|
rolleyes posted:Yeah that's how I read it. I read it as 'his body is under the floor tiles and I need to leave before they start to wonder what the smell is'
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
Thank you
Volmarias fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
^^^ Done ^^^Ursine Asylum posted:Unless he means "I'm talking to a lawyer about it and not talking about details on the internet", in which case, good job. This.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
nitrogen posted:This video is exactly what it is like trying to work with the project managers at my company. Motherfucker. I've been in this meeting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
QuiteEasilyDone posted:This. Oh, thank god. I read it as "I shouldn't have complained about it, I just need to keep my head down and get through this". Good job on not digging.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Rhymenoserous posted:Motherfucker. I've been in this meeting. It's rather saddening how easy it is to relate to this. You can see the horror on the expert's face every time any of the others opens their mouth, and you just flash back to any random moment in a bad design meeting you've ever had.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
I could only manage a few seconds after the expert got cut off in the beginning, the flashbacks started coming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Assorted poo poo (for reference, I'm consulting with the Exchange team at a company) 1. Helpdesk analysts who don't even bother to troubleshoot, then compound their fuckup by not escalating to desktop support. If a user says their Outlook isn't connecting, and the helpdesk didn't bother to look at it (just log-and-routed the ticket), then I don't even want to see the ticket unless it's passed through desktop support because it's probably Outlook, and without troubleshooting, you can't just instantly assume "welp everyone else is fine except this one user, MUST BE A SERVER ISSUE OMG" 2. Lazy-rear end desktop support agents who, when this ticket gets routed to them about a probable Outlook issue, along with a note indicating that it's not likely to be a server issue and rather an issue with the local Outlook client, just reassign the ticket back to the Exchange team. Separate incident: 3. Helpdesk analysts with horrible language skills, for example: "heared" instead of "heard", "explination" instead of "explanation", along with mutilated sentence construction (to the point of being difficult to follow). This is the sort of poo poo I expect a high-school graduate to possess. 4. loving lying users. Just had a ticket escalated up to us (Exchange server support) from the helpdesk because a user is bitching about her archives (which we evault). That's all well and good, and is something I'd look into. The lies start with the user complaining about loads of past tickets that have been mysteriously closed, no responses, the usual complaints bullshit users say to try and get their ticket treated as a priority. Well guess what? I have access to the ticketing system and can look for tickets you raised! And there are only two, one from a April of last year, and another from December of last year; the April ticket is worknoted with emails from the Exchange team and you, indicating a successful resolution and no more issues; the December ticket is closed because the user didn't get back with the Exchange team in a reasonable timeframe (two weeks of dead silence).
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Ursine Asylum posted:Unless he means "I'm talking to a lawyer about it and not talking about details on the internet", in which case, good job. If however it is battered wife syndrome and he's serving dart-throwing-dude dinner with trembling hands, bad job and he needs an intervention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
wintermuteCF posted:Assorted poo poo (for reference, I'm consulting with the Exchange team at a company) All those words and the only thing I can pay attention to is that you are on the "exchange team". I would think its too bizarre to go into work and know you are only going to be supporting the enterprise in one specific skill set. I don't know if it would be great or boring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Sickening posted:All those words and the only thing I can pay attention to is that you are on the "exchange team". I would think its too bizarre to go into work and know you are only going to be supporting the enterprise in one specific skill set. I don't know if it would be great or boring. I'm an outside consultant. My company helping their messaging team handle an Exchange migration from 2003 to 2010. We touch handful of other systems out of necessity (AD, Enterprise Vault, BES, Lync), but our project is Exchange and that's the bulk of our work here. e: and it's a little bit great and a little bit boring, so you're on the money with the ambivalence. On the one hand, it annoys me that I touch so few systems, on the other hand, with this client that's a good thing (because if their other systems are as big a mess as their Exchange cluster, I'm not sure I want to go near them). The good news is that once this project is over, I go consult with some other company, doing any number of things. It's not a bad gig.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
 That duration is not in minutes... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
How are you posting from 1992?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
nitrogen posted:This video is exactly what it is like trying to work with the project managers at my company. Holy God. I had to turn that off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Agrikk posted:
Happy last day of work, assuming you are taking down the office. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZf21dODzzQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
drat, I just realized that I forgot to take my one non-accruing personal day this quarter. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:
I heard a Director the other day talking about how he was going to be on a four hour conference call for higher level executives. Some kind of leadership meeting or something? Completely absurd. This new company seems to LOOOOVE conference calls, I kind of loathe them and think they're the opposite of anything resembling productive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
