Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

pangolin

First.Aspect said:

I'm intrigued that all companies simultaneously have high call volumes at all times.

The unprecedented number of calls certainly feels awfully precedented at this point.

rick_chasey

Say you're running those call centres.

Your budget means you can't hire more people to handle the volume.

What message would you give on the wait, if at all?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Say you're running those call centres.

Your budget means you can't hire more people to handle the volume.

What message would you give on the wait, if at all?

"You are in position x in the queue. Your expected wait time is y"

First.Aspect

I certainly wouldn't recommend pretending that my call us important to them.

I'd also eschew hold music in favour of the occasional bleep to confirm the call is still connected. That way people can do some work while they wait.

First.Aspect

I also probably wouldn't spend the first 90 seconds telling people about the website, and I'd encourage fewer than 2 menu levels, seeing as you get through to the same call centre anyway. Probably, if I have to tell the person my account number and date or birth anyway, I also would not get people to enter them in order to get into the queue in the first place.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

I certainly wouldn't recommend pretending that my call us important to them.

I'd also eschew hold music in favour of the occasional bleep to confirm the call is still connected. That way people can do some work while they wait.

Don't mind the music, but the worst punishment in hell awaits whoever sets it up so that there's a little break in the music and a gap every minute or so just long enough that you think someone has answered, before a recorded message tells you that you are still in a queue.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Say you're running those call centres.

Your budget means you can't hire more people to handle the volume.

What message would you give on the wait, if at all?

"You are in position x in the queue. Your expected wait time is y"

What if your stats say that reduces outcome results and too many people give up when you reveal the wait time?

(I say this, I ran a few searches with people who ran these call centres for insurance companies. I did ask them a few questions when I got to know them over drinks and they assured me, there's data to show that the messages they use are the most effective for their objectives).

pangolin

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Say you're running those call centres.

Your budget means you can't hire more people to handle the volume.

What message would you give on the wait, if at all?

"You are in position x in the queue. Your expected wait time is y"

What if your stats say that reduces outcome results and too many people give up when you reveal the wait time?

(I say this, I ran a few searches with people who ran these call centres for insurance companies. I did ask them a few questions when I got to know them over drinks and they assured me, there's data to show that the messages they use are the most effective for their objectives).

It often feels like the objective is to make me give up, were they explicit in what the objectives were?

rick_chasey

They don't want you to hang up and call later. Basically.

This was claims, so they have targets on how many claims they fulfil etc, and the customers obviously have rather an incentive to speak to someone. It's the product the insurers are ultimately selling.

monkimark

They might not want me to hang up and call back later but I have other things to do, if I know that the queue is 40 minutes and it isn't something critical then it would be better for me to call back another time, I don't really care how it affects their stats.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

They don't want you to hang up and call later. Basically.

This was claims, so they have targets on how many claims they fulfil etc, and the customers obviously have rather an incentive to speak to someone. It's the product the insurers are ultimately selling.

By extension, a call to your electricity provider would be expected to make it as hard as possible to speak to someone and encourage them the fuck off and use the website.

Seems to reflect my lived experience.

Pross

If you call the company's number for selling you stuff I suspect the wait time will be considerably shorter.

First.Aspect

Pross said:

If you call the company's number for selling you stuff I suspect the wait time will be considerably shorter.

Sometimes works, unless that are not programmed to deal with your actual query and just put you in the queue you'd have been in anyway.

Complaints is another one.

Or "if you are thinking of leaving us"

briantrumpet

It would be far better use of everyone's time if the wait time is more than x minutes for an automated call-back system, with a queue of call-backs "All our support staff are on other calls at the moment, and the wait time is about x minutes. We have registered your number and will call you back as soon as you get to the front of the queue".... rings first number in queue, and if not answered in x seconds goes onto next... could even happen during current call with a message when you answer saying "You are next in the queue and one of our support staff will be with you very shortly". With current technology, that should be perfectly possible. Withheld numbers could be invited to record their number via the keypad.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

It would be far better use of everyone's time if the wait time is more than x minutes for an automated call-back system, with a queue of call-backs "All our support staff are on other calls at the moment, and the wait time is about x minutes. We have registered your number and will call you back as soon as you get to the front of the queue".... rings first number in queue, and if not answered in x seconds goes onto next... could even happen during current call with a message when you answer saying "You are next in the queue and one of our support staff will be with you very shortly". With current technology, that should be perfectly possible. Withheld numbers could be invited to record their number via the keypad.

