canmove, Confirmed users
1,511
edits
PostCrash: Difference between revisions
done
No edit summary |
(done) |
||
| (26 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The goal of this project is to engage with users who provided an e-mail address in the Crash Reporter by | The goal of this project is to engage with users who provided an e-mail address in the Crash Reporter by | ||
* Providing relevant info about their crash as well as general info about how to avoid crashes in Firefox. | * Providing relevant info about their crash as well as general info about how to avoid crashes in Firefox. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 12: | ||
* After a bug has been fixed and shipped in a Firefox release, to inform the user that the bug is fixed in Firefox version x.y.z. This will also work as a powerful way of retaining users, including getting users back who may have switched to another browser between the crash report and the fix. | * After a bug has been fixed and shipped in a Firefox release, to inform the user that the bug is fixed in Firefox version x.y.z. This will also work as a powerful way of retaining users, including getting users back who may have switched to another browser between the crash report and the fix. | ||
== When submitting the crash report ( | == When submitting the crash report (Q1 2011) == | ||
This e-mail will be automated: | This e-mail will be automated: | ||
| Line 30: | Line 28: | ||
Issues with regard to authenticity of email / phishing can be addressed by encouraging users to "visit mozilla.com and click on blah for more information" (taking a lead from Paypal/eBay here). We should make sure that emails come from a mozilla.com address and use whatever we have in place for email authentication. | Issues with regard to authenticity of email / phishing can be addressed by encouraging users to "visit mozilla.com and click on blah for more information" (taking a lead from Paypal/eBay here). We should make sure that emails come from a mozilla.com address and use whatever we have in place for email authentication. | ||
== When new support documentation is available (Q4) == | == When new support documentation is available (Q4 2010/Q1 2011) == | ||
This e-mail will be automated: | This e-mail will be automated: | ||
| Line 38: | Line 36: | ||
Generally, this e-mail should make the new information prominent, but otherwise retain the language and key messages of the initial e-mail. | Generally, this e-mail should make the new information prominent, but otherwise retain the language and key messages of the initial e-mail. | ||
== When a bug has been fixed in a shipped Firefox release ( | == When a bug has been fixed in a shipped Firefox release (Q4/October) == | ||
This would in part be a manual workflow: | This would in part be a manual workflow: | ||
# When a release is planned generate a list of fixed bugs (from Bugzilla) | # When a release is planned generate a list of fixed bugs (from Bugzilla) | ||
# Provide facility in Socorro to search by Bugzilla bug for a list of associated crashes | # Provide facility in Socorro to search by Bugzilla bug for a list of associated crashes | ||
# For each associated crash, generate a list of user submitted emails (minus any users who have said they don't want to be emailed again) - this function should be available only from the admin interface | # For each associated crash, generate a list of user submitted emails (minus any users who have said they don't want to be emailed again) - this function should be available only from the admin interface | ||
# Mark those emails as contacted for that given crash, so we don't contact them again. | # Mark those emails as contacted for that given crash, so we don't contact them again. | ||
=Technical requirements= | =Technical requirements= | ||
| Line 83: | Line 69: | ||
*# If a canonical article exists for crash_signature (top search result), return the title and URL | *# If a canonical article exists for crash_signature (top search result), return the title and URL | ||
*# Else if other search results exist for crash_signature (e.g. forum threads), return URL to search results | *# Else if other search results exist for crash_signature (e.g. forum threads), return URL to search results | ||
* Should be available sometime the week of March 14th. | |||
** See [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=631341 bug 631341]. | |||
=== API === | |||
Will be available as of SUMO's 2.6.2 release. Scheduled for 15 March 2011. | |||
GET /postcrash?s=<signature> | |||
Return values: | |||
HTTP/1.0 200 OK | |||
Content-type: text/plain;charset=utf8 | |||
http://support.mozilla.com/... | |||
or | |||
HTTP/1.0 404 Not Found | |||
A request without an <code>s</code> parameter will result in | |||
HTTP/1.0 400 Bad Request | |||
Responses may set caching headers. Conditional GET is encouraged. Consumers should wait before requesting again in the event of a 5xx error. | |||
