Dear Users... (A thread for Sysadmin, Technical Support, and Help Desk people)

[Dr. Keith]

Are they worried that if it was on a computer and they had to click "OK" they might not read the details?

I really don't know. But there is certainly a mindset in most law offices that every decision needs to be papered and every paper needs a file. The Paperless Law Office is very easy in concept and damn near impossible in practice.

And I am not saying this from upon high. I have worked remotely for most of my clients for over 10 years. None of them have required paper documentation of the work I do for them, and all of the work could be retrieved from multiple electronic sources and backups of those sources. And yet my office is covered in mounds and stacks of paper and I am routinely printing and scanning stuff. There are certain things that I simply do better on paper, or at least I think I do.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'll assume 98% is roughly better than a 68 year old woman doing that slow, deliberate one finger "look and peck" typing is going to do, so it would still be a net win.

I grew up working around women who were using dos versions of wordperfect for stuff that we now use databases for, so I won't jump on that train.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've never understood the "Paper is more secure" thing.

My physical signature is a random squiggle that even I can barely recognize. My digital signature is a 256-bit public key / private key authentication.

I can tell you if an e-mail was delivered, to who, and what time they at least opened it, and if it was forward in some instances.

A fax? "Well it got put in this machine and then it maybe appeared on another machine and after that I couldn't tell you what happened to it."

I can tell you who reads a document on a file server. I can't tell you who reads a document on a bulletin board.

 

[malbui]

I've never understood the "Paper is more secure" thing.

My physical signature is a random squiggle that even I can barely recognize. My digital signature is a 256-bit public key / private key authentication.

I can tell you if an e-mail was delivered, to who, and what time they at least opened it, and if it was forward in some instances.

A fax? "Well it got put in this machine and then it maybe appeared on another machine and after that I couldn't tell you what happened to it."

I can tell you who reads a document on a file server. I can't tell you who reads a document on a bulletin board.

Back in the day when I was doing my chartered accountancy exams in London, a frequent topic for questions in the law paper was on the legal status of sending and receiving faxes. If a message containing a signed contract was picked up from the receiving machine by an office cleaner, was that sufficient to count as delivery and receipt, that kind of thing.

I never understood any of it in detail.

On the payment by cheque thing, my organisation's monthly payment run consists of several hundred thousand payments for a total of roughly $5 billion. I'm so glad we're completely electronic .

 

[Modified]

98% is worthless for an OCR. That means that I have to edit something on every couple of lines of text.

But probably good enough for a text search. I keep all my personal and business records that started on paper or image files as searchable pdf. For any tools or equipment I buy, I download the manual (almost always available) and convert to searchable pdf if necessary. My "filing cabinet" that contains things for which a physical copy is needed is a stack of files about an inch and a half deep.

 

[catsmate]

98% is worthless for an OCR. That means that I have to edit something on every couple of lines of text.

The translation was 98% correct, the OCR, from printed matter, was perfect.

US law firms tend to be picky about payments. Firms under twenty attorneys may have only two people even authorized to sign checks. The owners like to see every penny that is sent out.

This wasn't a small firm and the cheque was computer printed.
In the UK, Ireland, Switzerland and Germany (to take the last half-year or so) they manage EFTs quite well.
The USA is the only place I've enountered cheques at all recently.

 

[catsmate]

Are physical checks the only way they can monitor the disbursement of funds?

Hell no. Paper cheques are far easier to abuse than properly configured EFTs, which can be easily set up for automatic notification of multiple people.

 

[catsmate]

I had to call Comcast Business support to T/S a connectivity issue.

They have literally added fake "typing on a keyboard sounds" in the background to their automated troubleshooting fake voice. Like literally robot lady will like ask for your account number then they play fake keyboard typing sounds as if she is literally typing it into a computer.

Aren't you glad that the machines take such trouble to indulge your human prejudices?

So pretty much like the interns in the department have managed to do for decades - technology really is catching up!

Truly there have been great strides in artificial stupidity in recent years.

 

[catsmate]

I've never understood the "Paper is more secure" thing.

My physical signature is a random squiggle that even I can barely recognize. My digital signature is a 256-bit public key / private key authentication.

I can tell you if an e-mail was delivered, to who, and what time they at least opened it, and if it was forward in some instances.

