Slashdot Mirror
IT Support Pro Tells Why He Hates Live Chat
colinneagle writes "When someone calls into support, we first verify his or her account information. On the phone, this can take seconds. On a chat feature it can take a minute or two because people type slower than they speak. I also find that when people type in a chat they try to make the process go quicker by abbreviating the conversation. This means they might not give me all the information they would have if we were talking on the phone. The more descriptive a customer is about a problem, the easier and faster it will be to solve their issue. But the nature of a chat feature means people will abbreviate their stories to be more efficient, without realizing this just makes it more difficult to solve the problem. I end up asking more questions, which takes longer for the full story to come out. Explaining how to fix a problem can be difficult on the phone, but on a chat feature where I can't see your screen and likely have less information to work with, it can make it impossible to tackle a complex issue. It would be much more efficient for both me and the customer to talk on the phone so I can walk the customer through the steps I am taking."
Packet size happens.
No seriously, this reads like a random rant than an actual article. What are we here to discuss again?
Corporate moves to live-chat for support are usually the result of a razor-gang corporate management style focussing on short-term savings benefits.
Closed job numbers will look great on a monthly report, but issue resolution will be sub-par at best while customer satisfaction will be considerably lower. As mentioned above it's not a popular option with support staff either...
Users can multitask during a text chat session, and the support staff can sit and wait while the user looks up their account code, or what ever.
The user doesn't have to put up with surly condescending attitude on a chat call.
The user doesn't have to put up with poor language skills or a heavy accent, or a shitty phone connection.
The user doesn't have to give out a telephone number, and be monitored and recorded for quality control purposes.
Chat sessions aren't something users were pressing for, they are an invention of the service organizations to cut costs.
If those organizations find they don't like them, I'm sure they could hire some competent English speaking help and actually teach them something more than reading through a solution tree in a book for a product they have never laid eyes on, while ignoring every thing the user is saying.
Especially when these solution trees invariably end with some stupid advice "like factory reset your device" thereby wiping out weeks if not months of work.
Also, people tend to think while typing, and questions are actually more well though out.
A stead stream of verbal "um, ah, like, seedimsayin?, I mean, Huh? Where? How do I do that? Wait while I find a pencile" etc. etc. etc. is not an efficiency model I like to engage in. Neither is explaining the problem to 4 consecutive flack catchers before finally finding someone who as even the shadow of a clue.
So, the service industry made this bed, they can damn well sleep in it. You built it, you fix it.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I need to preface this by saying that I am a 20 year IT veteran who does phone support for one job, and onsite support for another.
Phone support: Takes a guy 5 minutes to finally get to the point: Internet Explorer is crashing and he thinks its because his cable internet is going down, and he is calling to complain. I have to really listen to this guy and let him get through 5 minutes of bullshit before he gets to the point "Internet Explorer has stopped responding" etc. The rest of the conversation was full of more bullshit, but that isn't relevant.
Chat support: I'm on site migrating a dead computers data into a new computer, and there's this industry specific software that needs to be reinstalled and have the data restored. The website is a fuster cluck of documentation, so I hit the live chat option. The person on the other end was quick, had correct answers, and I had the info I needed to do the migration in short order, and lo and behold, it *worked* the first time.
Now, in both cases you have a very experienced technical person on one end of the line, and in the second case apparently, two. Had my customer been on chat in the second scenario, they'd probably STILL be trying to figure it out. So, it has its places, such as when both parties are literate enough (both computer and English) to have a normal conversation. But for "normal" people who type in "my internet is broke" even though they have to BE online to type that... yeah... welcome to my hell.
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
For an IT person it is much easier, why should I wait on hold to get a HDD or MB replaced under warranty. My time is valuable and when I need to spend an hour on the phone to get something like that done it is really a waste of time and energy. Also when doing end user support a lot of times it is faster and easier when I can fire back an email with detailed instructions and screenshots on how to fix whatever issue it is. For those times when the problem is too complicated then you pick up the phone do a remote control session and resolve the issue. There is a fine balance between all of them.
"Don't Panic!"
It would be much more efficient...
It depends how you measure efficiency. It would solve the problem faster in many cases, but that doesn't mean it would use less of your time. Both you and the customer can multitask much more effectively in chat. You're off helping someone else while they reboot, instead of just racking up minutes of dead air. I consider that to be more efficient, even if it takes longer.
It's also much more efficient when you have a rambley customer. Instead of cutting him off continuously or waiting it out, you do something else while he types up his whole story, then you skim it to find the bits you wanted to know.
I personally find it much more enjoyable to use chat as a customer. I'll call in if I need something fixed RIGHT NOW, but most of the time chat is much less frustrating than waiting on hold.
Something tells me he hasn't tried writing a chat bot, ELIZA style. There are only so many ways to write "Have you tried turning it off and on again?"
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me."
A technically-savvy (eg.: Bob McHacker) user should be a lot easier to communicate with via chat than a non-technical user (eg.: Joe Sixpack).
To start with, expert users typically type almost as fast as they speak (seriously: if any of you out there work in IT for a living and cannot touch-type, it is an investment well worth it). As others have pointed out above, both user and helper can multitask; and many computer tasks end up involving huge amounts of staring at a progress bar. You can copy&paste error messages and links back and forth. You can actually think your answers through while you type them, and not waste anyone's time with errr, uhh, yeah, and other "are you alive/i am alive" on-the-phone protocol overhead.
In TFA, there is no coherent explanation of the type of support / users that this "Pro" is addressing. The article is less than a screenful of general ranting against not having the undivided attention of a user. Nothing to see here, move along.
What kind of IT "pro" works on a chat desk?
That's first line, very basic support and if they can't fix it with the normal Reboot/Power off for awhile/check cables then they give the answer of "One of our engineers will call you".
This guy is overrating his own skills if he considers himself a pro and is stuck in a job where he has to use a chat program.
------
I work in a small office supporting customers both locally and all around the world. For anything more than a simple "reboot this" I request they file a ticket in our ticketing system. If the ticket isn't explained clearly; I'll tell them so.
If it was a "Public" customer as apposed to someone internal; I'd phone them to get details. It looks professional (Me calling them instead of them chasing the ticket which hasn't been acted on). If I can't call them due to time frame differences etc; I'll email them with exact questions numbered so they can answer clearly.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
because that means you get to keep your job;
www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
So how is this different to email? This has been a problem ever since there has been IT support.
One good thing about typed or written communication is proof of the conversation.
Why hasn't the chat system already prompted the user for their information and looked it up automatically, even before the support staffer started the conversation?
Explaining how to fix a problem can be difficult on the phone, but on a chat feature where I can't see your screen
And how exactly can you see a screen over the phone?
Of course what's more efficient depends on the exact nature of the problem, but for many technical problems i would rather use a textual medium to explain them (typically irc, forums or email for me) for one simple reason: cut+paste
If the computer returns an error, i can paste it, which is easier and less error prone to reading it out. And if i need to run some commands, i can paste those commands back in the same way (this is also another reason why geeks use the cli - its easier to explain in a support context, even over the phone where reading cli output is far less error prone than trying to describe a graphic verbally)...
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I work quite hard to force all requests for technical advice to come by email only. By the time someone has properly written an account of "What did you do? What did you expect to happen? What did you want to happen?", they've quite often realised the solution to their problem on their own.
When someone calls into support, we first verify his or her account information.
Wouldn't it make more sense to use a script to verify the user's account info before they can even initiate the chat session? Why are you wasting human time (both yours and your customer's) doing something that 20 lines of PHP could handle more efficiently?
Simultaneous chat sessions.
You're welcome. Or, your manager is welcome.
I'm one of those stereotype geeks who doesn't like talking to people, outside a small circle of friends (and I find talking to them stressful at times). I'd rather just e-mail support with details and get an answer "whenever". If they need more information, they can ask for it.
I do not need everything in my life to happen *now*. I am perfectly content for things to take a little time, so long as no-one is taking the piss. Which is just as well, because IT at work will get round to dealing with your problem whenever they feel like it and you can't actually phone them anyway, you have to submit support tickets.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
I work in global support scenarios , and chat support is very helpful for those who are deaf and when I speak to those who have trouble speaking English, and it some cases it would actually save time. if it takes more time to solve problems then so be it, at least it will be documented, phone calls may not be recorded and previously read back, so chat logs provide history, it out weighs the obligation to hold a phone/headset to your ear, and the resources to record/translate/review audio.
Every screen share application I have used, have a built in chat capabilities, Microsoft Lync and LiveMeeting, Cisco WebEx, Adobe ConnectNow, TeamViewer, LogMeIn.
If i don't need to sit there with a headset and listen or speak to someone on the phone breathing down screaming or yelling at me , I would prefer chat support any day over text.
The nice thing about working with someone on the phone you get more friendly context , and even more so over web cam , and so on with in person. You might do well for someone you can see and hear, then rather treat as lines of text in a box..
Article doesn't even mention deliberate trolling of chat operators by the likes of /g/.
--
BMO
Criticism seems to be about how chat systems are often used. One to one, real time. That is poor way to use chatting systems. When there are lots of people in same chat 'room' or 'channel' things super boost to extent unseen in conventional conversions.
Chat is inherently asynchronous.
Multiple persons can speak at the same time, and a lot will become seen by many.
Dealing same problem reported multiple times is managed as one chat session.
That said, sometimes giving call will be the easiest way to deal some problems. Telling chat is crap is equally non-sense as bashing phone calls being useless.
I find live chat to be helpful. So it might take a few more minutes to get things done. I think the extra time is worth it as a bad connection could leave both sides asking to repeat something a few times to get it right, or just close enough. With the written word it is clear as day and something can be reread to be understood.
It's plain text. Click it all you like, nothing will happen.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
. . . chat is better.
It takes just as long on the phone, when you have to decipher a bizarre accent. Like, finally figuring out after a minute, that "aaatsch" or "hatch" means "eight."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This may be true a lot, but not always. AT&T Live support, for example, presents you with a login page before the chat. You have to fill out the form; the phone number, the name its registered under, the last 4 digits of social security, and a dropdown box with type of issue. That shaves a lot of this work off of the overall time.
I have had the exact opposite experience with chat support. On a phone call the person running it likely has no flipping clue what they are doing and are a just a butt filling a seat at a call center. In chat I explain the problem, they tend to *gasp* actually understand, and explain to me what to do in easy steps, or tell me why something can't be done clearly and to the point.
Comcast one night at my parents, they hadn't paid their bill and they got turned off, but they had the money so we just paid through the web portal you get redirected to when your account is cut off. Called support after about 8 hours of no service, ended up calling through twice because the first guy told me that service wouldn't be restored for 24 hours (I knew better, my parents had done this before and it was usually on in a few hours). Second call was a woman that tried to help but eventually spouted the same 24 hour BS.
So I finally broke down and used the Vita's broken-ass web browser to find out if Comcast had web support. Got on there, told the lady who answered the chat exactly my problem. She had me test a few things, asked me to do some very specific things, and eventually was able to get the account or modem or whatever out of the status it was stuck in. I thanked her and gave her a glowing review in the survey thing they had after. Took maybe 10 to 15 minutes for the chat, whereas it took maybe an hours worth of calling to not get anything done that way anyway.
I've never had any "live chat" calls where the agent was swift at responding, asking the right question, using the information I just typed or not helping at least 3 other people (they admitted that nonsense answers/requests from them were supposed to be typed in another customers window) or even fast at typing.
Bottom line is, either be good at your work and like it, or go flip burgers. Being an "IT Support Pro" isn't for everybody and if you blame your problems on the user, you don't have the right attitude. I know I just described 95% of the help desk staffers, but that is the sad truth, it's a dirty job and good staff is hard to find for that.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
.. how to ask the right questions! Users are IDIOTS. They will give you extraneous data that has no bearing on the problem at hand if you don't lead them down the right path!
Thank you,
BOFH
There has been lots of mention of hard-to-understand support staff, and how chat makes this easier. But this also works the other way. I've moved countries a couple of times in the last decade, both time to a country where I don't speak the language. Trying to get internet etc. set up is much harder when you can't speak a word of the language. But live chat and google translate etc. made this process considerably easier. It may not be for everyone, but it's a nice option to have!
Funny that I read this, when I have the total opposite experience. I found that it's cool to use the chat, so that people can actually type their domain names, account names, or whatever. I found restful that people aren't on the phone and expect you to fix in the second, or find their account immediately. It's also very nice that I can cut/past URL, like for example the one explaining what a glue record is on wikipedia and so on. It's also quite cool if a customer types slowly, that way, I can continue to do what I was doing at the same time, but anyway, it's very rare that our customers are typing that slow.
Maybe this has to do with the type of customers you get on the other side of the line (ours might know more).
That post was clearly spam. If you opened the link it you may very well be part of the reason spam works. I say goatse spam is a good way of conditioning people to recognize spam and not click on spam links.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Live chat support is one of the best things ever invented. When you type, I can't hear your accent, which removes a huge barrier to communication for most phone support call centre's i've had to deal with. And I can type faster than I can speak (which is slowly for the benefit of the english-is-not-my-first-language person on the other end of the line). And after i've typed the person on the other end can take their time to digest what i've written, and I can look back over what i've written and amend anything I might have missed, and they can cut & pasted into their own internal knowledgebase.
As for the submitter, I have these questions:
. In what stupid world is account verification information not submitted via a web form before the chat session is initiated? Sure, there might be some people who don't have the required information and it has to be done in the chat session itself, but that should be a rare exception.
. As above, why isn't a summary of the problem also provided via web form before the chat session begins? Most chat support web site's i've seen make you enter a description of your problem, and then offer a few possible resolutions based on a keyword search, alongside the "begin chat now" button, which is a huge timesaver for when people haven't checked the FAQ's first.
. If seeing the users screen is a requirement to do your job, then there is _plenty_ of software available to fill that need. Is something like gotomeeting or teamviewer really out of the question? (i'd never let a remote tech that I didn't know into _my_ screen, but that's not the point :)
Way back when companies started live chat I thought it might be a good idea, since you can save the transcript and be sure you didn't forget to write anything down. But all I ever get back when I ask a question is the closest canned answer to my question. Not, mind you, an answer to my question, just an answer to a common question that has roughly the same words. For all I can tell there's just a primitive program on the other end which picks out the first four words from my query and then gives the FAQ response based on a simple match.
Two things:
- AI chatbot applicable, which automatically redirects to real-persons when needed
- as colleague mentioned, multitasking. Phone means I can talk to one user at a time; when I was a hard-core casual chatter, I usually had 5-6 private chat windows open.
And spelling out uncommon words, passwords or usernames isn't required at all in a chat... "hatch" is just "hatch" and needs no explanation of "h as in hat, a as airport, t as tennis..."
Why don't you just change your customer service to some web-based email service where every request is replied with an auto-response and then it takes days or weeks until your customers get a generic, pre-fabricated message that doesn't answer anything? You know, like Sony and Ubisoft have.
That would solve your problems and save you a lot of costs, since no customer would attempt to contact you more than once. (Don't worry, with the right marketing, they'll still buy your shit---see Sony and Ubisoft.)
Then sodding well utilise the fact that I'm talking to you through YOUR chat system and have most likely already logged in to your crappy site...
I prefer chat support. Actually I prefer non-voice phone communication for everything, but that's another subject. One of the things I do to help is write everything down in advance. That way, when asked, not only do I have all the version numbers, configuration and specs, but also descriptions of problems and error codes ready to copy and paste in the chat. I often get funny replies regarding how fast I "type".
First, quite a few of the first tier IT megaliths have chat support these days, especially for their enterprise level vertical software. Key example: IBM's Maximo product.
Second, integrated chat support is the wave of the future for vertical applications. You cannot imagine how much of a time saver it is for a user having a problem to click the chat button inside the app and drag the problem record to the app window. The support analyst gets information from the record itself that many users might find difficult to put into words (e.g. the primary key for the record). Moreover, it is possible to build the software so that the IT analyst sees the same application screen over chat as the user does.
Third, at the enterprise level, if it isn't in the ticket, it didn't happen. The more you pay for support, the greater the odds that they'll request that *ALL* interaction goes through the ticketing system. These days, calling the client directly doesn't look professional, it looks disorganized except for a handful of exceptional cases such as a VP old enough that he prefers personal attention.
... when the two participants of the call speak English with two different, heavy accents. And the phone line has the quality of your typical American phone line, i.e. noisy, bandwidth-limited, _and_ digitally compressed and uncompressed at least twice.
I'll take the live chat, thanks.
If you have live chat, just offer another service with that... which is taking control of the user's computer and fixing whatever problem he or she may be having. This will be much faster than waiting for them to attempt and fail to fix whatever it is they are trying to fix.
The elephant in the room with regards to support is that THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WAY TO PROVIDE SUPPORT THAT DOES NOT HAVE DRAWBACKS.
Take on-site visits. Tech shows up. Problem is intermittent and doesn't occur while the tech is there. Tech's time is wasted. User's time is wasted. No one is happy. Or tech shows up to find that user doesn't have database/network/etc. rights and there is nothing tech can do. Techs have to take extra steps to document what was going on during the visit.
Take phone calls. Hold times. Bad accents. VOIP over spotty networks. The phone call doesn't exist unless the tech properly logs it with an accurate description of the call.
Take email. You've got most of the defects mentioned in TFA that apply to chat combined with a gap between messages that could span days or even weeks.
The closest thing to a solution is TO PICK THE METHOD THAT WORKS BEST FOR A GIVEN SITUATION.
Depending on the environment, some of the defects mentioned above might be a deal breaker. Which defects are the most critical will vary depending on what sort of support is being offered. Moreover, each of the methods above also have different advantages.
Take chat, since the TFA was about chat. Many vertical software vendors are starting to build chat into their apps in a way that is an incredible aid to support teams. If a user can click the chat button and drag a problem record to the chat window, the support analyst now has access to a wealth of information that would take eons to get a user to properly describe over the phone or through email. More sophisticated tools might include a way for the analyst to access a log of actions the user took last to see what sequence of events triggered the problem or a way for the analyst to share the application screen of the user.
But, of course, there will still be times when a 60 second phone call can hash out something that would take 10 minutes in a chat session or trading 15 or 20 emails. It all depends on what kind of support is needed and the people on either end of the communications link.
For somebody who communicates better via written word rather than speech, thinks better while writing than speaking, and can touch type at impressive speeds, there is no question that "live chat" is superior.
Then again, the guy has a point because these people are the tiny minority.
In my time in the support-barrel, I eliminated real-time support in favor of email. This may not fit every situation, of course. We were supporting a complex software product (ERP) used by largely non-technical users. When we offered real-time support, users would contact us whenever they got stuck, rather than looking in the product documentation, or even asking the person sitting at the next desk. When they really did have a support issue, they would contact us completely unprepared: they didn't know how the error occurred, they didn't know how to reproduce it, they usually hadn't even written the error message down before clicking it away.
As soon as we required contact by email, most of the RTFM questions went away. The real support issues usually arrived with at least some of the necessary information, simply because the user had to sit down and describe in writing what had happened.
After an initial period of adaptation "no, we can't take your call, please describe your issue in an email to xxx@yyy.zzz", we never had the impression that anyone missed the real-time support.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Nearly every use of chat has been negative, but that goes for *most* of my support experiences. Usually, it's Comcast. I give them my info, and they ask for it again. I give them a detailed description with supporting data, that ask me to turn on my PC.
As an internal support person, if a user hits me up with chat, and it's not going well, I them to call or let me call them back.
The last two banks I have worked in have a significant number of Bloomberg users, and the online chat feature built into the Bloomberg client works pretty well - hit the "Help" key twice, the chat window opens up, and you can type your question/comment - anything from "I need a replacement keyboard" or issues with the Excel API integration, to issues with setting up charts and reports or locating data in the Bloomberg systems. Trying to call Bloomberg live support puts you in contact with the same call-centre that services the chat system, and response times are much the same... but you also have the accent of the call-centre personnel to contend with - not a problem if the call centre is in your country, but not many of them are, these days.
From the other side, I have worked as a support monkey with telephone, email, live chat and remote access systems in place. A phone call is definitely better for a conversation with an angry customer (on-site visit is best of all, but who has that option for general support issues without a fat support contract?), while email and live chat are good for conversations where you need a written record of the communication, and remote access is good for obvious reasons but not always possible.
Trying to work in an environment where you only have one of those tools sets you and the customer up for a frustrating experience - "if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, then every problem starts to resemble a nail". If management make sure that you have acess to the most appropriate tools for the job, then client satisfaction should see a noticeable uptick, and probably support staff satisfaction as well (although a pay rise would also help there, you have more chance of getting the tools than the money).
Chat systems are not all the same. A good chat systems should present the customer with a window to describe the problem. Then when the agent selects the chat the entered information is immediately available.
Every time someone new pops by #yourfavoritedistro on irc.freenode.net, they have to learn how to pose a question on IRC.
This includes figuring out what is relevant, what is not relevant, when to include a pastebin link with logs, config files and such, the exact command the user is typing, the expected output, the actual output and often also an explanation of the higher goal in case a whole different approach could be suggested.
New users also have issues with using needless abbreviations line "u" and "plz" and use the enter key as punctuation, making it very hard to follow their broken up sentences in crowded channels. Once you stop doing that and put your entire question in one message, don't make assumptions, paste your command and output exactly, the amount of help you can get from friendly voulenteers is nothing short of astonishing.
I know, it's a lot, but you get used to it, and it's great!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkPcTNnGNk
If you haven't watched this series, you should.
It is absolutely brilliant.
Sometimes a conversation will involve a lot of things that copy and paste is critical for. It also allows one to be a bit more multitasking on either end of the conversation. Particularly if you are using the interaction largely as a pass-through for concrete error-messages/codes and commands to execute on a cli, chat is best.
Frequently in a conversation, I arrange to actually talk to the person (regardless of which end of the conversation I'm on). This happens when a situation is a bit more murky so there is no concrete place to gather failure data, or if a solution warrants an explanation of how things are the way they are and the intent embodied in the steps to resolution. This could be because the fix process is involved and will require a bit of adaptability on the problematic side or just a way to have the person afflicted learn and avoid/fix similar sorts of situations in the future.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
He he thanks it was neat :)
Fixed the headline. Carry on.
Maybe you do, bunkie. Some of us know how to type.
I've never actually been on the "support staff" of a live chat feature, but at my client, their live chat support thingy collects all kinds of important information about the user (browser/OS/cookies/login/session/IP/godknowswhatelse). Saves the user from having to type all that in and saves the support tech from having to explain where to find it all.
