User Experience Feedback Loops In Cross-Platform Apps

When something feels off, I like to dig into why. I came across this feedback UX that intrigued me because it seemingly never ended (following a very brief interaction with a customer service rep). So here's a nerdy breakdown of feedback UX flows — what works vs what doesn't. A former colleague once introduced me to the German term "salamitaktik," which roughly translates to asking for a whole salami one slice at a time. I thought about this recently when I came across Backcountry’s feedback UX. It starts off simple: “Rate your experience.” But then it keeps going. No progress indicator, no clear stopping point—just more questions. What makes this feedback UX frustrating? – Disproportionate to the interaction (too much effort for a small ask) – Encourages extreme responses (people with strong opinions stick around, others drop off) – No sense of completion (users don’t know when they’re done) Compare this to Uber’s rating flow: You finish a ride, rate 1-5 stars, and you’re done. A streamlined model—fast, predictable, actionable (the whole salami). So what makes a good feedback flow? – Respect users’ time – Prioritize the most important questions up front – Keep it short—remove anything unnecessary – Let users opt in to provide extra details – Set clear expectations (how many steps, where they are) – Allow users to leave at any time Backcountry’s current flow asks eight separate questions. But really, they just need two: 1. Was the issue resolved? 2. How well did the customer service rep perform? That’s enough to know if they need to follow up and assess service quality—without overwhelming the user. More feedback isn’t always better—better-structured feedback is. Backcountry’s feedback UX runs on Medallia, but this isn’t a tooling issue—it’s a design issue. Good feedback flows focus on signal, not volume. What are the best and worst feedback UXs you’ve seen?

Data Products are NOT all code, infra, and biz data. Even from a PURE technical POV, a Data Product must also have the ability to capture HUMAN Feedback. The User’s insight is technically part of the product and defines 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭’𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 & shape. This implies Human Action is an integrated part of the Data Product, and it turns out 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤. How the user interacts with the product influences how the product develops. But what is the 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐛/𝐰 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬? It’s a 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐔𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 that doesn’t just offer a read-only experience like dashboards (no action or way to capture action), but enables the user to interact actively. This bridge is entirely a user-experience (UX) problem. With the goal of how to enhance the User's Experience that encourages action, the interface/bridge between Data Products and Human Action must address the following: 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝? A discovery problem addressed by UX features such as natural language search (contextual search), browsing, & product exploration features. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐈 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭? An accessibility problem addressed by UX features such as native integrability- interoperability with native stacks, policy granularity (and scalable management of granules), documentation, and lineage transparency. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐈 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞? A more deep-rooted accessibility problem. You can't use data you don't trust. Addressed by UX features such as quality/SLO overview & lineage (think contracts), downstream updates & request channels. Note that it's the data product that's enabling quality but the UI that's exposing trust features. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 & 𝐬𝐮𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬? A data evolution problem. Addressed by UX features such as logical modelling interface, easily operable by both adept and non-technical data users. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐈’𝐦 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭? A measurement/attribution problem. Addressed by UX features such as global and local metrics trees. ...and so on. You get the picture. Note that not only the active user suggestions but also the user’s usage patterns are recorded, acting as active feedback for data product dev and managers. This UI is like a product hub for users to actively discover, understand, and leverage data products while passively enabling product development at the same time through consistent 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐬 by the UI. How have you been solving the UX for your Data Products?

Most teams drown in feedback and starve for insight. I’ve felt that pain across CX, SaaS, retail—and especially in gaming, where Discord, reviews, and LiveOps telemetry never sleep. The unlock wasn’t “more data.” It was AI turning feedback → insight → action in hours, not weeks. Here’s what changed for me: Ingest everything, once. Tickets, app reviews, Discord threads, calls, streams—normalized and de-duplicated with PII handled by default. Enrich automatically. LLMs tag topics, intent, and aspect-level sentiment (what players love/hate about this feature in this build). Act where work happens. Copilots draft Jira issues with evidence, propose fixes, and close the loop with customers—human-in-the-loop for quality. Measure what matters. Not just CSAT. In gaming: retention, ARPDAU, event participation. In other industries: conversion, refund rate, cost-to-serve. Gaming example: a balance tweak drops; AI cross-references sentiment from Spanish/Portuguese Discord channels with session logs and flags a difficulty spike for new players on Android. Product gets a one-pager with root cause, repro steps, and a recommended hotfix—before social blows up. That’s the difference between a rocky patch and a win. This isn’t just for studios. Healthcare, fintech, DTC, SaaS—same playbook, different telemetry. I put my approach into a 2025 AI Feedback Playbook: architecture, workflows, guardrails, and a 30/60/90 rollout you can start tomorrow. If you lead Product, CX, Support, or LiveOps, it’s built for you. 👉 I’d love your take—what’s the hardest part of your feedback loop right now? Link in comments. 💬 #AI #CustomerExperience #Gaming #LiveOps #ProductManagement #VoiceOfCustomer #LLM #Leadership #CXOps

Traditional UX Analytics tell us what happened - users clicked here, spent X minutes, and fell somewhere on the way. But they do not tell us why. Why did a user leave a process? Why did he hesitate before completing the action? This is where the hidden Markov model (HMM) comes. Instead of tracking only surface-level metrics, HMMs expose hidden users, showing how people infection between engagement, hesitation and frustration. With this, we can predict the drop -off before it is - a game changer for UX optimization. Take a health-tracking app. Standard analytics may show: - Some users log smooth data. - Browse without completing other tasks. - Repeat the data again and again before leaving anything. Standard matrix cannot tell us what users are experiencing. HMMs fill the difference that shows how users infection between states over time. By monitoring sessions, clicks and drop-offs, classify HMM users: - Moving → Smarting through tasks. - Search → Click around but not to complete the actions. - Disappointed → hesitation, possibility of repeating steps, leaving. Instead of reacting to the drop-off, teams may see the initial signals of disappointment and intervention. HMMs predict behavior, making UX research active: - Personal onboarding → finds out that users require help. - Hoosier A/B test → explains why a design works better. - Preemptive UI fix → identifies friction before leaving users. Blending qualitative insights with HMM-driven modeling gives a fuller picture of user experience. Traditional UX reacts to problems after research problems. HMM estimates issues, helping teams to customize experiences before despair set. As UX becomes more complex, tracking click is not enough - we need to understand the behavior pattern

“Are you guys just pushing buttons?” A real question. From a real client. And a clear sign something was off. That question made us stop. Because when a client asks that, it means one thing: → You're not delivering perceived value. Not because the work isn’t good. But because the experience isn't. Whether it’s: The problem you’re solving The way you explain your process How you prioritize what matters Or how visible your work is None of it lands if the experience isn’t right. (Assuming it’s the right client, of course.) So what did we do? We took 3 steps: Ran an “offline” user interview Diagnosed where the misalignment was Built a new plan of action Turns out — we weren’t showing our work enough. The client wanted to peek behind the curtain: How were we using platform data? How was their team’s feedback being applied? What was our creative development process actually like? So we pulled back the curtain and showed them: ✅ Brand-specific request boards ✅ Standardized brief templates ✅ UGC + influencer scripting ✅ Booking system for studio shoots ✅ Feedback loops integrated into every stage They saw a strategic, structured creative engine — not button-pushers. The work hadn’t changed. The experience had. And with that shift, so did client satisfaction. Sometimes it’s not more output. Just more clarity, more often. Anyone else been here?