Michael Hannigan
My feedback
28 results found
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
5 votesMichael Hannigan
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Michael Hannigan
commented
No.
-
6 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Michael Hannigan
commented
I agree. Everyone should vote to agree with you.
Michael Hannigan
shared this idea
·
-
76 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Michael Hannigan
commented
I would really like the ability to post, at least, images inline. There was a time when we could post YouTube video inline, which was fantastic! But I would settle for being able to post images. It would make it MUCH easier to give customers instructions.
-
6 votesMichael Hannigan
shared this idea
·
-
140 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Michael Hannigan
commented
Since customers supposedly don't see this, then the whole game of immunity and ratings removal seems a bit silly. To get a reply back saying that the rating "doesn't qualify" is even more silly. Why in the world does this matter? If it's only seen by quality, then why is it up to me to "outsmart" them by strategically clicking an immunity checkbox? It's absolute nonsense. Is this just being kept around to use as ammunition? Beyond it wasting a lot of time and focus, I don't understand what this does.
Michael Hannigan
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesMichael Hannigan
shared this idea
·
-
128 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Michael Hannigan
commented
Yes. Simple. Don't worry about timers, etc. It just needs different wording so that the customer doesn't get an email saying either the Expert needs information, or that their question was answered.
-
392 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Michael Hannigan
commented
No reason for this.
An error occurred while saving the comment Michael Hannigan
commented
Is there a way for me to vote this down?
-
0 votesMichael Hannigan
shared this idea
·
-
3 votesMichael Hannigan
shared this idea
·
-
0 votesMichael Hannigan
shared this idea
·
-
28 votesMichael Hannigan
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesMichael Hannigan
shared this idea
·
-
23 votes
Thanks for the suggestion – there are other considerations for categories, like search terms, so we’re going to ask our paid search team about it, and we’ll let you know what they say. Thanks again, good one!
An error occurred while saving the comment Michael Hannigan
commented
The problem with this is the reluctance of "Admissions" to allow existing Experts into new categories. I started three years ago in three categories. Since then, those categories have split up and I am in most (but not all) of these subcategories. When I ask admissions to allow me into the a couple of subcategories that would make my job much easier, they come back with some snotty/arrogant answer about how they would think that an Expert in "16 Categories" should have enough to do. So to me, I'm still in the SAME three categories I was in when I started, but to some naive admissions person... to them I am in 16 categories that, "gee, sounds like a lot". This would only be appropriate if the "admissions" people were not given the discretion to ***** it up with their superficial knowledge and their seemingly proud inability to reason.
-
146 votesMichael Hannigan
supported this idea
·
-
535 votes
-
15 votesMichael Hannigan
shared this idea
·
-
4 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Michael Hannigan
commented
I have to choice but to give this idea 0.0 votes. I'm very sorry. It's not gonna fly. In fact, I'll do everything I can against it's passage.
No. Too many Experts would use this as a way to claim questions. We don't need to encourage the mentality of "my questions". They aren't the Expert's questions. JA pays a good chunk of money for each customer that ends up here. They need the highest probability of a satisfied customer that they can get. However, if it is used inappropriately and detracts from the customer experience, then the Infringing Expert should be punished accordingly/banned for life.