In T11597#193660, @epriestley wrote:

We've iterated through a few versions of instruction lengths without much luck, and an older version of the form had a bit more text upfront but didn't seem to have any impact.

The most extreme version of this is documented in T11095, where a short-lived form only said "it costs $1,500 to submit this form" and the very first person to submit it didn't read that. See T11095#178732 for what that user saw and the task as a whole for what came of it. It's hard to imagine we could make the "root problems" documentation more concise than "Support requests are billed at $1,500/hr."

In T11597#193651, @epriestley wrote:

My goal is to fix this process so that we don't have to go through it over and over and over again.

The repeated callouts, giant text, etc., are because many, many users do not follow these instructions and we receive many feature requests like this: approximately one line of text asking for a very specific feature, which wastes our time (and the reporter's time!) and suggests that the author did not read any of the documents. This is worse for everyone than if we could get users to just read the documents -- we'd spend way less time on requests and users would get answers faster. Users who file reports like this are hurting the project and hurting themselves.

When we ask how we could fix things, no one claims they had a hard time finding the instructions. Everyone claims they read them and understood them, and everyone says they are clear after the fact. But I still waste a ton of time asking questions to figure out the root problem, essentially following the techniques and discussion already laid out in the documents, and no one has any feedback to improve the process.

One possible explanation is that a significant number of our users are basically lazy jerks who don't respect our time and are possibly even willing to lie about reading documentation to get a worse answer more slowly than if they'd followed the instructions. I don't like this explanation and I'd like to believe we just did a bad job with some of the documentation, but this scenario has played out so many times now without anyone being able to point at what we should improve that I'm having trouble coming up with other explanations.

The current state of affairs is also extremely negative for everyone. It's really frustrating for us, since it wastes a tremendous amount of our time. It's frustrating for users -- when I pointed you at the documentation, it seems like you felt like I'd just dismissed your problem. But we also can't spend two hours doing this kind of question-and-answer walkthrough with every user. We don't have the resources, and "free help with any question no matter how vague and time consuming" isn't a sustainable model.

I suppose I could have read it more carefully but at this point I feel like your goal is to make sure I feel bad about it. Again, I'm sorry for wasting your time.

Frankly, my biggest issue when people submit feature requests is all the chaff. But I see how you could want what you're after as far as requests go. I will admit that while I did read the first document and totally missed the second document on root problem description. Given its location in a giant red box, I'm not sure how that happened. I'm sorry for wasting your time.

In T11597#193619, @epriestley wrote:

How common is it that a developer is only allowed to see company A, and not see company B? Is this common, or can most employees see all or almost all of the information about companies and you mostly want to prevent employees of company A from seeing information about company B and vice versa?

Well, it sounds like what you're getting at is that we're using Phabricator incorrectly.

Why shouldn't a developer be a member of a project they are working on? Even if a project is used as a security group for use in the Visible To or Editable By fields in a task or project there might be multiple security groups they need membership to.

They will be working on multiple projects.

In this case, we have a new developer and he needs to be added to multiple projects.

In fact, I did read it. I believe I've effectively described the problem. I can't believe that nobody else has this problem nor that the intent of my feature request is unintelligible. Would a more compliant description be: There is no way to add a user to more than one project at a time. Visiting each of 30 projects individually is a waste of time. Or even, more generally, modifying a user's settings for global things like project membership is impossible without visiting each project individually.

I guess I'll never know what I did wrong. Thanks for your time.