3175: Website Task Flowchart

Website Task Flowchart

|< < Prev #3175 (December 1, 2025) Next > >|

Title text: Tired of waiting on hold? Use our website to chat with one of our live agents, who are available to produce words at you 24/7!

|< < Prev Random Explanation Next > >|

Explanation

This is one of 52 incomplete explanations: This page was created by a live agent producing words at you. Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

This is a flowchart comic. It ostensibly shows how to accomplish a task on a generic website.

The first step as listed in the flowchart is to attempt to log into the website. In all cases this would include pulling up the website, which could fail if the website itself is having issues. Once the home page is visible, the next step (in some cases as not all websites require logging in) would be to sign in by entering your username and password, which could fail if you enter an incorrect username and/or password or if the website is having problems with their authentication coding such that even legitimate username/password combinations are being rejected. Troubleshooting could include visiting a website such as https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/ to see if the problem is widespread or if you're the only one having the issue, double-checking your username/password, googling the specific error message you're seeing, if applicable, or seeing if anyone else is having the same problem you're having, however the flowchart provides no guidance as to the actual troubleshooting involved, likely because the specific steps would vary greatly depending on the specific problem being encountered, and the personality of the individual this flowchart is likely aimed at being one who, like Randall, has a need to figure out why things aren't working and hates to resort to talking to someone unless absolutely necessary.

If you finally get it working and are able to get to the area you were trying to get to to do that task you were trying to do, the next part of the flowchart asks if the task was successful. Being unsuccessful could include unintentional website issues (i.e. bugs) or simply that the website doesn't have the tools to accomplish the specific task you are trying to accomplish. Troubleshooting could include steps like above as well as things like trying to use those tools that ARE available in alternate or creative ways to try to accomplish your intended task.

If you have managed to both log in and do your work (perhaps eventually, see below), its last stage is merely a congratulatory message. At this point, you have succeeded in the task that the flowchart was supposedly helping you to complete.

It is when you have problems that the flowchart gives you the additional instructions. In both the case of being unable to log in and being unable to do the whatever-it-is that you're trying to do, the chart guides you to the perhaps just as unhelpful troubleshooting directive for the respective issue. In line with the generalist brevity of the other instructions, this merely consists of the instruction to troubleshoot the issue, without providing any actual guidance as to what specific approaches to take in that troubleshooting. The only concession given to the complexity that might be involved is that it explicitly states that you will have to spend several hours doing this (without any actual indication what it is that you'll be doing for several hours). Following which, each diversion queries whether any of whatever-you-did worked. The good news, if that all did work out in the end, is that you've now back on the the path that ultimately leads to the trite congratulations for being successful.

However, failing either troubleshooting dumps you into a "give up"-themed flow, sending you down the route of calling the Customer Service line. This proceeds to uphold exactly the same standards of helpfulness as the rest of the flowchart, by intoducing you to the inevitable 'hold message' which it fully expects (probably correctly) to contain an automated suggestion that you try to use the website instead of calling them directly. While that message probably is helpful for anyone who called the support line BEFORE trying the website, it assumes their website is working properly and that all tasks a person might want to do can be accomplished via the website so it is like kicking you when you're already down to hear that "advice" after spending hours trying to use a website that simply would not work for what you were trying to do.

As, by now, you have probably been wrestling with the website already for several hours, the flowchart does not actually present any proper 'advice', merely the prediction that the entire frustrating episode will then have you throwing both computer and the phone handset away, before even hearing the full message. Specifically, into the sea, which is a drastic and non-trivial action to take, as you would be wasting devices which may cost over $1,000 each. It should at least, however, formally end this attempt to accomplish your troublesome task upon the troublesome website.