A fax? "Well it got put in this machine and then it maybe appeared on another machine and after that I couldn't tell you what happened to it."

I can tell you who reads a document on a file server. I can't tell you who reads a document on a bulletin board.

It's not, but many technically underskilled people believe it is.

 

[quadraginta]

I really don't know. But there is certainly a mindset in most law offices that every decision needs to be papered and every paper needs a file. The Paperless Law Office is very easy in concept and damn near impossible in practice.

And I am not saying this from upon high. I have worked remotely for most of my clients for over 10 years. None of them have required paper documentation of the work I do for them, and all of the work could be retrieved from multiple electronic sources and backups of those sources. And yet my office is covered in mounds and stacks of paper and I am routinely printing and scanning stuff. There are certain things that I simply do better on paper, or at least I think I do.

On my first read I took this to mean that you are printing documents from your computer and then scanning those printed documents back into your computer.

I expect this is a mistaken assumption.

It is, isn't it?

 

[The Man]

I really don't know. But there is certainly a mindset in most law offices that every decision needs to be papered and every paper needs a file. The Paperless Law Office is very easy in concept and damn near impossible in practice.

And I am not saying this from upon high. I have worked remotely for most of my clients for over 10 years. None of them have required paper documentation of the work I do for them, and all of the work could be retrieved from multiple electronic sources and backups of those sources. And yet my office is covered in mounds and stacks of paper and I am routinely printing and scanning stuff. There are certain things that I simply do better on paper, or at least I think I do.

Back in the 90's I took the engineering lab I was responsible for paperless. The technician simply had to verify the reading was acceptable by clicking on an acceptance button. However, what we found was people, once they got into a flow of accepting a number of readings, would just tend to click past problematic readings. So we had to reintroduce paper just to have the tech write down each reading. Not only did it slow things down so you didn't tend to get just a reflexive approval click but it made the tech more cognoscente of the actual reading value by having to write it down.

 

[quadraginta]

Back in the 90's I took the engineering lab I was responsible for paperless. The technician simply had to verify the reading was acceptable by clicking on an acceptance button. However, what we found was people, once they got into a flow of accepting a number of readings, would just tend to click past problematic readings. So we had to reintroduce paper just to have the tech write down each reading. Not only did it slow things down so you didn't tend to get just a reflexive approval click but it made the tech more cognoscente of the actual reading value by having to write it down.

How much less cognizant do you think they would have been if they had to type the reading into a computer instead of using pen and paper?

 

[The Man]

How much less cognizant do you think they would have been if they had to type the reading into a computer instead of using pen and paper?

Much less cognizant. Not of the numbers but of the environment as that would've meant typing the number back into the computer giving you the number. At least getting the reading from some equipment and writing it down is what they were use to doing. The readings would have then been entered into the computer when the test was done and the report being written.

Based on the number of readings taken over the span of a given test, part of the paperless effort was to eliminate transcription errors.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Christ, what is with these people? Another roadblock in the same project, and this one's even stupider. Basically they are demanding particular codes appear in each line of data, and say they'll reject any line that doesn't have those codes. The issue is simply that we don't have those codes for this data: by its very nature this data is the data that doesn't have those codes. The data that has those codes gets sent to them elsewhere. The point of the project is to close the gaps by sending them the data they've been missing until now.

But they think they need to use the same criteria for this as they have for what they already get, even though it's that criteria that stops this from being included in that already!

I've explained it several times already but they just. don't. get. it. We have another call tomorrow in which I'll have to go over why excluding all the data results in an empty file and there not being a point in building anything to automatically generate empty files.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Christ, what is with these people? Another roadblock in the same project, and this one's even stupider. Basically they are demanding particular codes appear in each line of data, and say they'll reject any line that doesn't have those codes. The issue is simply that we don't have those codes for this data: by its very nature this data is the data that doesn't have those codes. The data that has those codes gets sent to them elsewhere. The point of the project is to close the gaps by sending them the data they've been missing until now.

But they think they need to use the same criteria for this as they have for what they already get, even though it's that criteria that stops this from being included in that already!

I've explained it several times already but they just. don't. get. it. We have another call tomorrow in which I'll have to go over why excluding all the data results in an empty file and there not being a point in building anything to automatically generate empty files.

