"Timeout" period in handling Update Requests

Moderator: Unholy

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
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 2:25 am
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 106 times
Been thanked: 78 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
Coordinator | Local Champ | Country Manager | State Manager for NSW and Tas, Australia.
L5. WME ßeta Tester. iOS ßeta Tester.
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
Join me in the Waze Australia Discord Server | Australia Wiki | New Aussie Editor Link
LostInMyMaps
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:49 pm
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Has thanked: 416 times
Been thanked: 145 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 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 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

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 ]
MAR MSM; State Manager: District of Columbia
russblau
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 1506
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:36 pm
Has thanked: 309 times
Been thanked: 651 times


Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users