Which do you prefer: A fast support response or a detailed response with support?

[MannDude]

One thing I always appreciated was detailed support responses that let me know that the support tech actually took time to read my question and address it properly. Not a canned response, but a unique response to my particular question with details of what the issue was, and how it was resolved, an apology for the inconvenience and reassurance that I'm spending money on a worthwhile product.

Seems nowadays companies are lacking this. If I get a detailed response, it's because it's a canned/templated response that tells me the tech skimmed my ticket and saw particular keywords. If it's a fast response it's typically short/quick, like, "Can you please check now, should be fixed".

Just curious what y'all preferred for your non-urgent / general tickets / inquires?

 

[HenriqueSousa - WebUp 24/7]

I have 2 points of view in this situation.

When I'm in the client role, I try to address the question to the best department. Usually with all the companies that I worked before, they always made good answers after analysing the issues that I present.

But when I'm answering to tickets on my company if they are related to downtime on the service, I always apologize and I usually expand the service time to the double that it was down. Never tried to use "premade" answers, because every client request a good service, and hopes that we give full atention to him. If we put some automessage answering tickets, they will notice that and probably change company after some time.

So what is important is that we give full atention to every client. It doesn't matter if he just spents 1$ or 100$ on the company.

 

[Aldryic C'boas]

As long as the problem is solved, and any questions I've asked are answered, I'm satisfied.  I don't need a history or manpage excerpt of how `ls -ahl` functions so long as any questions I did pose are answered.

From a provider suspective;  I give a basic rundown of what the problem was, and what steps I took to fix it.  I let the client know that if they'd like any more detailed information they could feel free to reply back or contact me directly.  Quite a few tickets don't resolve around a problem (changing a billing cycle, requesting advance invoices, etc), and don't exactly require more than a polite reply letting them know it's been handled.

 

[tchen]

As a customer, if I want a detailed response, I'll ask for one.  Too detailed right off the bat makes me feel like they're trying to shift the blame or come up with an excuse.  I think Aldryic's offer of more detailed information is a good balance.

 

[Magiobiwan]

I give a detailed response if I have time, however if the issue was a node that went offline, there are 40 more tickets regarding the same issue, and I'm the only person answering tickets, I tend to gravitate to a shorter reply (IE "The node went down (insert reason if known). We've brought it back online and your VPS should be accessible soon. If it doesn't come online, log into Feathur and boot it manually as it may not have come online automatically."). Other times I'll write out a longer response though. 

 

[fizzyjoe908]

As a provider, I try to accomplish both of these for clients. I do think fast responses are beneficial but canned responses do not cut it. I like to build personal relationships with my clients and in doing so, being as detailed and transparent as possible.

 

[drmike]

Well I like / want both.

I want human recognition of the ticket, quickly.

Now if the ticket is complicated or will take time, that introductory response saying such is what I want to see.

Otherwise, I have no clue if the single support person is on hiatus or what the situation is.

 

[concerto49]

Depends on the situation. Details where required. Also depends on urgency. If urgent then quick response and maybe a followup later.

 

[tdc-adm]

From trusted providers, I want fast and short response, otherwise I want a detailed response.

 

[splitice]

I like both, but not either.

In-Progress first reply - "We are aware of and acknowledge the issue.... Please hold for some minutes while we investigate and resolve." This statement can be mostly pre-canned, emphasis should be placed on informing the client that they arent just sitting in a queue.

Issue resolved - "An issue with XYZ found, it has been resolved ....". A reasonable amount of details (what went wrong, enough details to know its permanently resolved).

 

[NodeBytes]

Personally I like an honest answer. I once had a problem with a provider on here and they told me straight up what the problem was and how they fixed it and asked me to check to make sure the problem was gone, it was. Even if it takes you an hour or three to let me know what's going on, I don't care, I just like to know they weren't slacking but actually investigating. However, it is nice to get a response saying something like, "We got your ticket, we will check this out and get back to you ASAP with an update."

 

[JackDoan]

This is what I do:

1) A response along the lines of 'Hey! We got your ticket! I'll take a look for you' and depending on the issue, my best guess at what's causing the problem

2) A follow-up once it's finished with the actual problem, asking the client to confirm things are working as expected. Sadly, clients are really bad at replying once the issue is actually resolved, so these get closed after a couple of days.

 

[budi1413]

Why not both?

 

[HalfEatenPie]

How about neither?  Make a product that you don't need a support ticket for darn it!

With snarky and joking comments aside, 

A combination of both! 

 

[thekreek]

I really like a fast response even if it comes from a script. What makes it a great response it's the availibility of the host to answer later on with a little more details.

Dont know why I remenber this provider: http://www.nosupportlinuxhosting.com/

 

[Kakashi]

A Combo of both for me. Fast so I know there is help on the other end dealing with it and then more detailed so I can learn about what went wrong and how to prevent it.

 

[astutiumRob]

I'd prefer the answer was right - that tends to save more time in the long-run

 

[sleddog]

Well I like / want both.

I want human recognition of the ticket, quickly.

Now if the ticket is complicated or will take time, that introductory response saying such is what I want to see.

Otherwise, I have no clue if the single support person is on hiatus or what the situation is.

This. A human response, fast, laying out in a sentence some kind of timeline / expectation for the client.

Auto-replies in my opinion are next to useless.

A detailed follow-up reply is nice and desired, but should not be expected.