• (cs)

    Unexpected frist comment

  • Jay (unregistered)

    Well, yeah, ok then.

  • Developer (unregistered)

    wtf did I just read?

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Developer
    Developer:
    wtf did I just read?

    I don't know. Can someone explain the plot?

  • Iggy (unregistered) in reply to balazs
    balazs:
    Unexpected frist comment

    still unexpected success in undeleted comments

    Capcha: suscipit

  • Black Bart (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Developer:
    wtf did I just read?

    I don't know. Can someone explain the plot?

    I'm baffled: how does an advertising campaign affect just one call center, and why did the people call?

  • Pista (unregistered)

    Probably a nice WTF, but it has been anonymized beyond comprehension. Try again, snoofle!

  • Telcont (unregistered)

    That has to be one of the worst stories ever published on this side. It is neither funny nor is there any logic the "plot".

  • Pippo (unregistered) in reply to Developer
    Developer:
    wtf did I just read?

    How did you read my mind?

  • EasilyPleased (unregistered)

    Woo. Great story.

  • Snowman25 (unregistered)

    guaranty - really?

    CAPTCHA: populus - Man, what a strange game

  • (cs)

    The plot is hard to read because it's told from the point of view of somebody within an organisation where the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. In this case, the sales team hadn't accurately forecast their success.

    TRWTF is that forecasts are inherently unpredictable, and skill/tools are required to perform them, while not starting a slanging match requires no skill or effort whatsoever and yet people still can't seem to do it.

    If the call transcript is accurate, the Server Development Team has a very socially awkward spokesperson if they want to bring up the communications issues with the Network Engineers while "external folks" are on the call. Presumably they believe the issues appear to trace back to them, so they're getting defensive.

  • Captain_Oblivious (unregistered)

    Blames were assigned. Sacrificial lambs were roasted. Ah well, another a Big Enterprise story. Wait, what? This is a result of a success? Here I thought such success resulted in profits and happiness.

  • A Guy (unregistered) in reply to Captain_Oblivious
    Captain_Oblivious:
    Blames were assigned. Sacrificial lambs were roasted. Ah well, another a Big Enterprise story. Wait, what? This is a result of a success? Here I thought such success resulted in profits and happiness.
    Oh come on, just because it isn't a failure doesn't mean you can't fire a scapegoat!

    ... wait, what?

  • faoileag (unregistered) in reply to Black Bart
    Anon:
    Developer:
    wtf did I just read?
    I don't know. Can someone explain the plot?
    Call center sees spike in support calls shortly after BB's company issued update. Someone sees a correlation and gets BB's company on the conference call as well. In the end, the correlation was not with BB's updates but with an advertising campaign the telco ran.

    Nice example of the "ice cream causes polio" conclusion of the 50s.

    Black Bart:
    I'm baffled: how does an advertising campaign affect just one call center, and why did the people call?
    If you localize your call centers a localized ad campain can have exactly that effect. A surge of people saying: "Want! Want! Want!".

    CAPTCHA causa - the perfect captcha for today's article!

  • faoileag (unregistered) in reply to Developer
    Developer:
    wtf did I just read?
    How should I know? My department is only supplying comments and our job description doesn't say anything about the necessity of being psychic! Ask the people in sales, they should know.
  • Captain_Oblivious (unregistered) in reply to A Guy
    A Guy:
    Captain_Oblivious:
    Blames were assigned. Sacrificial lambs were roasted. Ah well, another a Big Enterprise story. Wait, what? This is a result of a success? Here I thought such success resulted in profits and happiness.
    Oh come on, just because it isn't a failure doesn't mean you can't fire a scapegoat!

    ... wait, what?

    You can fire a scapegoat even if there is no failure, that is what they are for. But that kind of defeats the purpose. It just shows you are evil, not pragmatic; more 1950's villain than suave 2000's antagonist. And in this economy, good scapegoats are hard to keep.

    captcha: jumentum; justified momentum

  • Ziplodocus (unregistered)

    Having worked in call centers for nearly 10 years, I'm surprised they eventually found the cause and didn't just circle blame each other until the issue fixed itself.

