 1 of those documents was a spreadsheet VERY important spreadsheet. All documents disappeared after the reported error occurred. Google wanted the document URLs to retrieve the 'lost' documents. We only were able to get a hold of 1 URL for the critical shared spreadsheet, which was finally recovered.

All other documents were lost, but luckily they were not critical. But we still lost them. Hope this clarifies?

Was it "just" a spreadsheet, or did it use some custom scripting? Or in other words, how would you have backed it up? Just export it as a file every hour, and store somewhere (other than Google drive)?

I'm just trying to understand the story here. Help me understand where my misunderstanding is.

So you're saying that you couldn't view it in Google Drive, because the documents were wiped. However, you were able to access the Google Sheet directly through the URL in an email?

How does that work? If it's a critical document like you say and your organization is operating out of it then that means it shared and it is in the "Shared with me" section. How were you able to access it if it was wiped?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com