wa27 posted:drat, I just realized that I forgot to take my one non-accruing personal day this quarter. I want those days. I work in a mountain resort town. We just hired two new people and will be back to fully staffed soon. I think we are going to try and work out some flex scheduling so we can take turns getting out on the mountain in the mornings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I heard a Director the other day talking about how he was going to be on a four hour conference call for higher level executives. Some kind of leadership meeting or something? Completely absurd. I'm regularly involved in all day conference calls for company reporting/planning. They're the most productive days I have. Mute my mic, close the door and I get almost eight hours of uninterrupted work in. I've openly told the CTO that I don't really pay attention to most of the call. Anytime actual technical expertise is needed, the CTO drops my name and phrases the question in a way to catch me up on what was asked. I answer the question, then go back to work. CXOs get their answers, I get more work done than usual -- it's win/win as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:This new company seems to LOOOOVE conference calls, I kind of loathe them and think they're the opposite of anything resembling productive. ^ That too Collateral Damage fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
All good points, but ffs, just send me an e-mail already. Very rarely do an of these discussions require immediate feedback or conversation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
nitrogen posted:This video is exactly what it is like trying to work with the project managers at my company. This... this is scarily accurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
wintermuteCF posted:I'm an outside consultant. My company helping their messaging team handle an Exchange migration from 2003 to 2010. We touch handful of other systems out of necessity (AD, Enterprise Vault, BES, Lync), but our project is Exchange and that's the bulk of our work here. If it wasn't for you mentioning a 2003 to 2010 migration, I would've sworn you're at my most recent job. Help desk with horrible spelling: check. Help desk insta punting to Exchange team queue: check.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:This... this is scarily accurate. I actually wrote a teardown of this video for my team as an educational moment. Here's a taste: The reason this video hits so many of us in the feels is because it's a great example of a very common problem: cargo cult system managent. I'm stealing the term from Richard Feynman when he described Cargo Cult Science. Read the link to get an idea of what cargo cult science is, and you'll get an idea of what cargo cult system management is. It's basically a result of people that don't know poo poo trying to make things that look like systems, and when you get requirements like this, it's clear that people don't know what the gently caress they are doing, and need to be drawn out. This video's protagonist, the "expert" did a great job with asking probing questions to try and get to the root of the actual problem that needed to be solved. Some things our protagonist could have done better: 1) Attempt to take active control of the process. This is hard for many folks like us, because many of us tend to be more passive in situations like this. It's easy to try and let other people move the process, but as you can tell it doesn't work that way. In this example, their REAL role is to make sure the expert has the pens, ink, and paper he needs, as well as making sure everyone gets paid. When you think the project manager is overstepping their bounds, you tell them to stop. Not something thjat's easy for many folks. Confrontation isn't easy, but it's something to learn. 2) Goes a bit with number one. Notice how the project manager and other folks started hemming and hawing when they heard things they didn't like? Shut that poo poo down. Don't let people undermine you. "The task might be clear, but it doesn't make technical sense. Making a red line with green ink makes no sense because red is a primary color etc." Read about the Dunning-Kreuger effect, or my favorite post on the subject, No one knows what the gently caress they are doing for why you SHOULD NOT let people gently caress with you on subjects you know about. I know it's a salesfucky thing, but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_selling]Solution Selling] but its great skills we all should have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
wintermuteCF posted:Separate incident: Oh god, at my last job we had a tier 1 tech who I think was actually functionally illiterate. Half the words he used were misspelled despite the fact that he never used any words over six letters long, and he literally couldn't string together a proper sentence. On a good day, he'd submit tickets that were somewhat legible but uselessly vague like "cu sais it dosnt work but it shud pls," but sometimes he would get inspired to be more verbose and would submit tickets that were just utterly incomprehensible word salad, like "cu it cliks and does works in the blue pls and no isnt ther an then it gos now to cant". I felt kind of sorry for the guy, but honestly, if your sole job duty is "write down what the customer on the phone is saying" and you're not actually capable of writing things down, you should probably reconsider your choice of careers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
gently caress Other Departments. (TM)  I page you. You respond. This is how this works. It isn't loving rocket science. I give you 20 minutes before I call your stupid rear end. You know you're on call. I've been on call so I know how much it blows. I don't need to babysit some loving ticket because you don't answer.  Let's also touch on the wonderful direction. If X happens, page A. If Y happens, page B. Ok, what if it's a draw between X and Y? gently caress it, I'll just guess cause lord knows I'll get kickback from the team I guess on for not sending it to the other one. Sometimes I like MSP cause I get to work with different people but some clients make me want to eat a bullet. Oh, before I forget, gently caress overly complicated e-mail signatures. Yes, I can copy and paste it. This doesn't stop it from being damned irritating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
