[cipheredStones]

What a bizarre response from Google, a couple hours after this was posted:

> @Reporter: As we are not very clear about the issue being faced by you, could you please elaborate on the same by providing detailed manual repro steps to reproduce the issue from our end.

> Also requesting you to share the expected, actual behaviours along with screen-cast for better understanding of the issue.

> *Note: Requesting you to copy-paste the entire content of "chrome://version/?show-variations-cmd" details to a .txt file format and attach it.

> Thanks..!

What could possibly be unclear about this bug report?

[cedws]

This kind of reply is why I can’t be bothered to report bugs anymore in general - between you and the people who know how to solve the problem there are five layers of bureaucrats who want to waste your time by bouncing the ball back into your court and asking for completely irrelevant details.

[MithrilTuxedo]

I think of them in terms of the adapter pattern. It would be great if I could talk directly to the SME on the other end of my problem, but the interface I'm going through is the interface for everything so the first layer you hit is the facade with a bunch of adapters that don't know much about the implementation behind the interfaces they're trying to get your message to.

[nh2]

This has happened to me a couple times in the Chromium bugtracker.

Another issue I filed:

https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40900126

I provided a click-by-click instruction with only 3 steps.

The triager created screen recordings twice, each time skipping an aspect of step 2; I wrote:

    > "You did not follow step (2) of my repro steps: Loading a 1 GB file form a Windows file share (network folder)."
    >
    > ...
    >
    > This time you made the file 1 GB, but still do not load it from a Windows file share (network folder). Instead, you are again using your local Downloads folder.

[ycombinatrix]

Lol. "Thanks..!!"

[woleium]

probably just an ai or unskilled triage tech responding?

[rob74]

I'd tend towards the latter, AI would have been more wordy and polite (it would have written "Also, please share" instead of " Also requesting you to share").

Sounds like someone just had a desire to make this pesky bug report go away, requesting detailed version information, detailed steps to reproduce, expected behaviour and a screencast (!), hoping the reporter wouldn't provide them so they have an excuse to close the ticket?

[thiscatis]

The “also requesting you to share” clearly reads as an expression from a certain part of the world with a lot of outsourced tech.

[dannyw]

Maybe outsourced?

[nottorp]

Nah, it’s “AI”.