Some companies do this. So do GPs. The problem is, if you miss your 3 second window, you go immediately to jail without passing go.

briantrumpet

This is actually intriguing... and nicely illustrates how conspiracy theory nutters all seem to be attracted to the same bonkers narratives. Keep watching for the pivot to covid... apparently that cancels out being an alleged rapist. I think it would be hard to describe Pierce as a woke lefty.

https://twitter.com/supertanskiii/status/1703717501232631941

rick_chasey

Covid absolutely did the head in for some people.

A journalist I really respected a lot (though often didn't agree with, I should add) really lost her way in covid and have ended up not reading her work anymore as it's just so bonkers.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

It would be far better use of everyone's time if the wait time is more than x minutes for an automated call-back system, with a queue of call-backs "All our support staff are on other calls at the moment, and the wait time is about x minutes. We have registered your number and will call you back as soon as you get to the front of the queue".... rings first number in queue, and if not answered in x seconds goes onto next... could even happen during current call with a message when you answer saying "You are next in the queue and one of our support staff will be with you very shortly". With current technology, that should be perfectly possible. Withheld numbers could be invited to record their number via the keypad.

Some companies do this. So do GPs. The problem is, if you miss your 3 second window, you go immediately to jail without passing go.

A tip used to be to simply not press a button for the options and you got put straight through. They probably got wise to this though and was when they had enough staff.

Is this the direct result of efficiency cuts? We all know what it means when management want efficiency.

briantrumpet

Wondering how old this brickwork is in my crumbly house, revealed by my removing some crumbly render where there seems to have been some water ingress over the years. (An expensive job coming up is to have all the non-breathable external render removed and replaced with a something more suited to brick & cob.)

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Covid absolutely did the head in for some people.

A journalist I really respected a lot (though often didn't agree with, I should add) really lost her way in covid and have ended up not reading her work anymore as it's just so bonkers.

Interesting to look at the parallels from historic plagues. The assumption is that all the weird stuff - witch trials, flagellants and so on - is just the result of a lack of scientific knowledge but we seem to be disproving that theory.

veronese68

First.Aspect said:

I'm intrigued that all companies simultaneously have high call volumes at all times.

and higher than that expected. But don't worry, your call is important to them. Just not enough to warrant paying for staff.

kingstongraham

How do they know my call is important to them before they've answered it? I could be a raving madman.

pblakeney

Could be? 🤣😉

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Covid absolutely did the head in for some people.

A journalist I really respected a lot (though often didn't agree with, I should add) really lost her way in covid and have ended up not reading her work anymore as it's just so bonkers.

Interesting to look at the parallels from historic plagues. The assumption is that all the weird stuff - witch trials, flagellants and so on - is just the result of a lack of scientific knowledge but we seem to be disproving that theory.

People distruat what they don't understand, and the level of basic scientific understanding ( ot to mention literacy and numeracy) is generally extremely low.

Understanding risk, as we know, is not something people are very good at and so given a range of possibilities, people will select the "it might be" that suits them. Often, this will be to react disporoportionately to risk - I must drive Tarquin to the school gates because he might get run over if he walks 150 yards. Often this is to disproportionately underestimate risk - it might be no worse than a cold. Once you've made your arbitrary selection it is fairly easy these days to obtain only information, no matter how crazy, to confirm how right you actually are.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Covid absolutely did the head in for some people.

A journalist I really respected a lot (though often didn't agree with, I should add) really lost her way in covid and have ended up not reading her work anymore as it's just so bonkers.

Interesting to look at the parallels from historic plagues. The assumption is that all the weird stuff - witch trials, flagellants and so on - is just the result of a lack of scientific knowledge but we seem to be disproving that theory.

They had science in those days, it just turned out to be wrong. People think the same might be true now. And on some subjects, they may be right e.g. see the whole fat debate.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Covid absolutely did the head in for some people.

A journalist I really respected a lot (though often didn't agree with, I should add) really lost her way in covid and have ended up not reading her work anymore as it's just so bonkers.

Interesting to look at the parallels from historic plagues. The assumption is that all the weird stuff - witch trials, flagellants and so on - is just the result of a lack of scientific knowledge but we seem to be disproving that theory.

