Get Satisfaction: Help us review a new page design | Hacker News Reader

Get Satisfaction: Help us review a new page design

blog.getsatisfaction.com

36 pointsrufo34 comments

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.

I'm not saying you're intentionally doing this

You are and they are.

And BTW, their success probably depends on the misleading wording, at least initially. If it were done as you say from the very beginning, they would probably have much less traffic now.

The art of building a successful Web 2.0 company seems to do whatever is required always staying a hair's width away from getting sued. Threats of a lawsuit are great for publicity just as long as they don't materialize into litigation.

You're right.

It's just unfortunate, because they could easily be just as successful via a more honest strategy. Costumers need however much support they can get, official or not. Many times I prefer official forums for support, because I get faster response.

I guess greed gets the best of us. But it does make more money. At what cost though.

I agree with what you said. I immediately stopped reading the post when I see the "X is not yet participating" in the design. I am still disappointed with the new design.

"If you really want to do the right thing"

Minor point: they're not here. Tell them that in their comments. :)

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.

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".

No, they're not yet participating here.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Not sure if all press is good press. Sure I know their name now but now I know to avoid it too. And in the near future, when I'm considering options for my own gig I'll probably go with UserVoice or SuggestionBox instead.

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'

> 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.

> 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.

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

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... )

I disagree. While both are grammatically sound, "of you" sounds better to the native ear. This is largely due to repetition (humans tend to process language probabilistically, almost as if language were merely a series of Markov chains). Ponder, for a moment, these famous lines:

"Christine, that's all I ask of you." - Andrew Lloyd Weber

"Nor would I ask of any fellow American in defense of his freedom that which I would not gladly give myself - my life before my liberty." - Manchurian Candidate

"And ask of you forgiveness; and so we’ll live," - Shakespeare (King Lear)

These classic lines have made their mark on our culture and/or the English language.

The notable exception to this is when "to" is used to show cause, i.e.

The student asked permission [in order] to go to the bathroom

The man asked a question [in order] to understand the answer

I ask a question TO someone.

Not in English you don't.

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.

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.

I think it has alot to do with the color of the boxes too, swap the "not yet participating" color with the "opted out" color and it comes across alot less threatening to me even with the same copy.

They are, but at least in a more honest way.

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.

They should hire 37signals to design the page.

Sorry, I still think it sounds like extortion.

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"

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. ;)

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.

Fantastic followup! Classy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com