The title text is yet another part of the typical automated support-line message, perhaps for anyone who had not followed the flowchart as faithfully. In this further recorded suggestion, you may be encouraged to visit the website's 'live chat' function, a fairly recent development that combines the best/worst^{[delete as inapplicable]} aspects of both online and phone-line support. "Live agents" is an ambiguous term, possibly being true support-line staff with all the answers to your questions. However, as it often leverages the ambiguity of typed-text communications, it often remains ambiguous as to whether you have a single (and qualified) person assisting you, the conversation may well be passed around various rather less than knowledgeable staff who are merely following a 'script' that follows a flowchart process (hopefully more useful than this one) to let them give more expert advice than they might be capable of. Or, increasingly, an automated/AI text-processing backend that attempts to understand your queries and follows a similar script-based rabbit-hole towards whatever conclusion it is capable of (including triaging your initial responses before even allowing 'a real human', with the necessary skills, to be bothered by your request).

The claim that they can "produce words at you" might be slightly mangled English, or a blatantly honest admission that any conversation you have will be with a potentially inexaustible AI system, which websites have increasingly utilized in place of customer service representatives since 2024. At its worst, the words you receive might have even less understanding of your problem, as merely being able to send even vaguely logical sequences of words might be worse than useless. Additionally, giving random vague sequences of words would be very infuriating and cause the user to throw the laptop into the ocean.

Transcript

This is one of 27 incomplete transcripts: Don't remove this notice too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

[Caption above the panel:] Doing a task using a company or organization's website:

[Below this is a flowchart, starting with "Go to website, try to log in"]

[Box 1 (start):] Go to website, try to log in (go to to box 2)

[Box 2:] Did it work? (Yes/No)

• Yes: Go to box 3
• No: Go to box 6

[Box 3:] Try to do your task (go to box 4)

[Box 4:] Did it work? (Yes/No)

• Yes: Go to box 5
• No: Go to box 8

[Box 5 (end):] Nice! Done!

[Box 6:] Spend hours troubleshooting account/login (go to box 7)

[Box 7:] Did it work? (Yes/No)

• Yes: Go to box 3
• No: Go to box 10

[Box 8:] Spend hours troubleshooting website (go to box 9)

[Box 9:] Did it work? (Yes/No)

• Yes: Go to box 5
• No: Go to box 10

[Box 10:] Give up and call customer service (go to box 11)

[Box 11:] Hold message: "Did you know you could do all of this more quickly and easily on our website? Just go to W-W-W dot..." (go to box 12)

[Box 12 (end):] Throw phone and laptop into the sea

  Add comment        Create topic (use sparingly)       Refresh 

Discussion

> who are available to produce words at you 24/7!

Is "produce words at you" an AI reference? -- Dtgriscom (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it is likely an AI reference. —theusaf (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but it does say "live agents" earlier so it could also be a reference to live but non-native language speakers in a foreign call center. 47.248.235.170 20:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Pat

Real-time bots are live but not alive. 64.114.211.79 21:26, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I feel like for some certain definition of 'alive' bots could be considered alive. They are (kind of?)sentient, which just means they can think. 'sapient', on the other hand, means that he/she/they is self-aware. While it is generally considered that bots are not live, this may not always be true. Depending on how advanced AI ever get, (most probable answer: not very) they may one day be able to evolve and reproduce. They already perform metabolism and homeostasis (power and fans). They have structure, they are made of computer chips (im not a computer nerd, so this probably isn't accurate). They react to stimuli. Honestly, all that needs to let them be considered 'alive' is for them to be able to make other AI and for those AI to be slightly different, which they kind of already can. Besides being made of metal, there is no real reason to claim that an AI isn't 'alive', that's just what mainstream media claims. --Kirinhatchi (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

They're certainly live as in "live TV" and/or a "live electricity socket", as in active/functional/doing-what-they-are-designed-to-do. 78.144.255.82 01:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

wow second commenter --LazyTiger0203 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Is Randall just now finding out about this?!? What sequestered Internet space has he been hiding in? I want. Of course it's probably gone now. 205.175.118.2 20:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I have fixed several spelling errors. RadiantRainwing (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I would replace the "Throw electronics into sea" step with "As soon as the call is no longer on hold, say the website the hold message suggests is not working". Throwing devices into sea causes e-waste. 2001:4C4E:1C14:9800:F167:89F7:6CCE:353B 08:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Who cares about that, when the big problem is still all those Titanics to watch out for? 82.132.237.203 16:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC) ;)

