Planned: Admin general PM to be disabled in favor of Official Trouble Ticket System

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

As many of you know, the PM system right now is the primary way people can contact other members, mods and myself (admin). After an assessment of the effectiveness of this method for contacting myself specifically for admin/mod related issues I believe that it is not working as well as it can; especially for following up on every request to closure. Right now previous PMs on an issue become buried or lost easily. Right now I believe that given the amount of PMs that I get (including reported threads) that I am not able to track issues and PMs with people properly to completion.

My solution is to change to the following system when contacting the admin (myself) for issues extending beyond general moderation.

"Reported Threads" go to all moderators and myself and arrive as a PM. This is effective on a case to case basis and not larger systemic issues. Moderators take the initial lead and I advise and step in as needed.

Admin related queries (name changes, email changes, account closure, etc); moderation reviews (if a member would like a moderation decision reviewed); etc; will be directed to a new trouble ticket system whereby you can track your ticket and I can follow up until it is closed. This will not be for general "thread reports". That will continue to work via the current method. You can think of this as a two tier system.

We will be using the following open source software:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRS

This is the software used by wikipedia and many other large companies to effectively track trouble tickets.

Effective once this software is active, the general member will contact me as follows (the direct PM option to contact me will redirect to the trouble ticket system by default):

1. general forum TOS issues / moderation --> Report Button

2. next level escalation of issues to the admin --> trouble ticket system - maybe better name - (online system, email integration, immediate notification to myself via email, complex issue management, ensures that issues receive follow up and are not "lost" or forgotten, old trouble tickets for a member can be easily grouped and pulled up to assist in new issues if they relate to a previous problem, etc.).

3. general feedback to myself --> contact form (translates to an email sent to myself and my blackberry for quick response but no ticket management)

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Also to add, the new feedback / trouble ticket system will be site wide. This means issues with the timeline system, portals, etc.. can be sent there and tracked effectively. Problems raised in the forums here can have a ticket opened so that the issue does not get lost or forgotten. etc...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Will you be giving "regular" (that is, non organizer and non moderator) posters the ability to 'merge' new problems into existing tickets, when the regular poster feels that is appropriate?

Edited December 2, 2009 by w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

ETA: You're going to have to address a number of issues of that nature, so I suggest (if this isn't what you were planning already) you roll out OTRS into a subforum like Off Topic first as a pilot and let it run for a month or so before rolling it out to the entire community.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I am not sure I follow. The system replaces people simply PM'ing me for help. The trouble ticket system will allow me to track issues better and make sure they are addressed to completion before closing (all without losing historical info as it will be captured). It also gives a closed feedback loop via email with the person to notify them of when I have replied (tickets will go to waiting for reply mode in both directions, etc). One of the chief issues that the survey revealed was that people felt their issue was not properly followed up on in terms of closing a verbal loop. This should help tremendously.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Will you be giving "regular" (that is, non organizer and non moderator) posters the ability to 'merge' new problems into existing tickets, when the regular poster feels that is appropriate?

I will run the system and may merge tickets that are similar if it is appropriate.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I should note, the system in theory could be opened to moderators to allow them to address a certain categories of ticket if it makes sense. Some tickets would be restricted from their view if they are admin eyes only (members can direct their trouble ticket in several categories and they ticket would be assigned accordingly). Certainly nothing final yet and this would not be something done initially.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From Wiki: OTRS has the ability to merge multiple requests about the same incident, thus making it possible to work on an incident rather than on singular requests.

This functionality also exists in the trouble ticket software I am most familiar with (Peregrine ServiceCenter). Basically, let's say Moderator A makes a questionable decision. Let's say scandal, Len, I and Rob all open tickets more or less at the same time to ask for a review of the moderator decision. Let's say 5 minutes later rebeccajo decides to do the same thing, notices 5 tickets already open on the matter, adds more detail to the complaint and merges all the tickets together into one. This way instead of tracking 6 tickets, you're tracking just 1.. which in this case is appopriate because you have only one actual incident.

In the rolling out of any trouble ticket system, there will be a ton of 'roles' and 'privileges' settings you'll have to figure out. This is why I think the pilot will help. You won't get it right the first time, no one does. It'll be easier to iron out the kinks if your scope is smaller.

Will you be giving "regular" (that is, non organizer and non moderator) posters the ability to 'merge' new problems into existing tickets, when the regular poster feels that is appropriate?

I will run the system and may merge tickets that are similar if it is appropriate.

I would suggest allowing members to merge. It will save you a lot of time. And there really isn't much reason for anyone to 'abuse' that particular function. Of course, if someone does, suspend their authority.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

From Wiki: OTRS has the ability to merge multiple requests about the same incident, thus making it possible to work on an incident rather than on singular requests.