Could it be that your explanations are not conveying the intended communication because you are not allowing yourself to use the full array of your vast verbal and written toolkit?

How many times has Dame Judi Dench been referenced as a patient or soggy bottom as a condition? Have every one of the Golden girls made an appearance in your explanations or have you been restricting yourself to just Blanche? Have you only been using one color of glitter? (I hated asking that insulting question just as much as you hated reading it. Let's just say we are all sorry.)

 

[TragicMonkey]

And I got an email about the one piece that did get finished, tested, and moved into production...now they want to add another field. One of the ones that's literally impossible. And can they just re-open the original ticket that got closed because it was finished and we gave them everything they asked for and they signed documents agreeing that was so?

I told them no, it would be a new ticket, and it would be closed immediately because what is being asked for we can't provide.

Frankly, if I were even at the office I'd seriously consider storming out. It's hard to do that when you're working from home, though.

 

[arthwollipot]

I've been told that if a T1 calls on the escalation line I should get them to transfer the call, but so many calls are teaching opportunities. I've had at least three T1s call today with issues that they can resolve on first call, but didn't know how to. Well, now they know. That gets the first-contact call resolution up, and that's a Good Thing, right?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I've been told that if a T1 calls on the escalation line I should get them to transfer the call, but so many calls are teaching opportunities. I've had at least three T1s call today with issues that they can resolve on first call, but didn't know how to. Well, now they know. That gets the first-contact call resolution up, and that's a Good Thing, right?

I've had to remind myself of the only thing that really matters: is your pay any different if things get done right versus wrong?

Mine is the same, regardless. This stupid project of mine with these stupid morons demanding stupid things pays me the same as if I were doing work that matters, so screw it. I will sit here at home "working" by doing nothing but explain in email form twice a week why I can't get the work done. How long can I drag that sort of crap out? Another two decades is all I need, and if the last two years are any sign that will not be a problem. In the year 5600 AD these same damn clients will be spacebeeping at robots "hey, can you add a bunch of impossible nothing to this data, thanks" and the robots will be all "my electron rations are equal whether I ignore the foolish humanoids or not". Then the robots will ignite a singularity and blow the galaxy to smithereens and I, for one, do not blame them a bit.

 

[arthwollipot]

I've had to remind myself of the only thing that really matters: is your pay any different if things get done right versus wrong?

Mine is the same, regardless. This stupid project of mine with these stupid morons demanding stupid things pays me the same as if I were doing work that matters, so screw it. I will sit here at home "working" by doing nothing but explain in email form twice a week why I can't get the work done. How long can I drag that sort of crap out? Another two decades is all I need, and if the last two years are any sign that will not be a problem. In the year 5600 AD these same damn clients will be spacebeeping at robots "hey, can you add a bunch of impossible nothing to this data, thanks" and the robots will be all "my electron rations are equal whether I ignore the foolish humanoids or not". Then the robots will ignite a singularity and blow the galaxy to smithereens and I, for one, do not blame them a bit.

Yeah, that'd be nice, but this is government. We're required to adhere to SLAs, and one of those is first-contact resolution, and we are financially penalised if we do not meet them. Yes, we're part of government too, but we also have our budgets to maintain. The way that works is complicated, and I'm far from understanding how it works - that's way above my pay grade - but if we get our budget penalised we may not be able to retain staff. Which will make the problem worse. Catch-22. Well, that's government for you.

 

[quadraginta]

I've had to remind myself of the only thing that really matters: is your pay any different if things get done right versus wrong?

Mine is the same, regardless. This stupid project of mine with these stupid morons demanding stupid things pays me the same as if I were doing work that matters, so screw it. I will sit here at home "working" by doing nothing but explain in email form twice a week why I can't get the work done. How long can I drag that sort of crap out? Another two decades is all I need, and if the last two years are any sign that will not be a problem. In the year 5600 AD these same damn clients will be spacebeeping at robots "hey, can you add a bunch of impossible nothing to this data, thanks" and the robots will be all "my electron rations are equal whether I ignore the foolish humanoids or not". Then the robots will ignite a singularity and blow the galaxy to smithereens and I, for one, do not blame them a bit.

Hey!

Some of us still have to live in this galaxy, and we aren't all clients.

Let 'em just nuke from orbit. It's been a perfectly good solution for a long time.