OK, I just added my sole proprietorship's bank account as a payment-receipt method. Upwork auto-flags these as name mismatches. It also apparently automatically submits them for manual review—which it does not tell us. Rather, one gets contradictory messages that there is a mismatch and (later) that the account will be activated by such-and-such-date.
That is not the issue.
I responded to the initial error message by asking for a manual review of the name mismatch. I quoted Upwork's procedure as the body of my request, and included the relevant documentation from the state of Connecticut and the Town Clerk's office. I got the standard auto-reply, followed by a series of replies from a human being (paraphrased):
- asking if I wanted to change the name on my original payment method (a separate account)
- asking for the documentation I had already submitted
- asking for a screenshot of an error message that was no longer appearing
- explaining why I was being asked for documentation they already had, by referring me to the page I had already quoted to them in my initial request.
I responded to each successive bit of
incompetence irrelevance and redundancy calmly, answering the questions and providing the information requested, or pointing out that they already had it, and suggesting no further action needed to be taken, since the system was no longer showing a problem, and was showing an impending activation date.
I finally got a response saying there were no issues with the account addition, and the mismatch had been dealt with—the response I should have received originally—and apologizing for any confusion the CSR's correspondence had caused.
Um, I was not the one who was confused.
That is not the issue.
I tend to be generous with auto-feedback systems. There was no way I could respond to the follow-up service evaluation by saying the service I had received was good, so I said it was bad. I specified why it was bad—much more succintly than above, because the damning evidence was in the correspondence.
This is the issue:
I received a response from a lead or supervisor expressing regret over the mishandling, advising that the CSR involved would receive further training, and expressing the hope to provide better service in future. All right and just. Then I was asked if I would consider revising my feedback.
I was not satisfied with the service I received. I am not satisfied with the service I received. I will never be satisfied with the service I received. And now that I have been asked to treat a bad customer service experience, however trivial, as if it were some forgotten bad dream, i will be even more dissatisfied with the unforgettable affrontery of such a request than I ever was with the original, formerly forgettable mishandling.
That is all.
"... I received a response from a lead or supervisor expressing regret over the mishandling, advising that the CSR involved would receive further training, and expressing the hope to provide better service in future. All right and just. Then I was asked if I would consider revising my feedback..."
Michael - Maybe someone should explain to the lead that your feedback isn't personal - it is just business! Of course, after the 'further training' the CS will, hopefully, provide better service and will duly get positive feedback. And then... he/she will be able to look back at his/her work history and say - yes, see how far I've come! I've grown! I can also teach others. Like I said, there's nothing personal in saying exactly what you feel about the service you received; and especially, when both parties concur on the fact that your issue was handled shoddily.
Indeed, Mercy, one of the reasons I tend to be generous in feedback is that I know it directly affects a person's employment situation. I make a point of praising excellence, even sometimes writing letters when I haven't been asked. I'll rate simple competence higher than some would because I know these ratings can be employed by management in a cutthroat fashion.
I was actually pleased to hear that the supervisorial response was further training of the CSR. That had been my hope, for his/her sake—as you point out—as well as for ours as customers. (It might be too much to hope that the original training, which likely emphasized prompt rather than accurate responses, might also get a closer look.)