  • faoileag (unregistered) in reply to Captain_Oblivious
    Captain_Oblivious:
    And in this economy, good scapegoats are hard to keep.
    As the saying goes: "A good scapegoat is nearly as welcome as a solution to the problem".
  • Pock Suppet (unregistered)

    TRWTF is so many people responding to marketing BS. There's no hope for humanity, is there? :(

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered)

    So... this is rubber duck debugging on a conference call scale?

  • (cs)

    Cannot believe i would ever write this:

    Needs more Hanzo!

  • foo AKA fooo (unregistered)

    I don't think "unilateral" means what you think it does.

  • foo AKA fooo (unregistered)

    Weeks of spiking calls and nobody even bothered to check what the majority of those calls was about (which would have pointed to the root "problem" immediately)? If this is SOP for call centers I'm even more glad I've never had to work anywhere near them.

  • (cs) in reply to Pock Suppet
    Pock Suppet:
    TRWTF is so many people responding to marketing BS. There's no hope for humanity, is there? :(
    And:
    Original post:
    They always put out advertisements telling us how soft and gentle their products are for us, our children and the planet.
    The purpose of an advertisement is to lie about a product's worst features. For example, if an airline boasts about its wonderful service, it means your flight will leave late, arrive more late, and put you in a smaller space than a Gitmo prisoner, with worse food.
  • Ross Presser (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that somebody approved this steaming pile for thedailywtf.com.

    CAPTCHA: luctus. We tried to improve the quality of TDWTF stories, but they luctus.

  • Dzov (unregistered) in reply to Ross Presser
    Ross Presser:
    TRWTF is that somebody approved this steaming pile for thedailywtf.com.
    Not every story can be great, and the bad stories make the good stories better. I kind of liked the story about one bad analyst making everybody miserable over nothing.
  • (cs) in reply to foo AKA fooo
    foo AKA fooo:
    Weeks of spiking calls and nobody even bothered to check what the majority of those calls was about (which would have pointed to the root "problem" immediately)? If this is SOP for call centers I'm even more glad I've never had to work anywhere near them.

    This.

    But of course TRWTF is that the protagonist is called Big Bob and not, considering this is a telecomm app, Big Bill, yeah?

  • Ziplodocus (unregistered) in reply to foo AKA fooo
    foo AKA fooo:
    Weeks of spiking calls and nobody even bothered to check what the majority of those calls was about (which would have pointed to the root "problem" immediately)? If this is SOP for call centers I'm even more glad I've never had to work anywhere near them.

    Why bother looking for the reason when you KNOW it already? Reminds me of Homer "Facts! Pffft! You can prove anything even remotely true with facts.!

  • Evan (unregistered) in reply to foo AKA fooo
    foo AKA fooo:
    I don't think "unilateral" means what you think it does.
    How can you be so nonplussed about a vacuous error like that?
  • Duke of New York (unregistered)

    If only the left brain and right brain had worked together to edit this article.

  • cosmonaut (unregistered)

    Well I, for one, thought the plot was perfectly clear, and I actually laughed out loud for this one. Not lol'd internally, but actually laughed out loud.

    Cheers!

  • (cs)

    TRWTF is the ambiguous usage of the phrase "call volume."

    Mostly because there was no other WTF in the article, though.

  • garaden (unregistered) in reply to cosmonaut

    Agreed. It took a bit to sink in, but then I got it and it was wonderful.

    I appreciate stories like this. It's subtle, but come on. They saw success and mistook it as failure. That's a WTF!

    Reminds me of that guy who wanted a contractor to build a replacement system that was EXACTLY the same as the old system, and got upset when the replacement computers were faster. "You're succeeding too much! STOP IT!"

  • garaden (unregistered) in reply to garaden
    garaden:
    Agreed. It took a bit to sink in, but then I got it and it was wonderful.

    That was @cosmonaut, btw. Apparently "reply" is not the right button to hit to quote someone...whoops.

  • borkborkbork (unregistered)

    wtf just happened?

  • Melnorme (unregistered)

    I don't understand the bit about "using them as a stick".

  • foo AKA fooo (unregistered) in reply to Evan
    Evan:
    foo AKA fooo:
    I don't think "unilateral" means what you think it does.
    How can you be so nonplussed about a vacuous error like that?
    Perfectly cromulent.
  • foo AKA fooo (unregistered) in reply to garaden
    garaden:
    garaden:
    Agreed. It took a bit to sink in, but then I got it and it was wonderful.

