I see. :P On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote:
> my point was your logic regarding 'calculating magic/metric' for > extremely long call times shouldn't be part of the 'logic' it > SHOULD be 'inhouse' policy where the mgr gives agentA a nice long > chat about how to sell/service the client more effectively. > > i know there is at least one other out there that agrees with > me. <G> > > > Brian West wrote: > > > > I was speaking in a logic related to real call routing and queueing. In > > House policy can be built on top of your call strategy. What we are > > needing is input on logic only .. > > > > bkw > > > > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote: > > > > > translation: manager gets off thier fat ass and actually talks to > > > agentA regarding 'INHOUSE' policies, and how it will effect the agents > > > employment! > > > > > > <G> > > > > > > Brian West wrote: > > > > > > >But how do you translate inhouse to logic for app_queue. :P > > > > > > > >On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>ok and what happens when agentA in on a 3 hour call? once again i think > > > >>this type of 'senario' should be covered by 'in house' policy.. not some > > > >>super queue tweek <G> > > > >> > > > >>Brian West wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>Ok just had my boss point something out: > > > >>> > > > >>>"I'd think dumping calls on most-idle would be fairly straightforward, but > > > >>>could be skewed if agentA is on a 40 minute call, agentB has a bunch of 5 > > > >>>minute calls" > > > >>> > > > >>>So total call time should be counted in the logic somewhere. > > > >>> > > > >>>bkw > > > >>> > > > >>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Brian West wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>>I think we are starting to see what type of logic people are wanting in > > > >>>>fewestcalls and leastrecent strategy. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>bkw > > > >>>> > > > >>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>i disagree, instead of thinking 'fallback' how about 'order' the agents > > > >>>>>(by effecting the 'metric') so you 'target' the agent you want first > > > >>>>>then if fail they go right to the next one in the 'ordered' list. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>Brian West wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>>leastrecent suffers the same fait as fewestcalls onlying ringing the > > > >>>>>>leastrecent agent over and over endlessly. It should have a fallback > > > >>>>>>option. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>roundrobin with leastrecent first > > > >>>>>>roundrobin with fewestcalls first > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>I would like to see a roundrobin with leastbusy first option. > > > >>>>>>(just because you have taken less call or leastrecent doesn't mean you > > > >>>>>>haven't been a busy agent!) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>I'm sure better autologoff logic as per my first email would be a great > > > >>>>>>idea also. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>bkw > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>well if you ask me, the leastrecent part would work if you reversed the > > > >>>>>>>logic on the metric. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>my other last_used mod would do a time_t on that agent the last time it > > > >>>>>>>was 'tried' (ast_request'd) then (i was using arrays) qsort so that (new > > > >>>>>>>agents) '0' would be on top, and the agent that got the most recent > > > >>>>>>>attempt would be on the bottom '1057174447' (below is an example) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> -- sorted agent array: 317 last_used: 0 > > > >>>>>>> -- sorted agent array: 318 last_used: 0 > > > >>>>>>> -- sorted agent array: 319 last_used: 0 > > > >>>>>>> -- sorted agent array: 300 last_used: 1057174447 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>that way, (for leastrecent anyway), you are always working with a full > > > >>>>>>>stack of agents. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>Brian West wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>First of all I would like to thank Mark for getting roundrobin to go > > > >>>>>>>>roundrobin. Good job. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Now we have some options here for leastrecent and fewestcalls strategy. > > > >>>>>>>>It > > > >>>>>>>>needs some work on the logic and Mark recommend that I ask the list and > > > >>>>>>>>get some input before he makes any changes to it. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>fewestcalls from what I have seen would always ring the agent with the > > > >>>>>>>>fewestcalls first then go into roundrobin if that agent didn't answer. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Next new caller would ring fewestcalls agent first then start roundrobin. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>What do you think should happen in fewestcalls? Right now it just rings > > > >>>>>>>>the agent with the fewestcalls over and over with current app_queue > > > >>>>>>>>logic. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>leastrecent from what I have been looking at will ring the agent that has > > > >>>>>>>>least recently take a call first then if they don't answer go into > > > >>>>>>>>roundrobin. Then the next new call coming from queue would first go to > > > >>>>>>>>the leastrecent first then try every agent in roundrobin till answered > > > >>>>>>>>then starting over again. New caller from queue hits leastrecent agent > > > >>>>>>>>first. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Same thing happens in leastrecent strategy. The leastrecent agent will > > > >>>>>>>>ring over and over with current app_queue logic. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Now some of you might recommend autologoff options. But that also might > > > >>>>>>>>need some work. I don't want to log off an agent for not answering the > > > >>>>>>>>phone only once. So here is how I would like to see autologoff work. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Example: > > > >>>>>>>>queue timeout = 20 > > > >>>>>>>>agent autologoff = 60 > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>The agent would have to not answer their phone 3 times in a row to get > > > >>>>>>>>logged off. As it stands now they did not answer just once and get > > > >>>>>>>>logged > > > >>>>>>>>off. Thus allow for an employee to use the excuse for not working when > > > >>>>>>>>they should be logged in and taking calls. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Unless i'm wrong here. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Please post your input on these options and how you would like them to > > > >>>>>>>>see > > > >>>>>>>>them function function. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>Thanks, > > > >>>>>>>>Brian > > > >>>>>>>>CWIS Internet Services > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > > >>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>_______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > > >>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>_______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > > >>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>_______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > > >>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>_______________________________________________ > > > >>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>_______________________________________________ > > > >>>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>_______________________________________________ > > > >>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >Asterisk-Users mailing list > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
