SUMO community discussions

RonQ: Demotivating users from using latest Firefox versions

  • 25 Replies
  • Last reply by David Tenser
  1. Hasan
    Hasan 106 posts
    more options

    Here is a list of some of those posts made by RonQ:

    You will find many more posts like these. Hope you will do something about it...



    Note: Some of the posts by "RonQ" in the above threads have either been edited (*) or apparently deleted (**). aw

    Here is a list of some of those posts made by '''RonQ''': * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867633 * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867634 * * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867642 ** * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867644 ** * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/866666 * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/866652 * * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/866586 * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/866578 * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/866391 You will find many more posts like these. Hope you will do something about it... <br><br> ''Note: Some of the posts by "RonQ" in the above threads have either been edited (*) or apparently deleted (**). aw''

    Modified by AliceWyman on

  2. James
    James 1447 posts
    more options

    Seems to be similar to fixitman2001 https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/707329 though I cannot check IP or account details for comparison here.

    https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/search?q=&num_voted=0&num_votes=&asked_by=&answered_by=RonQ&q_tags=&created=0&created_date=&updated=0&updated_date=&sortby=1&a=1&w=2

    Seems to have started his rant as of 5 months ago. https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/789338

    This is one of those cases where we need a forum to split dump such posts to however some may see it as censoring versus trying to keep decent order. It is one thing to express dissatisfaction of new versions and another to post like RonQ has been.

    Seems to be similar to fixitman2001 https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/707329 though I cannot check IP or account details for comparison here. https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/search?q=&num_voted=0&num_votes=&asked_by=&answered_by=RonQ&q_tags=&created=0&created_date=&updated=0&updated_date=&sortby=1&a=1&w=2 Seems to have started his rant as of 5 months ago. https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/789338 This is one of those cases where we need a forum to split dump such posts to however some may see it as censoring versus trying to keep decent order. It is one thing to express dissatisfaction of new versions and another to post like RonQ has been.

    Modified by James on

  3. James
    James 1447 posts
    more options

    His recent thread is not helping either. https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867652

    His recent thread is not helping either. https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867652
  4. Hasan
    Hasan 106 posts
    more options

    Is there any plans for doing something about it ??? Anybody else has a comment on this ??

    Is there any plans for ''doing'' something about it ??? Anybody else has a comment on this ??
  5. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    I think the rapid release cycle is causing genuine problems for some users. One of the advantages of Firefox is its vast range of extensions and some of these are having problems because of the rapid update cycle. It is to be expected that some users will feel strongly that they should not update, regardless of any security issues.

    Possibly if RonQ updated some of the problems may be solved. It is even plausible that updating to a Beta or Aurora could help, however once someone has had a bad experience with a Firefox upgrade that person is not likely to agree to suggestions of trialing further new versions of Firefox.

    I wonder if RonQ has problems with his/her own installation ? If so if anyone can tackle and solve RonQ's own Firefox problems maybe the postings will become less negative.

    I think the rapid release cycle is causing genuine problems for some users. One of the advantages of Firefox is its vast range of extensions and some of these are having problems because of the rapid update cycle. It is to be expected that some users will feel strongly that they should not update, regardless of any security issues. Possibly if RonQ updated some of the problems may be solved. It is even plausible that updating to a Beta or Aurora could help, however once someone has had a bad experience with a Firefox upgrade that person is not likely to agree to suggestions of trialing further new versions of Firefox. I wonder if RonQ has problems with his/her own installation ? If so if anyone can tackle and solve RonQ's own Firefox problems maybe the postings will become less negative.
  6. the-edmeister
    the-edmeister 603 posts
    more options

    RonQ didn't pay attention to the posts that tried to help him 5 months ago. He totally blew off my mention about hardware acceleration in Flash as possibly being a problem in older PC's - "I'm not about to kill my acceleration to accommodate a bug" was his comment.

