Dear Users... (A thread for Sysadmin, Technical Support, and Help Desk people)

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the most common reasons I feel that way is if the menu is super-specific but doesn't seem to cover what I'm calling about. Or worse, includes something that might be related but I'm not sure if it counts.

Or, for example, there is an option for what I'm calling about but I know that the response to it is automatic and I have follow-up questions. If there isn't an obvious operator option, it makes me feel like I have to lie to talk to a person.
The biggest concern I have for the new tree is that the first prompt has seven options. It's going to take a little while to get through it. But I think that it's a good balance between generic and specific.
 
Yes you can, but I don't think a lot of people realise that.

"Listen to all the options, as the options have changed" is a common spiel they say on such things. I've worked for my current company for nine years, and they changed the options once in that time. And even then it was just the wording of one of the options, it still went to the same path of the tree.
 
"Listen to all the options, as the options have changed" is a common spiel they say on such things. I've worked for my current company for nine years, and they changed the options once in that time. And even then it was just the wording of one of the options, it still went to the same path of the tree.
Yes we also have that. The tree has been fully restructured twice (counting this one) in the time I've worked here, which will be four years in August.
 
Here's a good one. I just had someone ask if a package sent to the wrong address can be redirected to their new address.

A physical package. That had already been sent.
 
The biggest concern I have for the new tree is that the first prompt has seven options. It's going to take a little while to get through it. But I think that it's a good balance between generic and specific.

How many different “locations” can the user end up at?
 
Here's a good one. I just had someone ask if a package sent to the wrong address can be redirected to their new address.

A physical package. That had already been sent.

If it's by courier and still in transit it's possible. Had to do that when a company sent out a package to my old work address, called up the courier and asked them to stop the delivery.
Some couriers will only accept changes from the customer, the person sending the package, not the person receiving it.
If it had already been delivered (especially if the wrong address was their fault) then, yeah they're hosed.
 
"Listen to all the options, as the options have changed" is a common spiel they say on such things. I've worked for my current company for nine years, and they changed the options once in that time. And even then it was just the wording of one of the options, it still went to the same path of the tree.

I used to call a company fairly frequently that played that statement first before giving the options every single time for freaking years!
 
"We are experiencing unusually high call volume."

There should be a law mandating that after six months this be replaced with, "We are persistently understaffed."
 
Here's a good one. I just had someone ask if a package sent to the wrong address can be redirected to their new address.

A physical package. That had already been sent.
Easily. All they have to do is drive themselves to the wrong address before the parcel gets there, rescue the parcel from the bewildered recipients, bring it back to the office, and then send it to the RIGHT bloody address this time!
 
"We are experiencing unusually high call volume."

There should be a law mandating that after six months this be replaced with, "We are persistently understaffed."

Any voice message that interrupts the hold Muzak should come in intervals no less than two minutes. Especially if you're on hold a long time. I hate when they come on every fifteen seconds, leading you to think someone has picked up.
 
"We are experiencing unusually high call volume."

There should be a law mandating that after six months this be replaced with, "We are persistently understaffed."
We are persistently understaffed. We have always been persistently understaffed, and probably always will be. It's the nature of IT in government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom