On two occasions now I've reported what I believe is a BUG in the FAQ module, and each time the development team responds with an explanation that does NOT make sense, suggesting that the behavior of the FAQ module the way it is...is what customers want. I completely disagree, and think this is a good topic of discussion here in the forum then.
So what do you think? If you were to search for an FAQ using this search:
Would you think that the result that should be returned is:
- Only FAQ's where a model of "LG UP7000PUA" was specified
- FAQ's where a model of "LG UP7000PUA" was specified AND all articles where NO specific model was specified (ALL)
According to the developers working at SolarWinds, you'd be completely wrong if you expect behavior #1 to occur. They think that behavior 2 is appropriate (this is the FAQ's current behavior). So to them, the system is "operating as designed" but they aren't able to also provide me any proof where anyone EVER in time said "You know what...when I search for FAQ's that were assigned to a specific model...I also want Web Help Desk to return FAQ's that apply to ALL (or any) models".
Their responses have made NO credible sense and I think it's really more that the developers are trying to dodge the work it would take to fix this.
THIS REALLY frustrates me.
So what do you think? Does result #2 EVER make sense? If it does...you realize in order to find articles that pertain only to a SPECIFIC MODEL, that you'll have to tag EVERY FAQ in your system and designate each to specific exactly which model(s) it applies to.
You'll have to do this, even when something like an article for Microsoft Word...has really no relation to MODELS.
The type of issue generally pertains to Microsoft Word and NOT to the version of Windows Computer it's running on.
My explanations and logic seem irrelevant to the developers...who relegate me to "Feature Request"...but give no evidence anyone ever asked for the FAQ search to even work the way it does.
The explanations and lack of ownership from the development team in these situations is beyond inappropriate to me. It's a repeated effort to avoid fixing what is really bad design and poor thought.
So what do you say? Post your responses below.
