That is the essence (if perhaps oversimplified).
In California, I send out a follow-up request, usually after 3 to 5 days which sometimes produces a nearly immediate response.
After 7 or more days have elapsed with no response at all, I send out a message, usually like this:
IMHO, I would not put time frames or anything that implies any kind of deadline in the message to the reporter, or even any messages the reporter can see. I agree this can put undue pressure on the reporter and even less willing to work with us, while we rely on their sheer good will.
That being said, we should definitely establish and publish (which we might have already - the 7-day rule?) concrete and objective guidelines of when something should be closed in order to prevent editors from bulk-closing URs for a few points.
Maybe we shouldn’t close URs initially responded to by someone else without at least trying to ask that editor first? I don’t think that’s unfair to have to ask, but I would request we use PM or some other means where the reporter cannot see that we’re trying to get rid of the UR.
I pretty much agree with what you wrote. When I find a UR where another editor sent “What’s wrong?” and there was no response, I simply start the process over as if it is a brand new UR. Thus the other editor could see that I sent a request to the user.
If another editor sent an adequate initial inquiry, I will send a follow-up if more than 5 days have elapsed (fewer if the editor regularly works with me). I still consider that the other editor owns the UR. But if seven more days go by and I don’t hear from either party, I send out the “next time” message and set the UR status to not identified.
There is no reason then for me to contact the other editor; my communications are directed to the reporter; and the UR is not left hanging indefinitely.
It occurs to me that the policy of UR ownership and timelines is possibly a separate thread from discussion of getting text for polite and professional responses.
I have not been using canned responses but I can sure see the value when plowing through a massive backlog. Although I write each UR inquiry separately, I have five guiding principles:
I always start out saying “Hi, volunteer map editor here”. Users often seem to think a paid Waze droid is at the other end of the line and I think it softens their attitude and gives them a sense of the Waze community to know someone is volunteering to help them.
I try to include specifics of the report, like the location from which it was posted, so they know that it isn’t a canned response and that I’ve already examined the report to look for likely issues. Of course this is more time consuming and may not be practical when processing a backlog. It does have the benefit that those who think they are anonymous and can play around submitting map issues discover that “I know where they live” 
I do not give a deadline, except when I’m pretty sure the report is in error. For example if there is an address in the description for a “general error” report; the user probably went to “map issue” instead of “navigate” and entered the destination. If it looks like a mistake I’ll say so and add that I’ll leave it open for a week or so in case they’d like to respond.
I resist apologies unless we editors really did foul up. I am a volunteer representing the Waze editing community but not representing Waze itself, and though I am glad to help I am not going to apologize for things over which the editing community has no control.
I resist thanks unless the reporter submitted a clear, correct, and actionable report. Those are always fun for me to work so I thank them!
My 2 cents 
This would be typical of how I respond to a vague General Error report with no details and nothing apparently wrong:
How does it help to state that you see nothing wrong? It could be an accidental report.
There could be new construction of which you are unaware. Or it could be that you didn’t look hard enough. I think it is better to wait for the user to say what the problem is before reaching a verdict.
I believe that a volunteer editor can express empathy without “apologizing”.
It’s nice to have some way to let the reporter know that you really did examine the map and the report data first before asking for more information, as opposed to just lazily punching the “send canned response” button. Sometimes the source of a “general error” UR is obvious and can be fixed with no further communication. I’d find it disappointing if I submitted a UR under those conditions and got a canned response back.
But I agree, saying “I can’t find anything wrong” may not be the best way to accomplish that.
Maybe “we’ve examined the map and the report data and would like to know more about what happened.”
“We”? Just how many people have examined this UR?
In some places quite a few. It’s not like we all work alone. If that’s not correct for you in your area, that’s really a small matter. We are a community of editors. An UR is often reviewed by many editors, any of whom might be the one who resolves the request or communicates with the reporter.
Using the pronoun “I” might allow the reporter to infer that only one editor is handling the request.
If you are fine with the rest of the text except for this one word, that’s great.
I think that the responses in general are too verbose. I would like to have text that communicates clearly and professionally while being polite and friendly, but not explaining more than is necessary. How many people looked at the UR, what details were examined, and how the community or organized doesn’t seem to be useful to eliciting a response from the reporter.
I would recommend keeping questions to the reporter as short and on-point as possible. Maybe introduce yourself as a volunteer editor (it definitely humanizes us to the greater world of Wazers) in a sentence and ask your question in another. There’s no need to enumerate that you couldn’t find anything wrong; if it weren’t for that you wouldn’t be asking the question.
General Error:
Hi, I am a volunteer editor for Waze. Can I ask what went wrong here?
Incorrect turn direction:
Hi, I am a volunteer editor for Waze. Can I ask which turn was wrong and why?
Etc, etc…
So you are saying my “Hi, I am a volunteer editor for Waze. What the Hell do you want me to do about this?” standard initial response is flawed in it’s approach? :lol:
How about something more along the lines of" “Hi, I am a volunteer editor for Waze. I do apologize that you seem to have had some difficulty with the navigation functions. However; the GPS gods are never wrong so I am unable to address your concern. Perhaps if you sacrifice an iPhone 5S to the toilet at midnight of the next new moon you will get convince the GPS gods to give you better results.”
