I wouldn't be surprised if Support simply had no idea that the code was running or maybe just not exactly what it entailed - the full information was probably never passed down to them. If you look at Marta's response here you can see how there were abilities promised that were never given. I imagine the info passed out was equally spotty, if there was info at all.
I mean, sure, ideally they (Support) should've tested it themselves by posting an Amazon link of their own, that's what test journals are for, but at the time they probably only had one request with your symptoms. And when it happens to a lone person it actually makes sense to offer the most likely solution (in this case spyware) and then wait on the user to come back if it doesn't work. I doubt they were knowingly lying to you.
And the lack of response on the request now will be them waiting to hear what they should tell you. They can't answer your request until they know what line the site has officially decided to take on this (I don't think they can, on their own, make the decision to offer you compensation or anything). In short: Support mostly clears up after other people's mistakes and don't deserve the blame on this one.
Actually now I'm more focused on some other department than Support, that is probably the same Department Support is waiting for an answer to give me. Yes, I know they probably didn't know at the time, even if, maybe, just as Amazon did, they could have tested the link I gave them instead of suggesting the spyware problem. BUT after I gave them more comments to understand? why 1 month later I'm still waiting for a good answer? Again, I'm not blaming Support, I'm blaming the people Support is waiting.
I mean, sure, ideally they (Support) should've tested it themselves by posting an Amazon link of their own, that's what test journals are for,
There is an opt-out described here which makes these munged links behave as expected again (i.e. directing to the correct site, with the user's referral code intact). I was surprised to discover it enabled on my own account, but after some reflection, I remembered that it had been provided several years ago (I'm not sure exactly when, might have been in the Six Apart days) as part of some other code release (some sort of tracking thing, maybe, I really can't remember the details).
If anyone investigating the initial reports had set that opt-out, they would probably also have not remembered that they had done so. And then when they investigated, they would not have reproduced the behaviour that elisa-rolle described in her report, and there's a good chance that they would have then concluded that the problem was not with LJ.
I mean, sure, ideally they (Support) should've tested it themselves by posting an Amazon link of their own, that's what test journals are for, but at the time they probably only had one request with your symptoms. And when it happens to a lone person it actually makes sense to offer the most likely solution (in this case spyware) and then wait on the user to come back if it doesn't work. I doubt they were knowingly lying to you.
And the lack of response on the request now will be them waiting to hear what they should tell you. They can't answer your request until they know what line the site has officially decided to take on this (I don't think they can, on their own, make the decision to offer you compensation or anything). In short: Support mostly clears up after other people's mistakes and don't deserve the blame on this one.
Reply
Reply
There is an opt-out described here which makes these munged links behave as expected again (i.e. directing to the correct site, with the user's referral code intact). I was surprised to discover it enabled on my own account, but after some reflection, I remembered that it had been provided several years ago (I'm not sure exactly when, might have been in the Six Apart days) as part of some other code release (some sort of tracking thing, maybe, I really can't remember the details).
If anyone investigating the initial reports had set that opt-out, they would probably also have not remembered that they had done so. And then when they investigated, they would not have reproduced the behaviour that elisa-rolle described in her report, and there's a good chance that they would have then concluded that the problem was not with LJ.
(edited to correct link)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment