When the same mistake shows up again and again across a user base, it's not a string of individual failures. It's a signal about the product itself. That's the argument Pauline Shangett, from ChangeNOW, is making: recurring errors should be treated as product data, not client error.
The case for reclassifying errors
Shangett's point is straightforward. If one person trips over a step, you might blame their footing. If a hundred people trip over the same step, the step is the problem. The same logic applies to software, apps, or any service where users repeatedly hit the same wall. When a mistake recurs across many users, it stops being an isolated incident and becomes a pattern worth studying.
That pattern, she argues, belongs in the product team's hands. It's data about how the design fails, where the flow confuses, or what the interface doesn't explain. Treating it as client error—blaming the user for not understanding—misses the point entirely.
Why the distinction matters
The difference isn't just semantic. It changes who owns the fix. If the error is the user's fault, the solution is to tell them to try harder, read the manual, or watch a tutorial. If the error is the product's fault, the solution is to redesign the step, rewrite the label, or simplify the flow.
Shangett's framing pushes the responsibility onto the people who build the thing. That's a harder ask. It means admitting the product isn't as intuitive as intended. But it also means the fix actually helps everyone, not just the one person who finally figures it out.
A shift in how companies see their users
This isn't just about fixing bugs. It's about changing the default assumption. Many organizations still treat support tickets as evidence of user incompetence. Shangett's approach flips that: a cluster of similar complaints is a free usability test, run at scale, pointing directly at what needs to change.
For ChangeNOW, a company that deals with digital asset exchanges, the stakes are practical. A confusing button or an unclear confirmation step can lead to costly mistakes. If those mistakes happen often enough, the product team has a clear mandate to act—not to scold the users.
The argument also carries a subtle warning. Ignoring recurring errors as "user error" doesn't make them go away. It just ensures the same people keep stumbling, and new users stumble too. The data is already there. The question is whether companies are willing to read it.
Shangett's position is a challenge to the industry's default. It asks teams to look at their error logs differently, to see patterns instead of individual failures. Whether that perspective gains traction will depend on how many product teams are ready to take the blame.
