Support as proposed. This is pretty much what we've been doing in the Chicago area. It works.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 sense of codified ownership of a UR (or a set of related URs): Not that another editor cannot or should not 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)

I support this as proposed too.

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