Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Coordinator: GizmoGuy411 & ARC: RoadTechie | SkiDooGuy | JoeRodriguez12
------------------------------------------------------------

Moderators: roadtechie, GizmoGuy411, SkiDooGuy

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby aeroseek » Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:35 am

Support as proposed. This is pretty much what we've been doing in the Chicago area. It works.
Aeroseek
[ img ][ img ]
AM Northern Illinois
AM Southern Wisconsin
aeroseek
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 3:26 pm
Location: West Suburban Chicago
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby BobTheWikipedian » Sun Apr 12, 2015 8:46 pm

Support, though I would change 8 days to 10 since that is a more commonly used etiquette measure. Works either way for me, though. Seems this is a good policy that keeps us moving forward and respecting the importance of client satisfaction.
[ img ]
Large Area Manager for Indiana Vincennes District.
Area Manager for Evansville.
BobTheWikipedian
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:05 pm
Location: Evansville, IN
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby Captnkeegs » Sun May 03, 2015 7:25 pm

I support this proposal as written.

It'll be nice to have a URs standardized for the whole region, and hopefully this will increase UR responses.
[ img ]
West Michigan Area Manager
Captnkeegs
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:07 am
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby hawkeygoal » Sun Apr 19, 2015 4:56 pm

I firmly support the initial 4-day contact/follow-up. However, subsequent to that contact I think we might be better served to dovetail/merge into prevailing standard.

That is, one single scenario, wherein:
  • First Contact/Day 0 - Initial contact by editor.
  • Initial Follow-Up/Day 4 (presuming the report itself was insufficient to resolve the issue) - If the reporter does not respond by the fourth day, send follow-up request for a response.
  • Ongoing Conversation/7 Day Follow-Ups - At this point we merge into the national/global standard seven day cycle, allowing seven days between last contact and next.
If a comment by an editor includes a question or request for additional information, at least one additional follow-up must be made to the reporter before closing.

Why?
  • The initial four day contact allows us to nudge comments along and get more timely and perhaps accurate information from reporters.
  • Some reporters don't drive, or use Waze, for several days during the week, particularly if they are rail commuters.
  • Closing reports too quickly can engender "why'd you close my report?" URs (which may not be near the original report).
  • New or traveling editors visiting areas, would roll right into the conversation phase without additional guidance, integrating with far less frustration for everyone.
  • It keeps it the logic simple. Fewer "is this a four-day, eight-day or seven-day scenario," decision points. It is simply four-day then seven-day.
  • Fewer decision-points, fewer chances of implementation error.
If a reporter doesn't reply to either the initial (zero-day) comment or the four-day follow-up, the report would be closed, at the earliest interpretation, on the eleventh day. Not 10-days, but "close enough."

By varying only the initial response, the process might have a better chance to be adopted nationally or globally as well.

Well, that's two bits worth ($0.25 or 11b, reader's choice).
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
State Manager: Illinois | Area Manager: Iowa | Mentor
Illinois: Wiki Forum Facebook Twitter | WME: Wiki What to Edit Glossary
My Twitter: @hawkeygoal

Improving the map, one edit at a time. What's your goal?
GO HAWKS! There's only ONE GOAL!
hawkeygoal
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: Darien, IL, USA
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby hawkeygoal » Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:31 am

PesachZ wrote:In the national rule you must only wait seven days after an editor requests new information from the reporter.

True. Technically, at least seven days. Since we're talking about changing that standard, deviation seems well in order.

The nudge/follow-up is basically a second SYN in search of an ACK (except using English, repeating ourselves exactly in the second attempt would be ridiculous). If we fail to hand-shake and establish a conversation, we close the UR.

Implementation requires minimal level of effort. If you're using URComments, all necessary presets exist.