    My opinion is that postings like RonQ's which disrupt an ongoing discussion should be edited by a moderator as not being helpful for that discussion, and a statement be posted about not being helpful to the "owners" question. But there doesn't seem to be "global support" for that approach, and to provide clear cut instructions for dealing with postings like that. Lucy and mariyan.petrov seem to think letting users like that "vent" and get it off their chest is a better approach, but they don't actually provide much direct user support here.

    And with all the "helpful" votes postings like RonQ's "type" get, I am starting to think that average Firefox user doesn't really want support, they just want other clowns to reinforce their negative opinions about Firefox, and want a place to vent and commiserate their misery. I am quickly losing my enthusiasm for helping other Firefox users, especially those who can't seem to separate Firefox from add-ons to Firefox.

    Right now I am basically moderating what's going on, like marking and locking duplicates and editing the "language" being used in postings - and answering fewer questions than I used to answer.

    RonQ didn't pay attention to the posts that tried to help him 5 months ago. He totally blew off my mention about hardware acceleration in Flash as possibly being a problem in older PC's - "I'm not about to kill my acceleration to accommodate a bug" was his comment. My opinion is that postings like RonQ's which disrupt an ongoing discussion should be edited by a moderator as not being helpful for that discussion, and a statement be posted about not being helpful to the "owners" question. But there doesn't seem to be "global support" for that approach, and to provide clear cut instructions for dealing with postings like that. Lucy and mariyan.petrov seem to think letting users like that "vent" and get it off their chest is a better approach, but they don't actually provide much direct user support here. And with all the "helpful" votes postings like RonQ's "type" get, I am starting to think that average Firefox user doesn't really want support, they just want other clowns to reinforce their negative opinions about Firefox, and want a place to vent and commiserate their misery. I am quickly losing my enthusiasm for helping other Firefox users, especially those who can't seem to separate Firefox from add-ons to Firefox. Right now I am basically moderating what's going on, like marking and locking duplicates and editing the "language" being used in postings - and answering fewer questions than I used to answer.
  7. Kadir Topal
    Kadir Topal 1215 posts
    more options

    We have a bug that should help us dealing with this kind of spam. And spam it is, since it adds nothing to solve the problem at hand and makes it even harder instead.

    It's important to keep one thing in mind: Support platforms will always attract people who had a bad experience with a product. Those people don't come here with a neutral attitude. They are already angry and yes, they also want to vent their frustration. We have to deal with that to a certain degree. But there is a threshold that RonQ has long passed. I'll make it clear to him that his account will be suspended if he keeps disrupting our efforts to help people.

    There is one other thing we can do: We do build all of our support platform. We can change anything we want about it to make sure it serves our users best. The bug I mentioned above will automatically hide posts that are marked as not helpful. We can add a moderator feature that would let us do that manually for spam posts.

    What else do you think is necessary to make sure that threads stay on course, and the people who are seeking help do get it without a lot of noise from others who just want to vent their frustration?

    We have [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680390 a bug that should help us dealing with this kind of spam]. And spam it is, since it adds nothing to solve the problem at hand and makes it even harder instead. It's important to keep one thing in mind: Support platforms will always attract people who had a bad experience with a product. Those people don't come here with a neutral attitude. They are already angry and yes, they also want to vent their frustration. We have to deal with that to a certain degree. But there is a threshold that RonQ has long passed. I'll make it clear to him that his account will be suspended if he keeps disrupting our efforts to help people. There is one other thing we can do: We do build all of our support platform. We can change anything we want about it to make sure it serves our users best. The bug I mentioned above will automatically hide posts that are marked as not helpful. We can add a moderator feature that would let us do that manually for spam posts. What else do you think is necessary to make sure that threads stay on course, and the people who are seeking help do get it without a lot of noise from others who just want to vent their frustration?
  8. Hasan
    Hasan 106 posts
    more options

    KadirTopal said

    The bug I mentioned above will automatically hide posts that are marked as not helpful. We can add a moderator feature that would let us do that manually for spam posts.

    I would like to suggest a bit different approach. In addition to marking a reply as Not Helpful, it would also be better to Report that reply using Report Abuse function.