On the customer end, I really like the live chat support because then I can continue what I was doing while the CSR researches whatever it is that needs researching and I don't have a phone glued to my ear.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
I also found it funny, because my assistance by chat was ALWAYS several times better than phone support. Try for example dictate your full name or an email address by telephone.
I've found that it's also a lot easier to deal with foreign CSRs via chat than it is via phone. I think most Indians are better at reading/writing English than in speaking. Also, there is little concern over trying to understand each other's accents.
Definitely a big fan of the "live chat".
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Next up! Inane texting is less efficient than speaking on the phone.
"Scientists" have discovered that it takes longer to make plans to meet somewhere by texting back and forth than it does to call the person on the phone. In repeated test scenarios, text conversations dragged on for minutes, sometimes reaching an hour long, due to delays between text responses. However, when the same information was exchanged in phone calls where users spoke directly with each other, exchanges were usually completed in under two minutes.
Boffins from the wireless carrier industry were baffled by this discovery and have called for more study on the matter.
Random teenagers on the street were polled for their thoughts on this new discovery. Most responses were OMG or WTF? :(
I worked T1 chat support for Cengage Learning for close to a year. We never had people, really, who typed like idiots. They were students and professors and they were intelligent enough to use chat, so they generally used legible english. Whether they were computer literate or not, most of what you said is true. It's much harder to explain to someone, even though text is a superior communication method because rather than relying on a customers memory, you give them what to do where they can re read it if they need to - however without VNCing using tools like Bomgar or whatever shitty (in comparison) tools you use, you have to rely on the customer to also not be a moron, and/or blind, so it's frustrating.
Maybe I prefer chat, because then when I spell my last name, which is all of 8 characters, over the phone, slowly, clearly, concisely, and using the phonetic alphabet it still invariably ends up with extra e's in it. If your coworkers would listen and put a half ounce of effort into it so I didn't have to repeat myself 3 times I'd be more apt to call instead of find other alternatives...
The first call center worker.
"I can't help them as easily over the phone, it's much easier to physically be on location with the customer and talk face to face."
Unless you're doing it for free, learn to deal with it, you're getting paid to do such.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
As a customer needing support, using the live chat depends on what I need.
If I have to convince someone that something is wrong, like a service level not being met, or anything that I expect to escalate to a supervisor, I'm going to want a live person on a phone.
If I have to explicitly spell something out, like my name, I'm happier to use the live chat... but I seem to be able to type about eight or nine times faster than most support staff. Waiting for a reply from the point when it says "Bob is typing..." can be painful.
A game of solitaire tends to be required accompaniment to any live chat support session.
Design for Use, not Construction!
Whenever I have to deal with HP or any other company that farms out their support to India, I'll use chat EVERY TIME, because I don't have to constantly ask "I'm sorry, could you repeat that?", or have to spell out almost every word, due to the language barrier (not blaming the people, I know that English is a 2nd, 3rd, 4th language for many people outside of the US). Sorry that this guy decided to use Slashdot to rant on how he hates Live Chat, but whatever.
I have nothing clever to put here...
... to imagine the vendor should provide voice and chat services and allow the customer to choose?
My biggest problem with IT support over the phone is that most of the time I'm dealing with someone who knows nothing about computers and is just reading from a script. Every time I call support I normally know exactly what the problem is and how to fix it. I've only had one time when the tech could figure out the problem over the phone all the other times I had to tell the tech what the problem was.
Examples: AT&T - Internet down- The light on the modem for the connection to the DSL line is red which means that sometime is wrong with the line to the house.
Me: The internet line to the house is damaged. (Tell them about the light and how I've not changed anything)
Tech: You must have setup your modem wrong. We will send out a tech to fix the problem and charge you for it.
Solution: Tech finds out that line to house is in fact damaged and fixes it no charge.
Verizon: I just ported my phone number over to a new phone (Galaxy S III) and now it's not working.
Tech: I'm not sure why your phone isn't working.
Me: Could it be because the SIM card wasn't replaced when the phone number was changed?
Tech: Yeah that could be it.
Solution: Phone needed a new SIM card
But this one takes the cake. HP's tech support near bricked my laptop. I was talking to someone from Indian that knew nothing about computers. My laptop has lost the ability to charge the battery or run off power from the charger. There is a factory recall on the laptop because of this problem and the motherboard needed to be replaced.
Me: The laptop will not charge when plugged in. The charging light on the front of the computer will not come on. I know there is a recall because of this problem.
Tech: (directs me to HP website and instructors me to flash the BIOS. )
Me: I only have 5 minutes of battery life left and if it's dies while flashing the BIOS it could damage the computer.
Tech: Just flash the BIOS
Me: The BIOS program won't let me
Tech: (At this point there is no script for this problem). Try flashing the BIOS. Try restarting the computer.