Will that work better? 
Mine is probably too wordy for some people’s tastes here, but my initial canned greeting is this:
Hi, volunteer map editor here! 
Please help provide more detail on the map problem you encountered. Editors can’t see your destination, where you came from, and often have no idea what direction you traveled in or what route Waze gave you. So we need a really good description of the problem you encountered to try to figure out what went wrong.
If you are reading this in your Waze App on your phone, just scroll down a bit and you’ll see a line where you can enter your reply with more information and then touch the “Send” button. If you’re reading it in your E-Mail on your computer, just click on the link provided and in your web browser you can enter the reply there - just click on the button near the top left of the screen that says “Conversation” to open up that window, type your reply at the bottom, and click “Send.” Note that you may have to login using the username and password that you use for the Waze App.
That second paragraph got added after a couple of cases where someone couldn’t figure out how to reply and created a second UR in the area.
Anything about instructions to respond should be supplied by Waze. In the email, the instructions should be pertinent to the link. In the app, the instructions should be for using the app. If the Waze standard wrapper text is not clear enough, that is a separate thread.
Get Waze to add the adjective volunteer and keep the greeting from the editor succinct.
That’s neither accurate nor particularly relevant. If the reporter isn’t smart enough to figure out that you are asking because you don’t know, you probably aren’t going to get a useful response anyway.
Sure. There’s lots of things that Waze should be doing, but isn’t doing yet. So we as editors have to deal with those things in the meantime.
I disagree with your assessment, based on actual experience. I’ve gotten plenty of useful replies from people responding to that.
The statement being made is in fact accurate. Waze won’t let us see what their destination is. It doesn’t show us where they departed from. And quite frankly, I’ve lost count of the number of times when I’ve opened a UR to have nothing but the position of the UR marker and whatever text they might have typed into it showing - no Waze-supplied route in the immediate area, no trail showing where they actually drove in that same area. Just a plain-old UR point and that’s it.
So yea, it’s accurate often enough that it’s worth putting in the canned greeting I send.
I have found it to be relevant because a lot of drivers just assume that you can see the information; by explaining that you can’t necessarily see it it helps them to understand what’s going on better and why you need more information. When there’s been a reporter reply, it used to be a pretty terse one. Then I added that bit of information, and now when I get replies they actually contain better info; I expect it’s because the driver realizes that chances are pretty good that I’m flying blind regarding his report and so he provides more complete information.
I didn’t just pull that text out of my rear end. I came up with it based on the experiences that I personally have had as an editor so far, and it’s served me well (at least in those cases where the reporter bothers to reply :)). Nobody says you have to use it, but I’m not planning on changing it anytime soon unless I see something suggested that I feel better fits my experiences.
It may be “not particularly relevant” to you, but that doesn’t make it not particularly relevant to every other editor who’s trying to help out.
My experience is similar when using similar (although not identical) wording.
Are you trying to bait an argument by twisting my words into something I never said? Are you saying that you have gotten plenty of useful replies from people who weren’t smart enough to know why you were asking? Or did you mean that people still respond even after you insult their intelligence by explaining that you wouldn’t be asking if you already knew?
It is sometimes the case. I often do know from where the reporter was coming and which way they were headed. But when I need to know either the destination or origin address, I simply ask for it/them.
The statement of ignorance is in fact often inaccurate and always worthless in an initial contact.
By reason that you asked, the reporter should be smart enough to realize that you wouldn’t be asking if you already knew.
In summary: I don’t explain what I details I might not have. I ask for the information I need. If the reporter wants to see what information I have, he can look at the UR himself.
You do enjoy playing word games and looking for offence where none was given, don’t you? :roll:
I “twisted” nothing; I quoted what I was replying to and I replied to it. If you didn’t mean it the way that I read it, then perhaps you weren’t clear enough in your intent.
You made a statement to the effect that there was no value in providing the information to them. I pointed out that I’ve gotten good results based on that wording; I.E., better results than I received prior to having added it. Only you would come to the conclusion that by providing more information rather than less that I’m now somehow “insulting their intelligence.”
I made a simple statement of fact to counter your assertation to the contrary. To paraphrase you: I guess if you’re not smart enough to figure that out, then I suppose I shouldn’t expect a useful response from you.
Here’s my typical response and it’s pretty fluid with the type of report:
It’s short, sweet, to the point, sounds professional, and it does two things:
a) It allows the driver to remember where they were when they reported the issue
b) It gives a reference (when you check in the app) on where the location is so you can look at it again if they respond.
Hmmm… I actually rather like that. I think I may well incorporate that as my first paragraph since that will shorten it down a bit.
I’ll still keep in the note about being a volunteer map editor though. I agree with a number of people who have expressed the opinion that it’s useful on the grounds that someone making a report might assume that the response is coming from paid staff rather than just someone who’s trying to help out. So I think that including that would still be of value (not trying to persuade you that you should do so; just explaining why I think it’s a good idea for me to keep it in mine).