What signals do you use to decide if an ops problem is worth fixing?
In operations roles, the first few weeks can be overwhelming because everything seems urgent.
Stakeholders escalate issues, processes are half-built, and every conversation surfaces something that "needs fixing".
One mistake I've seen repeatedly is treating urgency as a reliable signal for importance.
Often the loudest problems are symptoms of deeper system issues.
I'm curious how others approach this: what signals do you use to decide whether a problem is actually worth fixing versus just noise in the system?
You've managed to get your account shadowbanned less than 30 minutes after creation. Congrats! It looks like your link to your (GPT generated?) Medium article triggered auto-moderation against your account.
One pattern I've noticed in ops teams is that urgency often comes from the point where the system breaks, not where the real problem originates.
So the issue that gets escalated is usually the symptom, not the root cause.
Curious whether others here have frameworks or heuristics for distinguishing signal from noise in operational problems.
[dead]
[dead]