Hoiw about a list of commonly known issues?

Two things got me thinking....

- why doesn't LL compile a list of commonly known issues related to releases? I have heard people say quite confidently on the forum that such data exists. Why not publish it? Something like, "windows XP users running symantec...windows XP users running ATI etc...and so on. This is a practice observed by most gaming companies I've seen, and no doubt saves them time on the tech support lines. Please let me try this first before I start sending you non-anonymous and extensive info on my running processes and so forth (which is undesirable).

- somewhat on the topic, after contacting technical support, I made the (to me) somewhat disturbing discovery that crash reports in SL are not anonymous at all. They apparently have detailed information on exactly who sent the report, lots of info about your machine, and so forth. I thought it was supposed to be anonymous...I found this interesting. I'm a developer too, and know the value of being able to say, "let me inspect your machine", but I also respect the fact that people would prefer options before sending a pile of data that can be directly tied to them, for any reason, to a company that may or may not be using that data for other analysis or reasons (which I would find incredibly hard to believe that LL does not do...info is a commodity after all, and they are business folk).

Please don't make honoring a tech support request based on whether or not we've filed a non-anonymouse info dump/crash report. If we would prefer not to do so, please give us other options other than a repeated request to comply. The support Wiki, while an admirable effort, is not official support, which I believe is reasonable to expect when you are paying in excess of $100 a month for a service that has suddenly become incredibly unstable for many users. I understand community support, but I don't pay for MySQL or Eclipse. If I was paying hundreds of dollars to use those products, I would want support options straight from the source.

I support and/or endorse this idea.

A definative list of if you have "this" combined with "that" or "this other thing", you will have "this problem". Here's how to work around it, or it can't be worked around but we're working on a fix.

I saw a list of "to be" fixed bugs once with thier priorities, but that was geared toward in world problems rather than hardware/software conflicts with the client. We need a permanent section on the site with stability and speed issues documented. Maybe add it to Uncle Linden's plate .

This might also reduce repeated forum questions about common issues.

A live version of this

Would be usefull.

-Adam

Yes I'm aware of the issues list, but that relates to in-game issues. In addition to that, a running list of indentified hardware failure issues, driver incompatibility, and so on, would round it out. This is pretty standards stuff for the majority of games I've been involved with.

As a policy, forcing people to send these reports in order to receive support is without a doubt not the way to go. It simply feels like you are penalizing me for choosing the option to not send crash reports and in fact forcing me to do so in spite of whatever reasons I may have for not doing it. Since there are two options, there should be two resolution paths, not just an arrow on the "didn't send" one that goes to the top of the "sent" one.

To recap...

Two requests for support were fenced off with requests to turn on crash reporting and send logs...these reports are clearly not anonymous at all as LL knew I hadn't sent any from Tcoz Bach (and likely the IP address tied to that account and so on..have you ever noticed that if you clear you cookies, the website still logs you in...reset your router and that goes away). The responses were quick, but failed to provide any support at all, unless I sent this info.

I am a developer too. I know the value of these reports. But there is an option not to send them and I would think LL would appreciate the decision not to do so, and have an official (not community provided) option for people who have made this available and valid choice. I don't know anybody at LL personally and have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the exact details regarding what they do with the info (i.e., like when we found they use a spamhouse for mailing), so I choose not to provide them with this info (which is no doubt why they make the option available).

Consider this...the machine you are crashing on constantly is on a network or machine you don't own. These people have taken great pains not to allow the state of their network, or any piece of it, to be visible to the outside world. Sending extensive info on the processes of your machine from such an environment is taboo. The statement, "I'm not comfortable sending that info from this environment" should not be met with a polite, though otherwise stated, "tough. Do it or I will not help you".

A list of known technical issues, and my own technical troubleshooting abilities (many of us may actually know more about Windows than LL, or at least enough to troubleshoot), would probably have solved the matter.