We have a company policy that emails can't go out with the 'standard' signature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:We have a company policy that emails can't go out with the 'standard' signature. We don't have a policy like that. Just that we have to use the standard signature instead of any other. It has just become more complicated over the years. Now we have clickable links and social buttons. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:We have a company policy that emails can't go out with the 'standard' signature. I find policy like this to be  -worthy but if it prevents every special-snowflake 20 line signature full of syrupy platitude quotes in italics and giant uncompressed images at the end of every email, I'll welcome it every time.If the standard signature includes a giant uncompressed image of the company logo, on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
I thought it was international law that default signatures had to be 40 lines of unenforceable legal bullshit, a 2MB BMP of the company logo, and links the the webpage where they describe their ISO9001 certification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:We have a company policy that emails can't go out with the 'standard' signature. Our MD pulled a blinder recently with email signatures. The signature consists of a jpeg which contains the company logo, some whitespace and a banner in the same style as a chapter heading from our word template. The banner says "Disclaimer" followed by the usual page and a half of bullshit text, so the signature goes.. J. FuckNugget Managing Director Postal Address Tel: Fax: Email: because I'm too dumb to realise that everyone can see the from: header [[CompanyLogo]] -Disclaimer- Wordswordswords However at some point an additional banner was created by marketing that says "2013 is our xxth anniversary" followed by another small bit of whitespace for spacing purposes. Most people ignored it, those that decided to include it put it above the logo jpeg where it looked ok. The MD decided that underneath the company logo was the best place, forgetting that the header was under the logo, so it now went.. J. FuckNugget Managing Director Postal Address Tel: Fax: Email: because I'm too dumb to realise that everyone can see the from: header [[CompanyLogo]] -Disclaimer- 2013 is our xxth anniversary Wordswordswords
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Signatures: A few years ago our corporate branding VP wanted to standardize and automate everyone's signature. They looked into using AD and Outlook but when they found out that our AD was filled with incorrect titles, department names and phone numbers they just gave up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Our place introduced a requirement for emails to have one of four confidentiality levels assigned to them so those receiving them knew whether or not they were ok to forward on to external parties, whether or not they could discuss them with underlings, and so on and so forth. Naturally this meant that everyone put something into their auto signature declaring that everything they sent was the highest level so they didn't have to take any responsibility for anything they put in an email. Except our department where the guy in charge said that having it in the signature defeated the point of the policy in the first place, issued a directive that no one was to put it in their autosignature and told us all to bloody think about what we're putting into any given email and classify it if appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Does everyone just use one signature? I have like 3 or 4 different ones I use, depending on who I'm emailing. Like why do I want/need to send an email to my supervisor that has my name/title/who I work for/the address/my phone number. Clearly he knows all of that! It doesn't bother me when other people do it, I just wonder why they don't change it. It's the default, I get that too, but still. There's a "signature" button in outlook right there! As far as I know there isn't a "policy" on signatures here, but everyone has one. My default signature for internal emails is just my name/position/phone number (since it's a help desk. they can call if they don't want to keep emailing and this way they don't need to look up the number!) Maybe I'm the weird one, I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Why are you copy/pasting? I can't think of an email client that doesn't have auto-signature. Lotus Notes doesn't, perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
My signature is a bash script with a few printf's. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Does everyone just use one signature? I have like 3 or 4 different ones I use, depending on who I'm emailing. Like why do I want/need to send an email to my supervisor that has my name/title/who I work for/the address/my phone number. Clearly he knows all of that! It doesn't bother me when other people do it, I just wonder why they don't change it. It's the default, I get that too, but still. There's a "signature" button in outlook right there! I appreciate the full contact info because when I get forwarded a long drawn-out discussion between various LOB folks and the ~customer~, I want to do as little research as possible to track down someone in the email chain who knows what is actually happening and what the customer needs. Playing telephone is a waste of time, and this super-helpful system that lets you update your own outlook contact info guarantees that the reliability of that info is a crapshoot. ETA: your email's going to be forwarded. Even/especially when you assume it won't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Is there an actual purpose for snapshots beyond "thing that someone else used two months ago but forgot they were working on a snapshot so now there's like a 100gb delta file"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:Is there an actual purpose for snapshots beyond "thing that someone else used two months ago but forgot they were working on a snapshot so now there's like a 100gb delta file"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
We use Exclaimer to apply signatures based on rules. Internal emails get no signatures, anyone can find anyone else's info using the global address book. External emails get a default signature that cannot be modified by the user that pulls in a bunch of AD info. Any user (with appropriate permissions) can override the default signature by using set patterns in the email subject. For example, they can type *nosig to have no signature at all, or *acct to send the message out as if they were part of the accounting department, or any number of other options for people that wear lots of other hats. Works for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:50
|
|
