(inspired by the How To Ask Questions The Smart Way by Eric S Raymond)
In the last months I encountered in several situations, that people brought up issues like “the site isn’t working” or “the site is slow”, without more information. If am responsible for the thing in question, this leaves me a hard task: I am expected to fix a problem, for which I don’t have any information. It sometimes even doesn’t exist, because a situation is perceived as problem, which doesn’t exist on my site, but either at the system of the guy reporting it or somewhere in between. But we don’t know.
People who get such reports tend to have different strategies: One strategy would be just to reject such issues because “I cannot reproduce it on my system; the website is responding query quickly and behaves fine” and throw to trash (move the complaint email to trash or close the ticket in the issue system). Other just ignore them (for the same reason), but don’t throw the reporting message into trash. A third approach is to request more information on this issue. That would be a good approach, but either the reporter do not react anymore (because they are just busy), the problem is gone in the meanwhile (for whatever reason), or they cannot provide the requested information anymore. Also not a satisfying solution.
So the only remaining solution is to force people to provide the required information with the initial issue report. If you ask people to describe their problem very closely and detailled, they like to provide this information to you, because they feel, that somebody really likes to solve their problem. But because they are not aware that (and which) information is needed for the resolution of an issue, they tend to provide no information at all.
So the goal is to have a list of things, which have to be provided by the reporter of an issue along with the issue. So in the end an issue report would look like this:
“At about 1:40pm on September 23st 2009 I requested the page http://www.abc.foo/a/b.html; I received only a damaged page, with some pictures missing. When I tried to login using my credentials (my username is hbt85), I received an internal server error page; I used the firefox browser installed on my corporate computer.”
Altough this report is very brief (and probably doesn’t much time to report), it contains valuable information, so a system administrator can immediately start to look for the problem and has a realistic chance to find traces of the described issue (in the logfiles, in system dump or in the application monitoring). Because it contains the following important information:
- Who is the reporter? (Not only the eMail adress or the full name of the user, but also by providing the username in the affected system)
- What system is affected? (given by the exact hostname)
- When does the issue occur? (time and date)
- What has the reporter done and what were the effects of it?
So the most time consuming task of every support is to qualify every incoming request to such a level, that a qualified guy can take a look at the system to identify and fix the issue. In the way to qualify such problems it very often turns out that the cause of the problem lies on the user side, being it either missing training on the system resulting in wrong usage, missing or incorrect documentation or just errors on the user-site. In our example it could be that the user just used a wrong URL, he should have used “http://www.abc.foo/a-new/b.html”, but he missed the mail announcing this change.
So a major job of every support organisation is to have a prepared, up-to-date list of relevant information, which are needed to resolve an issue. So if you are in a support organisation, provide a list of information pieces, which must be provided by a issue reporter. And if you’re a experienced user and want to report an issue and you want it really fixed, provide as many information as possible. There is no “too much information” regarding a specific problem.