=Timeline= | =Timeline= | ||
* Monday Sept 13: Meeting with QA to establish QA/Support workflow | * <strike>Monday Sept 13: Meeting with QA to establish QA/Support workflow</strike> | ||
* | * <strike>October: Socorro 1.7.4 freeze (Socorro)</strike> | ||
* | * <strike>October: Socorro 1.7.4 push (Socorro)</strike> | ||
* <strike>October 22: Finalize e-mail template to send out for fixed bugs (Michael/David)</strike> | |||
* <strike>November 22: Finalize e-mail for [Russian crash] (David)</strike> | |||
* <strike>November 22: Finalize support e-mail FAQ and support article for Russian crash (David)</strike> | |||
* <strike>November 24: Have e-mail + support article + FAQ localized into Russian (Alexander)</strike> | |||
* <strike>November 30: Test e-mail campaign to a select number of people to ensure that the e-mail encoding is correct. This can be done on stage. (Laura/IT)</strike> | |||
* <strike>December 14: Push out Socorro 1.7.5.4 which adds support for UTF-8 encoded e-mails (Laura/Socorro/IT)</strike> | |||
* <strike>December 15: Send manual e-mail to users experiencing the Russian crash and use this as a basis for establishing additional requirements for Phase 2 in Q1 2011. (Michael/David/Austin/Christian)</strike> | |||
* <strike>December 17: Follow up with Daniel to determine hit rate (David)</strike> | |||
* <strike>December 17: Send out e-mail to the remaining Russian users</strike> | |||
* <strike>December 23: Finalize PRD to include requirements for Phase 2 in Q1 2011 (David)</strike> | |||
* Ongoing - Next Firefox 3.5.x/3.6.x release: Complie a list of actual crash bugs fixed (Christian) | |||
* Ongoing - Next Firefox 3.5.x/3.6.x release + 7 days: Send out first "crash fixed" e-mails (Michael/David/Christian) | |||
=Future requirements= | |||
* Ability to define a campaign with multiple crash signatures, each with its own set of filtering restrictions (product, versions, etc) | |||
* Ability to wildcard Firefox versions (e.g. "3.5.*,3.6.*") | |||
* Ability to specify whether a campaign is for a fixed or ongoing crash issue (which determines whether this is the final e-mail campaign for those users, or if we are allowed to send additional information in the future) | |||
* <strike>Asynchronous sending of the e-mail -- currently you have to select a really small date range because otherwise the system times out. If this could be changed to e.g. a backend query/job, sending e-mail in a large campaign would be much more straightforward.</strike> | |||
=Questions/Discussion= | =Questions/Discussion= | ||
| Line 97: | Line 126: | ||
** Do repeated crashes mean repeated e-mails to the users with the same message, or do we track so that we don't keep telling users there is no fix for their crash yet? if we don't track it the e-mails start to look like spam. --chofmann | ** Do repeated crashes mean repeated e-mails to the users with the same message, or do we track so that we don't keep telling users there is no fix for their crash yet? if we don't track it the e-mails start to look like spam. --chofmann | ||
* we could be over engineering things here. the system that we had with talkback served a good purpose. when we found a specific crash that we had something specific to tell users about, we constructed the message, then we queued up the system to watch for that signature and send the message. This was for a very small number of the total overall crashes, but had useful information as opposed to just auto-responding. e.g. | * we could be over engineering things here. the system that we had with talkback served a good purpose. when we found a specific crash that we had something specific to tell users about, we constructed the message, then we queued up the system to watch for that signature and send the message. This was for a very small number of the total overall crashes, but had useful information as opposed to just auto-responding. e.g. "from your recent crash we detected that you need to upgrade to Skype X.X to fix the crash." | ||
** For the record, this is pretty much exactly what this project is about: reaching out to users when we actually have something meaningful to say (like "your crash has been fixed"). | |||
At any particular point in time we might have something this specific to say in an extremely low pct. of cases. Numbers below indicate this might be lower than 1% of the time a user reports a crash to us. | At any particular point in time we might have something this specific to say in an extremely low pct. of cases. Numbers below indicate this might be lower than 1% of the time a user reports a crash to us. | ||
| Line 127: | Line 156: | ||
-chofmann | -chofmann | ||
</pre> | </pre> | ||
* The 3.6% might be heavily affected by the fact that the checkbox is unchecked by default. I.e. an insensible default. Can we change that? | |||