"Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Moderator: Unholy

"Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Postby ituajr » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:02 am

The current flowchart for handling Update Requests says that the first responding editor should wait 7 days for a response to a request for information before taking action. Unfortunately, the text beside that flowchart says "If the Update Request conversation has no updates for at least seven (7) days, and the last message was from an Editor, you may try to solve the request and mark it appropriately." Some editors are taking this to mean that they can ignore the section on Multiple Editors ("Our standards of etiquette call for allowing the first responding editor to take ownership of problem resolution. Other editors should not step in unless they think the owner needs help (whether the owner realizes it or not), or has abandoned/lost track of the report over time.")

It causes friction with the original editor when someone else steps in the moment 7 days have elapsed, and closes the report without checking with the original editor. I'm thinking of the situation where the original editor has an idea what the problem is, but wants confirmation from the reporter. I propose that the note alongside the flowchart should say " If the Update Request conversation has no updates for at least 21 days [...]
[ img ] [ img ] [ img ]
Country Coordinator for Australia.
74000 km driven with Waze, 2034 km paved,
8200 Update Requests resolved, 14100 map problems closed.
ituajr
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 386 times
Been thanked: 2024 times

Re: "Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Postby LostInMyMaps » Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:03 am

Thank you for your proposal ituajr, I strongly agree with, and support the change. It seems like a natural extension of the existing etiquette to promote harmony between editors, and maintain consistency of communication between editors and reporters. This change fills a hole in the etiquette guidelines that seem to have been overlooked.
Brendan
State Manager for NSW, Australia.
L3. WME Beta Tester. iOS Beta Tester.

[ img ]

[ img ] Join me in the Waze Australia Discord Server.

Australia Wiki | New Aussie Editor Link | Australian Management Team
LostInMyMaps
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:49 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Has thanked: 316 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: "Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Postby F1r3foxx » Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:53 am

I think there if we are waiting for an update from a reporter, and there has been no response in 7 days, I am more than happy for another editor to prompt the reporter for a response.

In terms of another editor "taking over" one of my URs, I don't mind if the UR looks abandoned and I have received a 'prompt' from the other editor. If I still don't respond, then I am happy for the other editor to take over after 7 days of no response.

It is possible, depending on context, that a UR should not be taken over after 21 days. For example we may be waiting for Google maps to fix a location or something.

Perhaps we need to remove the paragraph altogether, and create a flowchart specifically for multiple editors/taking over abandoned URs?
F1r3foxx
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:25 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 106 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: "Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Postby rbrdly » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:02 am

Hi guys.

Please note that I am very new to this - so I might be missing some important 'back of house' steps that need to be considered.

Regardless, this discussion will be a good opportunity for me to learn :)

If the primary purpose of the period extension to 21 days is to address the etiquette problem, I'm not sure it is the right solution.

It simply extends/delays the time during which an overenthusiastic editor can close another editor's UR.

I understand that it allows more time for a genuine discussion to take place, but I fear that is going to be a different source of frustration by allowing URs to linger far longer than we would like if there is no response.

I read somewhere that the original reporter may have no avenue to communicate with an editor after the UR has been raised.
If that's the case - we will now have FAR more unanswered UR's waiting a minimum of 3 times longer, to be closed.

If you want to fix the etiqutte problem - I think that needs to be handled more directly with the offender, and they should be 'encouraged' to prompt the first responder at all times.

Perhaps something like ...

If the first responder hasn't received a response from the reporter in 7 days, another editor can prompt the first responder.

If 7 days after that there is no response from either reporter, or first responder, the UR can be closed?
rbrdly
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:04 am
Location: Western Australia
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: "Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Postby ituajr » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:36 am

rbrdly wrote:If the primary purpose of the period extension to 21 days is to address the etiquette problem, I'm not sure it is the right solution.

It simply extends/delays the time during which an overenthusiastic editor can close another editor's UR.

No, it extends the period of time when other editors are not supposed to close the report. If they do, we can point to the (revised) guidance and tell them they're not supposed to do that.

I understand that it allows more time for a genuine discussion to take place, but I fear that is going to be a different source of frustration by allowing URs to linger far longer than we would like if there is no response.

It's a matter of balancing two costs:
a) URs from unresponsive reporters might hang around longer. (Which I would suggest is a trivial cost)
or
b) The first responding editors will get fed up with others on a "points grab" to close reports as soon as possible, and give up working on problem reports. For example, I've just about given up responding to URs outside my local area unless I can fix the problem immediately. It's just too annoying having other people take over the moment the 7 days is up.

If you want to fix the etiqutte problem - I think that needs to be handled more directly with the offender, and they should be 'encouraged' to prompt the first responder at all times.

We've tried that. They point to the guideline I'm complaining about, and say "I'm doing what it says - what's your problem?"
[ img ] [ img ] [ img ]
Country Coordinator for Australia.
74000 km driven with Waze, 2034 km paved,
8200 Update Requests resolved, 14100 map problems closed.
ituajr
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 3738
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:23 pm
Location: South Australia
Has thanked: 386 times
Been thanked: 2024 times

Re: "Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Postby rbrdly » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:09 am

The problem, it would appear, is that people aren't following the "do not close someone else's UR" rule.

And you're focussing on the time they have to wait, rather than the bit that actually matters.

Changing the number of days they have to wait from 7 to 21 - is not changing the rules.

If they want to chase points, now they wait 21 days instead of 7, and do exactly the same thing.
And they can STILL point to the guidelines and say they're doing the right thing.

What does this change achieve?

The rule should simply be "do not close a UR that you are not the first responder of".
Then, it doesn't matter what number of days you put in there.

The wait period is irrelevent to this discussion.
rbrdly
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:04 am
Location: Western Australia
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: "Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Postby russblau » Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:40 pm

I have no problem with another editor closing a UR to which I previously responded, if the original reporter hasn’t provided any information. I do have a problem with other editors closing a UR if I’ve started a conversation with the reporter. At least they ought to check with me before closing the report. Perhaps this distinction could be incorporated into the guidance.
[ img ] [ img ] [ img ] [ img ]
MAR MSM; State Manager: District of Columbia
AM Sussex County, DE/Westchester & Rockland Counties, NY
russblau
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:36 pm
Has thanked: 268 times
Been thanked: 611 times

Re: "Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Postby rbrdly » Wed Jul 18, 2018 1:43 am

Yeah - a bit of respect would go a long way.

On one hand - I don't want others closing my URs.

On the other hand - The editor map cluttered with unanswered URs is also not ideal.
Extending the timeout period will make that significantly worse.
rbrdly
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:04 am
Location: Western Australia
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 8 times


Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users