    This way Moderators/Administrators will be notified of the issue more quickly. Now the Moderators/Administrators should be able to readily Make it Clear to him that his Account will be suspended if he keeps disrupting our efforts to help people.

    When i first found these replies of RonQ's, i marked his replies as Not Helpful as well as reported his replies using the Report Abuse function. However, i didn't receive any reply here in this thread from any Moderator/Administrator that he had words with him.

    ''KadirTopal [[#post-42237|said]]'' <blockquote> The bug I mentioned above will automatically hide posts that are marked as not helpful. We can add a moderator feature that would let us do that manually for spam posts. </blockquote> I would like to suggest a bit different approach. In addition to marking a reply as '''Not Helpful''', it would also be better to Report that reply using '''Report Abuse''' function. This way Moderators/Administrators will be notified of the issue more quickly. Now the Moderators/Administrators should be able to readily ''Make it Clear to him that his Account will be suspended if he keeps disrupting our efforts to help people''. When i first found these replies of RonQ's, i marked his replies as ''Not Helpful'' as well as reported his replies using the ''Report Abuse'' function. However, i didn't receive any reply here in this thread from any Moderator/Administrator that ''he had words with him''.
  9. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    mha007 said

    reported his replies using the Report Abuse function.

    Me too and also fixitman2001's replies.

    In the French support forum, you get emailed when the abuse is treated (the post content partially removed for instance) by a moderator.

    ''mha007 [[#post-42251|said]]'' <blockquote> reported his replies using the ''Report Abuse'' function. </blockquote> Me too and also fixitman2001's replies. In the French support forum, you get emailed when the abuse is treated (the post content partially removed for instance) by a moderator.
  10. the-edmeister
    the-edmeister 603 posts
    more options

    The problem with threatening a user like that with suspension is that it won't keep them from just creating a new account and continuing with their spam comments. That has been happening over at the MozillaZine fora for years now, but the moderators over there can usually spot when that happens because they have access to the IP address used for each posting. Then they can block the IP address to block the user for a set period of time, IIRC. James might be able to provide more information about how that works.

    The problem with threatening a user like that with suspension is that it won't keep them from just creating a new account and continuing with their spam comments. That has been happening over at the MozillaZine fora for years now, but the moderators over there can usually spot when that happens because they have access to the IP address used for each posting. Then they can block the IP address to block the user for a set period of time, IIRC. ''James might be able to provide more information about how that works.''
  11. Hasan
    Hasan 106 posts
    more options

    KadirTopal said

    But there is a threshold that RonQ has long passed. I'll make it clear to him that his account will be suspended if he keeps disrupting our efforts to help people.

    Now this one is recent - https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867652

    I guess you need to make it clear to him..

    the-edmeister said

    They have access to the IP address used for each posting. Then they can block the IP address to block the user for a set period of time

    That is a more appropriate and fool-proof way of doing it.

    ''KadirTopal [[#post-42237|said]]'' <blockquote> But there is a threshold that RonQ has long passed. I'll make it clear to him that his account will be suspended if he keeps disrupting our efforts to help people. </blockquote> Now this one is recent - https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867652 I guess you need to ''make it clear to him''.. ''the-edmeister [[#post-42259|said]]'' <blockquote> They have access to the IP address used for each posting. Then they can block the IP address to block the user for a set period of time </blockquote> That is a more appropriate and fool-proof way of doing it.

    Modified by Hasan on

  12. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    mha007 said

    Now this one is recent - https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867652

    He didn't reply to questions but asked a relevant question, even if it's not exactly a support request, and I can't blame him for that.

    ''mha007 [[#post-42262|said]]'' <blockquote> Now this one is recent - https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867652 </blockquote> He didn't reply to questions but asked a relevant question, even if it's not exactly a support request, and I can't blame him for that.
  13. Hasan
    Hasan 106 posts
    more options

    scoobidiver said

    mha007 said
    Now this one is recent - https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867652

    He didn't reply to questions but asked a relevant question, even if it's not exactly a support request, and I can't blame him for that.

    Yeah so what about this one now ??

    Instead of somehow Blocking him, you are now Reasoning with him ??

