Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by stevage | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

stevage

Examples of angry and adversarial:

> Who do I contact if Anthony is not doing his job correctly?

> This is becoming a joke at this point.

> So I just have to close my business because one person in the review team is having a bad day?

> Like is this serious?

View on HN

You're right about the tone of those statements. But just how much dystopian bureaucracy can one take before expressing displeasure at the dystopian bureaucracy?

Once you've lost your cool you've also lost.... so take as much as you can!

You are just embracing the dystopia at this point.

It’s important to understand that in order to navigate the world we live in, sometimes you’ll need help from someone “on the inside” and often those people don’t have direct control over the outcome but can be very valuable allies. Taking your frustration out on those people is directly against your own interest.

Being angry at what is essentially a front line customer service rep will do absolutely nothing at all to end the dystopia and just make one human’s day worse.

If you’re not mad at the person who actually has the power to fix the problem then you’re wasting your breath. And to get out ahead of it, your anger doesn’t “go up the chain” either. Like all service workers, dealing with angry customers is a standard workplace hazard.

But the service worker here (Anthony) has the power to approve the app, he is just incompetent or hostile to the author. The anger is warranted (though the statements are harmless), this is targeted sabotage.

Maybe time to sue?

Not sabotage, just incompetence. Anthony is probably overworked, and has seconds to approve or reject an app. He may also not be a native english speaker, and be unsure about the meaning of the words used in this app.

Sure, he has every "right" to be angry, but that strategy will only make things worse.

Waiting a bit longer for a review seems preferable?

Quietly accepting the abuse, and getting angry are two sides of the same coin, both of which are basically "just embracing the dystopia." Notice that the same people that do the first, will eventually do the second once pushed far enough, with ultimately, the same results.

It's perfectly fine to express displeasure in a calm and collected way, the same way you would patiently correct a child... e.g. "I am really disappointed that ____, can you please ____?" (without being sarcastic or condescending)

But losing your cool doesn't correct anything, it just expresses emotional weakness and makes the person dislike you and not want to help you. Someone customer facing at a place like Google sees angry upset customers all day long, and probably makes fun of them to their friends and family, but doesn't go out of the way to help them.

What they don't often see is people showing strength and calm in the face of this BS. Someone that can endlessly adapt and redirect things back to their own clear goals regardless of what is thrown at them, without even needing to be adversarial. Think Bruce Lee's "Be like water." In most cases, this will be off script for them, and they actually won't know how to deal with that other than giving you what you want.

Know where you have the power to fight for a change.

That's from the chat at the end, and I'd hardly call that "angry and adversarial", just exasperated -- and naively assuming the person they were talking to cared that "Anthony" had been giving them the run-around for 2 weeks.

Agreed. To me this is just barely touching angry or adversarial. As a person, who was dropped by a medical practice for threatening with a lawsuit and eventually dropping the f bomb after rather exhausting months of non-activity, that was just that: exasperated.

Google clearly has an issue. The issue is not mainstream, but the moment this hits a bigger name and its community notices, I am sadly certain there will be some adjustment. I do not get why it is only publicly shaming companies work well these days.

I understand that getting the right party is important, but in the article it seems like you can't even seem to get to the right person, because:

1. there is no real person talking to you 2. the person talking to you can ignore you and say buh-bye

edit: removed anecdote

Exactly - that is just venting anger and the reviewer is likely to pass and go on to the next App. Unfortunately a) the app guidelines/rules are often vague and discretionary and b) App reviewers have hundreds or thousands of apps to review a day and don't have the time to think about borderline cases.

With app stores it's guilty until proven innocent/compliant - I've found (particularly with Apple) that taking time to resubmit saying how you are now compliant (making sure you tick all the requirements) is much quicker than waiting days for them to turn around a no again.

Those aren't angry or adversarial and Google deserve much worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com