Companies can't seem to understand that literally the only reason people call their customer service line is because *THEY NEED TO TALK TO AN ACTUAL HUMAN BECAUSE THE COMPUTER IS INADIQUATE*!--136.226.7.187 20:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

But think of the glorious profits we can make by firing humans who need our jobs to survive! --DollarStoreBa'al^Converse 20:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I always try to solve problems myself before calling the helpdesk. This involves applying the most obvious fix, then the next most obvious. When these fail (as I expected), I call.

"Hello, Service Desk, ** speaking, how may I help you?"

"I'm having trouble trying to do *** on your website. But I've already tried the most obvious solutions, so don't bother suggesting them."

"OK. Have you tried #1 *** ?"

"Yes, I said I've tried that."

"What about #2 ***?"

Why do they insist on suggesting solutions that I've already told them don't work? Beechmere (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Because you haven't? They may or may not have a script to follow, or actually know their thing, but (unless you've abbreviated your introductory description) they've got a voice at the other end only saying "the most obvious solutions" have been tried. But are these the obvious solutions to the actual expert (or the maybe-'experts' who wrote the support-workflow script), or just have skipped the real First Action Points entirely. They probably have to deal with many misconceptions from every (self-professed) 'technicaly-adept' voice on the end of the line. (Or, if script-led, don't recognise your more homegrown terminology as it relates to what they only know from what they've occasionally had described to them on their on-screen 'expert flowchart'.)

And they've really got to (e.g.) ask whether you've actually plugged the printer in (in times past, Parallel Port; these days, USB or even network cable; unless it's a wireless connectivity of your choiceñ) because all the rest of the checks (and which driver/config redo to use) isn't going to help much if there's no way that the thing that's supposed to be talking can be heard by the thing that's supposed to be listening.

(Notwithstanding the old "yes, it's definitely plugged in!", which can sometimes be resolved by "but have you tried plugging the cable in the other way round?"... Occasionally a bidirectional cable or a symmetrical plug actually works one way round when it won't the other (though I'd suspect cable/connector damage, in such cases, and that's a temporary fix at best), but amazingly it sometimes works(!) with an asymmetric connection (whether D-Sub, USB-pre-C, etc). Because the know-it-all who was adamant that it was plugged in only actually checked when asked to fiddle with it, now plugs it in the 'other' (i.e. one and only) way round and then happily/resentfully accepts that it's started working.)

That said, as a tech-type myself I do groan at being dealt with by people for whom my 'obvious' and tech-grounded explanation of the steps I've tried so far seem to be heard as nothing much far from "one of cross-beam's gone out of skew on treadle!", just because they can't match my words to the equally descriptive words from their script/training/experience, and so we may have to bounce around a few terms to find common ground (ethernet cable or patch cable, etc... you know, RJ45 ends, etc, and if it's a crossover one I'd tell you) to get onto the same (early) page in the troubleshooting handbook.

When I've been the tech-support (internal, only, so not the same kind of anonymous desk-drone as alluded to above), I've been at the receiving end of a wide range of 'incoming expertise', and a wide range of how complicated the error actually was. From the "Fonzi" repair (Repair Manouevre Number One: Hit it! ...works surprisingly often) and the "Roy" (Repair Manouevre Number Two: "Have you tried turning it off and back on again..?") to the truly weird (the reason why one particular line-printer wouldn't print off one particular client's reports on one particular day... we worked out why, but as the problem wouldn't arise the next working day we didn't change the deliberately obtuse thing work, just suggested those printouts could wait a day, and made an internal note in case any other client's work on any future day stopped printing on any other printer due to a similar confluence of issues). Plenty of them were at least partially PEBCAK issues, though some of those users really did pride themselves over having tried "all the obvious fixes", despite being proven otherwise from a thirty-second desk-visit after the five minute talk-through over the phone hadn't gone well at all... 82.132.237.210 15:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
        Add comment