    ''scoobidiver [[#post-42263|said]]'' <blockquote> ''mha007 [[#post-42262|said]]'' <blockquote> Now this one is recent - https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/867652 </blockquote> He didn't reply to questions but asked a relevant question, even if it's not exactly a support request, and I can't blame him for that. </blockquote> Yeah so what about this one now ?? * https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/868841 Instead of somehow Blocking him, you are now Reasoning with him ??
  14. James
    James 1447 posts
    more options

    the-edmeister said

    The problem with threatening a user like that with suspension is that it won't keep them from just creating a new account and continuing with their spam comments. That has been happening over at the MozillaZine fora for years now, but the moderators over there can usually spot when that happens because they have access to the IP address used for each posting. Then they can block the IP address to block the user for a set period of time, IIRC. James might be able to provide more information about how that works.

    Though on mZ thankfully these ranters often tend to quite down after some posts or stay in one thread or two. How to deal with them depends on how things are going, like splitting off the posts, locking the thread as being done with or giving notice that they could go on a week or two or longer vacation if they continue after warning.


    There are some different ways to tell if a person has evaded the vacation or perm ban or a past spammer but I am not going to really reveal the ways so as to give some people ideas. As for banning IP and does it work, yes and no and can do harm if not careful.


    'the-edmeister said

    They have access to the IP address used for each posting. Then they can block the IP address to block the user for a set period of time

    mha007 said

    That is a more appropriate and fool-proof way of doing it.

    Not really fool proof and banning IP's can be tricky in that it should only be banned for a week or two at most in case it is dynamic IP.

    ''the-edmeister [[#post-42259|said]] <blockquote> The problem with threatening a user like that with suspension is that it won't keep them from just creating a new account and continuing with their spam comments. That has been happening over at the MozillaZine fora for years now, but the moderators over there can usually spot when that happens because they have access to the IP address used for each posting. Then they can block the IP address to block the user for a set period of time, IIRC. ''James might be able to provide more information about how that works.'' </blockquote> Though on mZ thankfully these ranters often tend to quite down after some posts or stay in one thread or two. How to deal with them depends on how things are going, like splitting off the posts, locking the thread as being done with or giving notice that they could go on a week or two or longer vacation if they continue after warning. There are some different ways to tell if a person has evaded the vacation or perm ban or a past spammer but I am not going to really reveal the ways so as to give some people ideas. As for banning IP and does it work, yes and no and can do harm if not careful. '''the-edmeister [[#post-42259|said]]'' <blockquote> They have access to the IP address used for each posting. Then they can block the IP address to block the user for a set period of time </blockquote> ''mha007 [[#post-42262|said]]'' <blockquote> That is a more appropriate and fool-proof way of doing it. </blockquote> Not really fool proof and banning IP's can be tricky in that it should only be banned for a week or two at most in case it is dynamic IP.

    Modified by James on

  15. James
    James 1447 posts
    more options

    KadirTopal said

    We have a bug that should help us dealing with this kind of spam. And spam it is, since it adds nothing to solve the problem at hand and makes it even harder instead. It's important to keep one thing in mind: Support platforms will always attract people who had a bad experience with a product. Those people don't come here with a neutral attitude. They are already angry and yes, they also want to vent their frustration. We have to deal with that to a certain degree. But there is a threshold that RonQ has long passed. I'll make it clear to him that his account will be suspended if he keeps disrupting our efforts to help people. There is one other thing we can do: We do build all of our support platform. We can change anything we want about it to make sure it serves our users best. The bug I mentioned above will automatically hide posts that are marked as not helpful. We can add a moderator feature that would let us do that manually for spam posts. What else do you think is necessary to make sure that threads stay on course, and the people who are seeking help do get it without a lot of noise from others who just want to vent their frustration?

    The Hide posts on certain number of "Not Helpful" replies has its downsides as many times a actually helpful reply gets very few Helpful votes and lots of Not Helpful votes by people who are upset about a problem in a thread and rather then try the fix they would rather Mozilla just fix it sort of mentality.

    Helpful and Not helpful buttons not really helpful https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/706289

    ''KadirTopal [[#post-42237|said]]'' <blockquote> We have [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680390 a bug that should help us dealing with this kind of spam]. And spam it is, since it adds nothing to solve the problem at hand and makes it even harder instead. It's important to keep one thing in mind: Support platforms will always attract people who had a bad experience with a product. Those people don't come here with a neutral attitude. They are already angry and yes, they also want to vent their frustration. We have to deal with that to a certain degree. But there is a threshold that RonQ has long passed. I'll make it clear to him that his account will be suspended if he keeps disrupting our efforts to help people. There is one other thing we can do: We do build all of our support platform. We can change anything we want about it to make sure it serves our users best. The bug I mentioned above will automatically hide posts that are marked as not helpful. We can add a moderator feature that would let us do that manually for spam posts. What else do you think is necessary to make sure that threads stay on course, and the people who are seeking help do get it without a lot of noise from others who just want to vent their frustration?</blockquote> The Hide posts on certain number of "Not Helpful" replies has its downsides as many times a actually helpful reply gets very few Helpful votes and lots of Not Helpful votes by people who are upset about a problem in a thread and rather then try the fix they would rather Mozilla just fix it sort of mentality. Helpful and Not helpful buttons not really helpful https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/706289
  16. Ibai
    Ibai 301 posts
    more options

    Perhaps instead of hiding them, a better idea is to put them in a bucket similar (or the same) as the flagged answers so moderators can review it.

    I'm not sure if it's a good idea to crowsource "mutting" people, or leave the censorship on hands of an algorithm.

    Perhaps instead of hiding them, a better idea is to put them in a bucket similar (or the same) as the flagged answers so moderators can review it. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to crowsource "mutting" people, or leave the censorship on hands of an algorithm.
  17. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options

    Ibai said

    Perhaps instead of hiding them, a better idea is to put them in a bucket similar (or the same) as the flagged answers so moderators can review it. ...

    A problem is that you do not have many active moderators, and they are already overworked, as the-edmeister is saying above, another is that moderators seem unsure of correct policy. Moderators probably do not want to unnecessarily review threads with many rants.

    One solution that is rather extreme may be to require registration with a none disposable email-address; at least for those providing support by answering questions.

    ''Ibai [[#post-42298|said]]'' <blockquote> Perhaps instead of hiding them, a better idea is to put them in a bucket similar (or the same) as the flagged answers so moderators can review it. ... </blockquote> A problem is that you do not have many active moderators, and they are already overworked, as ''the-edmeister'' is saying above, another is that moderators seem unsure of correct policy. Moderators probably do not want to unnecessarily review threads with many rants. One solution that is rather extreme may be to require registration with a none disposable email-address; at least for those providing support by answering questions.
  18. Kensie
    Kensie 666 posts
    more options

    That's an interesting idea. Requiring helpers to be signed up. I think that adds a lot of benefits, being able to communicate and encourage new contributors etc.

    That's an interesting idea. Requiring helpers to be signed up. I think that adds a lot of benefits, being able to communicate and encourage new contributors etc.
  19. cor-el
    cor-el 1447 posts
    more options

    BTW, there are still posts by that OP on the Reported abuse page appearing as flagged.
    Can someone with Administrator permissions look into that and remove them to cleanup that page?

    BTW, there are still posts by that OP on the [https://support.mozilla.com/flagged Reported abuse] page appearing as flagged.<br /> Can someone with Administrator permissions look into that and remove them to cleanup that page?
  20. the-edmeister
    the-edmeister 603 posts
    more options

    ^ I have tried cleaning up the Flagged Content Pending page, but it probably needs an Admin account to get them cleared. Tried with two of those down aways from the top of the list and that's when I noticed them getting moved to the top after reloading the page.


    Ed

    ^ I have tried cleaning up the Flagged Content Pending page, but it probably needs an Admin account to get them cleared. Tried with two of those down aways from the top of the list and that's when I noticed them getting moved to the top after reloading the page. Ed
  1. 1
  2. 2