Me: (While looking at my computer that is still on). Can't..computer died. Won't turn on.
Tech: Ok send it in and we will look at it.
Solution: HP replaced the plug, motherboard, and a few other parts. They forgot to replace the power port which still wasn't working. When I called support again I was transferred to an America support center (because I complained) were the tech stopped following the script and listened to me describe the problem. He was able to figured out that the power port needed to be replaced over the phone because he listened to be me instead of looking at a script.
Support's job is to provide problem resolution to the end user; regardless of product, user competency or communication medium. Unless OP's employer has call/ chat metric per hour that supersedes customer service satisfaction, I really don't see the problem. Considering the post is as vague in details as the OP claims their employer's end users are, it's probably safe to assume they aren't really all that "Pro" in regards to communication skills.
... it always occasionally sucks regardless
As many comments have mentioned, such things as copy/paste can be helpful, if not essential in finding the problem. In other cases where the ol' phone is required, the results may vary depending on language efficiency, knowledge, personality, the problem itself, etc. But something can definitely be said for the spoken word over that of text: Much of communication is not in the words alone, but in other expressions like facial, tonal, and so on. For someone who hasn't a great command of the terminology behind the problem, other nuances of communication may be very helpful in troubleshooting. But of course the nature of support varies a lot and so does the customer -- and each situation.
Not so much for "technical" support, but when I am forced to call in for customer service, I often find huge differences in efficiency when going directly to a supervisor. And for some issues, it makes me cringe to imagine the text-based versions of them.
I use Linux and the cli a lot. I was really giddy the day I finally forced myself to learn vim. But I've wasted many hours over the years exchanging problems over text that could've been much less by voice. I've also cast air before swine.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Ive had LOTS of times I called in for customer support and had the person put me on hold multiple times, wasted time with useless "Hello and thank you for calling soandso inc I hope youre having a lovely day today I know I am. Oh and dont let me forget to tell you about a wonderful offer we have just for you blah blah blah. How can I help you today?", constantly going quiet on me while they type or look something up, having to constantly ask someone else, and waste time a dozen ways. In other words, just because its on the phone doesnt make it faster or better. Not to mention a lot of time is wasted when they put some fucknut indian on the phone that can barely speak english or can understand what the hell Im asking.
Atleast with the chat I can sit back and just wait for a response or surf other sites or whatnot.
But the biggest problem with contact customer service or IT is simply the fact they are people and people as a whole are a real pain in the ass to deal with.
But the real problem is this guy is just a fucking twit. He is just bitching about having to do his job. Id dare say he isnt really IT, he is probablly just some guy someplace that answers first and says "did you try turning off your device?" and when that fails he forwards the person to a real tech.
Explaining how to fix a problem can be difficult on the phone, but on a chat feature where I can't see your screen
On a chat, you can see their screen to some extent - and vice-versa. It is called "copy and paste". They can copy the error message texts or logfile texts from their screen into the chat so you see it immediately. And when you suggest a command to them, they can copy it from the chat instead of typing it in. (And none of the mis-spelling risks you have with spoken words.)
Copy+paste is much faster than typing or talking. And you can both read much faster than the other can talk. So when there is some information to transfer, such as the web server log before it crached, the chat will be much faste! This because the user won't have to read aloud from several screenfuls of logfile. He just pastes it, and you skip to the few interesting lines very quickly.
Oh, I see. This works well in linux, where the error messages and logs are all text, and the actions to be taken are textual commands. Copy+paste rules. I'm sorry for you if you're on windows, where you usually can't copy the text of some error dialog that doesn't have much info anyway - and the action to be taken requires burying into menus. too bad when you can't just type the correct command for them - it removes so many ways of misunderstanding...
That's it. No other reason. People don't want to speak with someone they can't understand and text doesn't have an accent.
Btw how is this thread any different from This one that I saw last night and responded to? and yet this one has 100+ replies? Something stinks.
This strange comment at the bottom of the message is illogical.
How will we provide tech support for the teens who have no ability to talk or communicate in any method other than textual messaging? :>
But I'll give phones the edge because most people *hate* having to process thoughts into written words. And they're already at least semi-annoyed at having to interrupt their day to ask for help with their frustrating computers. Plus, hearing regional accents adds a bit of color to one's work day. Yesterday, I got to make some small talk about the Olympics with a British woman who sounded like Sporty Spice.
I have speech and hearing impediments. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I briefly worked at a small company in Burlingame as a desktop support tech, they thought it was cool to have their support staff monitor several in house IRC chat rooms, I asked my manager how I was going to build dozens of "one of" multi-boot, Windows/Linux/FreeBSD, images on several models of Think Pad, Toshiba & Dell PC's, all the while watching the endless (mostly) nonsensical BS streaming across the screen? And (of course) I had to get up and walk over to client machines, answer calls and manage enterprise backups!