People distruat what they don't understand, and the level of basic scientific understanding ( ot to mention literacy and numeracy) is generally extremely low.

Understanding risk, as we know, is not something people are very good at and so given a range of possibilities, people will select the "it might be" that suits them. Often, this will be to react disporoportionately to risk - I must drive Tarquin to the school gates because he might get run over if he walks 150 yards. Often this is to disproportionately underestimate risk - it might be no worse than a cold. Once you've made your arbitrary selection it is fairly easy these days to obtain only information, no matter how crazy, to confirm how right you actually are.

However low you think the average level of literacy, etc. is now, I'm pretty sure it was lower in the 14th or 17th century. I think it's more about the sense of comfort that even the tiniest illusion of control brings, whether that's appeasing a wrathful God through some arbitrary action or kidding yourself that you have discovered what is 'really' going on via YouTube. That goverments didn't really know what they were doing and were operating on educated guesses is more frightening than the idea that there is actually some grand plan.

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Covid absolutely did the head in for some people.

A journalist I really respected a lot (though often didn't agree with, I should add) really lost her way in covid and have ended up not reading her work anymore as it's just so bonkers.

Interesting to look at the parallels from historic plagues. The assumption is that all the weird stuff - witch trials, flagellants and so on - is just the result of a lack of scientific knowledge but we seem to be disproving that theory.

People distruat what they don't understand, and the level of basic scientific understanding ( ot to mention literacy and numeracy) is generally extremely low.

Understanding risk, as we know, is not something people are very good at and so given a range of possibilities, people will select the "it might be" that suits them. Often, this will be to react disporoportionately to risk - I must drive Tarquin to the school gates because he might get run over if he walks 150 yards. Often this is to disproportionately underestimate risk - it might be no worse than a cold. Once you've made your arbitrary selection it is fairly easy these days to obtain only information, no matter how crazy, to confirm how right you actually are.

However low you think the average level of literacy, etc. is now, I'm pretty sure it was lower in the 14th or 17th century. I think it's more about the sense of comfort that even the tiniest illusion of control brings, whether that's appeasing a wrathful God through some arbitrary action or kidding yourself that you have discovered what is 'really' going on via YouTube. That goverments didn't really know what they were doing and were operating on educated guesses is more frightening than the idea that there is actually some grand plan.

Well that too. It was certainly frightening.

However even when there was a grand plan, people doubled down on de ial and conspiracy.

I fear the ability to make informed decisions is being lost.

This includes listening to a bearded crackpot fiddler on YouTube rather than a reputable journalist.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

This includes listening to a bearded crackpot fiddler on YouTube rather than a reputable journalist.

I regularly get told on here that I put too much faith in the views and opinions of those more qualified than me (or indeed, anyone on the forum); I think you've held that criticism against me recently.

So where do you draw the line between that argument and this one?

Pross

The thing with the conspiracy lot that most amuses / worries me is that they will talk about not being controlled / speaking their mind but will happily cede control who anyone who says what they want to hear (e.g. Trump).

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

This includes listening to a bearded crackpot fiddler on YouTube rather than a reputable journalist.

I regularly get told on here that I put too much faith in the views and opinions of those more qualified than me (or indeed, anyone on the forum); I think you've held that criticism against me recently.

So where do you draw the line between that argument and this one?

My criticism of you is not believing something tweeted by the FT, it is more asserting it must be right because its been tweeted by the FT, rather than engaging in a discussion about problems with it.

I don't see the tension you do. By all means listen to what a beardy crackpot fiddler has to say, but weigh it based on the facts it relies on. If there's lots of hyperbole and no facts, ignore it. If there are facts at least try to assess for yourself what can be concluded from those facts. It's unlikely to be as drastic as the bearded ones suggest.

Same principles apply to mainstream news. And I include FT tweets in that. How often do you need to see a misleading x axis, or a sensationalised statistic to learn from experience to look closer?

"Lightening strikes up 300% in the last year. Could this be due to global warming?"

Vs.

Lightening strikes between 1-5 people annually.

If you calmly present the latter and argue that we need more data to tell if Lightening strikes are increasing, let alone whether there is any meteorological link to climate change, in the 2020s this gets you labelled as a climate change denier.