This functionality also exists in the trouble ticket software I am most familiar with (Peregrine ServiceCenter). Basically, let's say Moderator A makes a questionable decision. Let's say scandal, Len, I and Rob all open tickets more or less at the same time to ask for a review of the moderator decision. Let's say 5 minutes later rebeccajo decides to do the same thing, notices 5 tickets already open on the matter, adds more detail to the complaint and merges all the tickets together into one. This way instead of tracking 6 tickets, you're tracking just 1.. which in this case is appopriate because you have only one actual incident.

In the rolling out of any trouble ticket system, there will be a ton of 'roles' and 'privileges' settings you'll have to figure out. This is why I think the pilot will help. You won't get it right the first time, no one does. It'll be easier to iron out the kinks if your scope is smaller.

True. I may start this in a limited scope especially just using myself only. I will expand to add mods only once that is working and only in a limited role at first. The software will allow grouping of tickets like you said. Is the software you mentioned Open or close ($$) source? I may take a look.

From Wiki: OTRS has the ability to merge multiple requests about the same incident, thus making it possible to work on an incident rather than on singular requests.

This functionality also exists in the trouble ticket software I am most familiar with (Peregrine ServiceCenter). Basically, let's say Moderator A makes a questionable decision. Let's say scandal, Len, I and Rob all open tickets more or less at the same time to ask for a review of the moderator decision. Let's say 5 minutes later rebeccajo decides to do the same thing, notices 5 tickets already open on the matter, adds more detail to the complaint and merges all the tickets together into one. This way instead of tracking 6 tickets, you're tracking just 1.. which in this case is appopriate because you have only one actual incident.

In the rolling out of any trouble ticket system, there will be a ton of 'roles' and 'privileges' settings you'll have to figure out. This is why I think the pilot will help. You won't get it right the first time, no one does. It'll be easier to iron out the kinks if your scope is smaller.

Will you be giving "regular" (that is, non organizer and non moderator) posters the ability to 'merge' new problems into existing tickets, when the regular poster feels that is appropriate?

I will run the system and may merge tickets that are similar if it is appropriate.

I would suggest allowing members to merge. It will save you a lot of time. And there really isn't much reason for anyone to 'abuse' that particular function. Of course, if someone does, suspend their authority.

I am not to the stage of understanding the system completely yet but I assume members can not see each others reports -- who were you thinking on being a merge authority?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Is the software you mentioned Open or close ($$) source? I may take a look.

Closed, it's expensive. I think HP owns it now. Don't even bother.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

btw I am glad you have some experience with this. I may ask some Q's on general strategies later.

Is the software you mentioned Open or close ($$) source? I may take a look.

Closed, it's expensive. I think HP owns it now. Don't even bother.

Lol. Easy decision.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am not to the stage of understanding the system completely yet but I assume members can not see each others reports -- who were you thinking on being a merge authority?

My thought is you allow the originator of the ticket the authority to merge the ticket he/she has opened with any existing ticket. If an originator abuses the authority (that's never been a problem where I work but this is VJ...who knows), yank their authority.

Also, in ticketing system I've worked with people can see other tickets. The only time you can't see a ticket is when the ticket was opened by members of another group. So, for example, I use HP software and so do employees at MetLife. I open trouble tix with HP and so do they. They can't see my tix and I can't see theirs, but anyone who works with me can see mine.

I'd envision VJ being a single group, to be honest. If you manage other sites, you could turn them into separate groups.

btw I am glad you have some experience with this. I may ask some Q's on general strategies later.

not a problem.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I am not to the stage of understanding the system completely yet but I assume members can not see each others reports -- who were you thinking on being a merge authority?

My thought is you allow the originator of the ticket the authority to merge the ticket he/she has opened with any existing ticket. If an originator abuses the authority (that's never been a problem where I work but this is VJ...who knows), yank their authority.

Also, in ticketing system I've worked with people can see other tickets. The only time you can't see a ticket is when the ticket was opened by members of another group. So, for example, I use HP software and so do employees at MetLife. I open trouble tix with HP and so do they. They can't see my tix and I can't see theirs, but anyone who works with me can see mine.

I'd envision VJ being a single group, to be honest. If you manage other sites, you could turn them into separate groups.

btw I am glad you have some experience with this. I may ask some Q's on general strategies later.

not a problem.

Certainly one concern though is privacy. In the majority of cases private account details and other information may be exchanged which would not be something that should be shared. Thoughts?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Certainly one concern though is privacy. In the majority of cases private account details and other information may be exchanged which would not be something that should be shared. Thoughts?

Without knowing how OTRS works, it's hard to say. VJ poses a set of challenges that don't exist in any of the systems I've helped set up at work or worked on with vendors.

So just thinking off the top of my head here, perhaps thread originators can pick their desired privacy level. Of course, that brings us back to my first statement... does OTRS even support that? I don't know.

I will tell you this, if every ticket is 'private' then you will need volunteers to help you merge tickets and do other maintenance type tasks. If you decide to take that upon yourself, you'll be overwhelmed. This is a huge site.

[Anh map 2,098]

Wouldn't the open to anyone ticket be the same as having a public topic thread? And couldn't that essentially turn into a bashing thread?

I'm just sayin'