Again, my 0x03.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
State Manager: Illinois | Area Manager: Iowa | Mentor
Illinois: Wiki Forum Facebook Twitter | WME: Wiki What to Edit Glossary
My Twitter: @hawkeygoal

Improving the map, one edit at a time. What's your goal?
GO HAWKS! There's only ONE GOAL!
hawkeygoal
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: Darien, IL, USA
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby hawkeygoal » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:13 am

Lonewolf147 wrote:So what baud are you running at for this? ;D

Wow... "baud." There's a term I haven't heard in a long time. Remember the "good ol' days" when baud and bits per second were the same thing. Was the hit in college when I paid to get off the party line to use my fancy Radio Shack 300 baud acoustic coupler.

Do preset changes count? "URO+ New requests / UR replies," "URO+ 4 Day Follow Up," and "URO+ 7 Day," just not every second. :ugeek:
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
State Manager: Illinois | Area Manager: Iowa | Mentor
Illinois: Wiki Forum Facebook Twitter | WME: Wiki What to Edit Glossary
My Twitter: @hawkeygoal

Improving the map, one edit at a time. What's your goal?
GO HAWKS! There's only ONE GOAL!
hawkeygoal
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Location: Darien, IL, USA
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 114 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby jdeyoung » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:59 am

While there's no perfect to work these, and no perfect way to ensure response, these guidelines appear to be working reasonably well. I haven't seen any dramatic change in response rates, but I would note that the guidelines of 4 days between followup and closure be strongly encouraged. If URs are handled in a timely fashion, they would "normally" be closed 8 days from initial contact and no response from original reporter. But I would prefer to strongly encourage at least 4 days after followup and no response before closure regardless of total elapsed time.

Maybe instead of assuming days 0-8 consecutively, it could be better stated "day 4+" from original request when followup should be done, and "day 4+ after followup" for closure timeline.

In some rural areas, I've seen untouched URs that can be months old, but it is at least a courteous thing to acknowledge the long passage of time and make an effort to see whether the reporter can still remember any details. I have occasionally even gotten responses, so the discipline of followup/wait at least 4 days as a practice is still worth it.
[ img ]
AM Chicago, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI
jdeyoung
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Greater Chicago Metro area, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI, USA
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 210 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby jdeyoung » Wed Apr 15, 2015 1:56 pm

ssl-3 wrote:So, while the 0-4-8 schedule doesn't seem particularly wrong, I think it would be generally good to have some[i] sense of codified ownership of a UR (or a set of related URs): Not that another editor cannot or should not [i]actually solve and close a UR that someone else had been working on. But that no matter the timeframe, be it hours or years, that no editor should ever be encouraged to carte' blanc kill a UR just because it hasn't been responded to for a certain time, and/or in a certain sequence.

The primary case for 0-4-8 is for the "useless" no response-type URs. Those are the ones that cause clutter and noise while trying to find ones that we really can work. This is quite easy to codify - since there is usually no interaction.

The "secondary case" for "..-8+++" is where there is/has been an interactive conversation between reporter/responder(s). The best solution is to actually look at the entire exchange to see if anyone has indicated whether another response is needed for completion/confirmation.

What about this:
Any UR open for longer than 4 days since last response:
1) With no response from original reporter - eligible for closure with message.
or
2) With one or more responses from original reporter:
eligible for "good to close?" message based on conversation history
eligible for closure with message when fix completion is based on waze tile update behavior
eligible to leave open with:
no reminder message if last response less than ...how many days? 2 weeks?
reminder message if last response more than ...above number of days (or indicated in conversation history)
[ img ]
AM Chicago, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI
jdeyoung
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Greater Chicago Metro area, NW Indiana, SW Lower MI, USA
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 210 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby Lonewolf147 » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:25 am

I support this as proposed too.
Lonewolf147
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:01 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: Proposed GLR-wide User Reports (UR) response system

Postby Lonewolf147 » Wed Apr 22, 2015 2:35 am

hawkeygoal wrote:If we fail to hand-shake and establish a conversation, we close the UR.



So what baud are you running at for this? ;D
Lonewolf147
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 372
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:01 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Next

Return to US Great Lakes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users