Or even non-software tickets at large corporations. I reported a water dispenser filling too slowly at my office because it took me a few tries just to fill my 1L water bottle. They said it was fixed and closed it.

It was not fixed. So I took a video of myself refilling my water bottle, attached it to the ticket, and re-opened it. They actually fixed it after that. The video was 2m12s long (and I spent god knows how long making the video file small enough to attach to the ticket lol)

▲

fendy3002 a day ago | parent [-]

this is actually a good example of how a more detailed issue will have a higher chance to be addressed. I don't know what information that's your previous report is lacking, but the video certainly give more information that the maintainer can pinpoint the cause and act on it. The ability to pinpoint the cause from the report is a godsent for maintainers, it drastically reduce the time to investigate the cause, thus able to act immediately.

Some of the information in this can may be:

* how "slow" exactly the process is related with normal behavior. If it's just said "slow" on previous report, it's easy to be dismissed

* the dispenser's behavior, such as if the water flow is consistently low volume or clogged intermittently, or if the dispenser is struggling to fetch from water source, etc

	▲	MiddleEndian a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'd say it was both. I gave a pretty detailed explanation before, far more detailed than my post here, including a timeline of when it filled in one shot, then two shots, and then three or four (can't remember). I doubt they actually checked before the video. But I was very motivated to fix the issue so I gave them proof lol
	▲	account42 21 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		More importantly it shows how the reporter actually used the system to trigger the undesired behavior. Just because something is obvious to you doesn't mean it will be obvious to whoever is looking at the bug report.