IMHO "chat" is best left to Internet predators & credit card thieves!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
1) I need to hold a phone to my ear while trying to do the stuff the support guy tells me to do.
2) Occasional (or frequent, depending on company) hard to understand accents.
3) I don't have the greatest of hearing to begin with.
4) The support person sometimes/oftentimes can't understand me (yes, could be my fault)
5) Typing leaves nothing to guess at, as opposed to trying to understand some garbled words.
6) If the person is leaving parts out of your question, just ask for clarification.
7) Relax. Don't give yourself a stroke.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Every time I've used chat support from Dell, Comcast, Verizon, or anyone else that has offered it, the conversation has quickly dwindled to:
"I don't know the answer. You should call so that you can speak to a senior..."
Wonderful. Chat is a waste of time. Not because it is intrinsically bad, but because it is not properly utilized by support organizations. It is the ginger-headed step-child of support.
Intelligence is directly proportional to the square of the distance from a telephone.
Well, at least for me, it is. A chat gives me time and room to think, unlike a telephone call.
I currently take chats from the low-level techs who actually take chats and calls from customers (which is a demotion from actually working support tickets, but I digress). I can and have done chats from customers, but I loathe the telephone, at work and in life.
Phone calls are good for dealing with stupid people, because stupid people (well, actually, most people, including some intelligent people) don't actually read words, but they do hear and react to the tones of voice, which is useful for getting through to them.
There are companies (cough, Clear/Clearwire) that herd their customers into chat.
Not only do we here know it isn't as efficient (clearly)...but with some companies (cough, Clear), they don't give the chat staff the abilities of the phone staff.
Fail, on two counts...
please open your browser, go to (website for preferred remote access tool)
I went there and it told me I need administrative privileges. I've been told to click Cancel so as not to get a fake antivirus. And even if I could click OK, I'd have to wait a few hours for the computer's owner to get home with the password.
If you want to have people on the phone instead of in chat then improve that process:
1. Get rid of IVR-hells. I don't want to press forty-eleven buttons to reach you (well, after I put up with #2)
2. Don't have 30 minute hold queues. If your product is so shit that it produces a 30 minute hold queue, then you owe it to the users that paid for your shit to hire staff to deal with your shit.
3. Don't staff help desk with thick accented, script reading morons.
4. Have knowledgeable, native language speaking supervisors handy and quickly available to deal with me when I have become completely frustrated with items 1, 2 and 3.
So what he's really complaining about is the bad integration of his back end systems, since the user would have to be logged into the service in order to request help from the service in the first place.
This is just like calling up the phone company, and having them ask for your phone number "for verification", even though you've obviously called them from the number in question, and it should be on the monitor in front of them, if their ANI system and their billing system and their customer support systems had actually been designed to be integrated by anyone with half a clue.
I just recently had an iPhone that was on AT&T unlocked. I went to the AT&T support chat site and asked them if I could unlock the phone since it was off contract and the support person on the chat said one moment, came back and said the phone was unlocked and emailed me instructions on what to do next. I tried doing this over the phone and kept getting passed around and no one knew what unlocking was or wanted to know why, etc. Maybe I got lucky on the chat, but it was still super easy and saved a ton of time.
... waiting for responses from the support specialist, who seems to be servicing multiple cases at once
Cant get screenshots through the phone, or log captures
Ever supported it staff, especially ones who should know better? Chat allows for better support also, if your support is not by tickets but support support as in you the poc for a certain product, you really want chat, repeating remedy procedures to 50 people gets old very old very fast and doesn't help with bloody pressure
I'm a web developer for a small state university, and part of the team that responds to live chat questions from our students. We use Olark, which provides an API to let us know what page they are on, header data like user agent, what their unique user ID is for easy lookup, and we can even look at the page they are on and circle things. This saves a ton of time and our users always feel better about the experience than on a phone call. So while I can see where live chat doesn't work in certain situations, if you have it integrated well into your web app, it can be a win-win.
"If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution" - Emma Goldman
i can understand what you are saying. so i encourage you to adjust
The user gets a transcript of the conversation. So if the support people tell lies or otherwise screw up, the user has some comeback.
A person can handle one phone call at a time but quite a few chats.
As for not giving them equivalent abilities, that's probably a sign that the chat people are not actual employees.
I thought one of the major points of live chat was that the *support staff* could multitask and have several live chats at once, while waiting for the users to type.
Are you saying you only have one chat running at a time?