    That was @cosmonaut, btw. Apparently "reply" is not the right button to hit to quote someone...whoops.

    Indeed, the only purpose of the "Reply" button is to give newcomers a way to introduce themselves.

    Welcome.

  • (cs) in reply to foo AKA fooo
    foo AKA fooo:
    Evan:
    foo AKA fooo:
    I don't think "unilateral" means what you think it does.
    How can you be so nonplussed about a vacuous error like that?
    Perfectly cromulent.

    It did embiggen the story.

  • (cs) in reply to foo AKA fooo
    foo AKA fooo:
    garaden:
    garaden:
    Agreed. It took a bit to sink in, but then I got it and it was wonderful.

    That was @cosmonaut, btw. Apparently "reply" is not the right button to hit to quote someone...whoops.

    Indeed, the only purpose of the "Reply" button is to give newcomers a way to introduce themselves.

    Welcome.

    something something "n00b" something

  • emaN ruoY (unregistered) in reply to faoileag
    faoileag:
    Captain_Oblivious:
    And in this economy, good scapegoats are hard to keep.
    As the saying goes: "A good scapegoat is nearly as welcome as a solution to the problem".

    I'm sure that's a Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. If not, it should be.

  • science_gone_bad (unregistered)

    Having worked for a sister telco, I can say that every word of this story is true (may not even be obfuscated). I once was asked to join a similar call.

    For 3+ hours everybody was trying to blame somebody else. The conversation was all over, and blame was being thrown like sh*t at a Cow Chip throwing contest. It wasn't until 2 days later that I actually found out WTF the call was even about.

    Turns out that a heavy rain had gotten some equipment wet.

  • J (unregistered)

    It seems to me that TRWTF is assuming increased call volume is a problem that needs to be solved before bothering to ask what the extra calls were in regards to.

  • Scourge of programmers. (unregistered) in reply to Ziplodocus
    Ziplodocus:
    Having worked in call centers for nearly 10 years, I'm surprised they eventually found the cause and didn't just circle blame each other until the issue fixed itself.

    Where is Nagesh?

  • (cs)

    Note that in most tech shops, it's impossible to reassign a problem ticket to the marketing department.

  • (cs) in reply to da Doctah
    da Doctah:
    Note that in most tech shops, it's impossible to reassign a problem ticket to the marketing department.

    If that's the case, you just close the ticket as "working as designed/marketed."

  • (cs) in reply to Scourge of programmers.
    Scourge of programmers.:
    Ziplodocus:
    Having worked in call centers for nearly 10 years, I'm surprised they eventually found the cause and didn't just circle blame each other until the issue fixed itself.

    Where is Nagesh?

    hah

  • Cliff (unregistered)

    All the negative comments above can only come from people who've never worked at megacorp where blame and arse covering is more valued than honest engineering truth. As techies and engineers we like to believe the truth will out and win any argument, but it's just not like that out there. Peoples bonuses depend on perverse and unsuitable metrics, so they will do anything to manipulate those metrics, even if it means throwing logic and facts under the bus.

    I once designed a replacement billing system (I was young and green) which caused uproar because old accounts rerun through it came up with different answers - in fact they came up with the right answer, and the system had been randomly and sporadically underbilling for years and years BUT IT WAS MY SYSTEM THAT WAS WRONG for being right.

    This is how big corps work, fiefdoms, bonuses, political petty power. I worked for several and by far the best and least full of bollocks was Microsoft, FWIW.

  • Reductio Ad Ridiculousum (unregistered) in reply to Captain_Oblivious
    Captain_Oblivious:
    Blames were assigned. Sacrificial lambs were roasted. Ah well, another a Big Enterprise story. Wait, what? This is a result of a success? Here I thought such success resulted in profits and happiness.
    You must be new to the corporate world.

    The six phases of a project life cycle are...

    Enthusiasm,
Disillusionment,
Panic and hysteria,
Search for the guilty,
Punishment of the innocent, and
Praise and honor for the nonparticipants.

Leave a comment on “Left Hand, Meet Right Hand”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article