NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Moderators: orbitc, RussPA, PhantomSoul

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby jdelosa » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:38 am

All of these suggestions are great.... And given that this morning's total NYC scan has over 10,000 Total URs we have a long way to go.....

My idea for leaving a UR around for awhile comes from a few experiences where after seeing a UR and following time protocol removed it. Then working the area starting to notice a pattern at that location. But by the time I realized the pattern I had timed out and deleted the others.

So when presenting a map change I got push back due to the fact that there was not supporting URs to say there was an ongoing problem.

It seems to me that as NYC goes a lot of the big black and white problems have been solved, now more of the little tweaking is happening.

So URs play a role in proving that a problem exist. Most of this is really only for local Editors. Local as in working a area all the time.

I see that some of our helping SR Editors are starting to see patterns just because of being around.

But as I started with until we start clean with only a manageable amount of URs and a team of dedicated Editors to work on them we are shoveling URs against the tide.....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
JD, Brooklyn, NYC Area Manager, New York SM, NOR MSM,
Member of the NYC Closure Team

WazeNewYork@GMail.com Subject Attn: JDeLosa
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
jdelosa
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby jdelosa » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:57 pm

I stand corrected 8,700 URs

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
JD, Brooklyn, NYC Area Manager, New York SM, NOR MSM,
Member of the NYC Closure Team

WazeNewYork@GMail.com Subject Attn: JDeLosa
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
jdelosa
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby jdelosa » Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:34 pm

Hi All,
Thanks Warren for trying to spearhead this subject.  

After a lot of reading and I think Great Meaningful replys I have come to the conclusion that our intention has been set off track.

There might be some reasons for a change to the policy as a whole but what I think we were looking for was a general guideline that the NY Editors could refer to on the NY Wiki Page that would be a suggested way we should handle URs...
Understanding that a traveling editor might not know what we do as a normal way but as new Editors join our efforts we could refer them to our consensus ...... What we as a team think works best for us....

So I believe Warren put forth what I think we have been discussing in the GHO as a group.... And what I was hoping was we could get some help on wording it in a way that it could be put up one our NY state wiki page as such.....

And if you guys think some more discussion is needed then lets have it.....

I do agree with Dovid's last post that I would not want it to be misinterpreted the wrong way so maybe the wording in the final draft needs to be a little more clearer....

Thanks again all for helping with this project, as you know URs are the life line of Waze and we need to get this right.... John (JD) Brooklyn NY
JD, Brooklyn, NYC Area Manager, New York SM, NOR MSM,
Member of the NYC Closure Team

WazeNewYork@GMail.com Subject Attn: JDeLosa
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
jdelosa
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby jdelosa » Tue May 31, 2016 1:07 am

User request, user report all of which are map issues ...... who cam up with that correlation......

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
JD, Brooklyn, NYC Area Manager, New York SM, NOR MSM,
Member of the NYC Closure Team

WazeNewYork@GMail.com Subject Attn: JDeLosa
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
jdelosa
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby jdelosa » Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:11 pm

I have never used the formal UR guidelines for the PL URs. I have always used a I added it response for any that get added and close solved and already added reply for ones that are on the map and close NI but that was before the new UR options placed in the app. Thanks John (JS) for bring this up, JD

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
JD, Brooklyn, NYC Area Manager, New York SM, NOR MSM,
Member of the NYC Closure Team

WazeNewYork@GMail.com Subject Attn: JDeLosa
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
jdelosa
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby jdelosa » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:56 am

My Issue with the SL URs is that if there is no way to verify the report where does that leave us.
Do we now start to take the word of the reporter.
I am not sure we can do that because even if there intentions are Nobile how do we know if what they think is correct.
I think the SL UR reporting was a mistake that I don't see a fix for.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
JD, Brooklyn, NYC Area Manager, New York SM, NOR MSM,
Member of the NYC Closure Team

WazeNewYork@GMail.com Subject Attn: JDeLosa
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
jdelosa
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby jdelosa » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:59 am

I would like to see us rap up the thread as far as the policy for dealing with General URs seeing we are mostly in agreement and get the consensus into our wiki. As for the SL URs we can continue to express our theories seeing as it is a fairly new thing

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
JD, Brooklyn, NYC Area Manager, New York SM, NOR MSM,
Member of the NYC Closure Team

WazeNewYork@GMail.com Subject Attn: JDeLosa
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
jdelosa
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby jdelosa » Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:42 pm

So after a quick read back it seems like our community is largely in agreement with a 7 plus 7 policy.... How do we get this past the powers that be and into our state wiki....

By the way..... With the exception of the newbie editor not much has been closed in under 14 days anyway, but it still would be best that we get the wiki to match our protocol....

Thanks JD
JD, Brooklyn, NYC Area Manager, New York SM, NOR MSM,
Member of the NYC Closure Team

WazeNewYork@GMail.com Subject Attn: JDeLosa
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
jdelosa
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 10:05 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Has thanked: 464 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby johnsninja58 » Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:25 am

So thank you guys for starting this discussion last night in the GHO. This is definitely an issue we have struggled with for a long time. My thoughts:
-long term I would like to have a unified policy for the entire state including NYC, but I do not think we are in a good place at this time to be able to stretch out URs to 2 weeks for NYC. we don't have the necessary number of active editors to handle the URs and struggle depending on your zoom to see them all. I feel at times a little overwhelmed by the sheer volume but this starts a different thread topic so I won't continue.
-it is important to remind people if you do have a response from an editor you should reset the clock on closing it, I sometimes use my own discretion based off their response if that is appropriate but I think that is the exception to the rule
-with many states having the general practice of if a UR is over a week old feel free to pick up where the other editor left off I think it would be good to include some wording to address this. Personally I am quite fine with having other editors pitch in.
-one thing I don't see mentioned that I think is important is an emphasis on the new URs some states have rules that they would like all new URs started within 36 hours. I think the more we can quickly respond to new and fresh URs the better response rate and better resolution rates we will have. As a recent discussion pointed out we should be focusing on on our efforts on improving our solved rate

Overall I think this proposal is great but I like to have a little more time to get the NYC area better controlled before such rules would go into effect. Our efforts have been notable with on average about 2k less URs each time a report has been run for the state but I think with the two map raids recently we may have stunted our progress a little.

Just my 2¥ worth
-John


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-John
-------
[ img ][ img ]
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager
johnsninja58
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:05 am
Location: New England
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 498 times

Re: NY Protocol for Handling UR's

Postby johnsninja58 » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:21 pm

qwaletee wrote:So we really need three rules, nothing to do with NYC. Low density, normal density, and high density (which will naturally cover much but not all of NYC and other high-traffic areas). We'll have to define what Low/normal/high mean, and we'll have to develop a policy for each.


Ok I will take the bait for the strawman

I think more than two options will be too complicated and we can just simplify things by defining in advance these high and normal zones (county, region or current stats on UR count - but have State Managers Define) to add other criteria to define these areas i think will be unnecessary for state guidelines, but acceptable for individual users if they choose (Since UR count at a zoom could fluctuate based off closings, screen size/resolution, or just where you centered on the map). I would like to see these areas be fluid to be able to respond to shifts in the waze landscape and change our criteria.

Low/Normal Density 7 + 7 seams fine close day 15
High Density Density 4 + 4 also seams fine close day 9, with editors discretion for longer

I think clusters are important tool to look at but also currently some of the clusters we have are because of volume of traffic and gps issues on ramps and service roads which do not necessarily benefit from longer collecting. So editors discretion. I like other editors may not have the free time to visit hot spots daily, which is part an issue of needing overlapping coverage, but also not practical guidance. I think every 4 days reminders for these hot spots is a little obsessive, but additional inquiries may be warranted.

If we can get the backlog down in these high density areas we should be able to spend longer and closer examine them all. I think we all seen occasions where things may have been overlooked.

in terms of other users jumping in i have seen a variety of practices across the country on that, I think if you have exceeded the closing time (14 days low density, 8 days high density) send a friendly reminder or close if appropriate. Jumping in if you know the solution is an etiquette issue too complicated for explicit guidelines other than to be respectful in your actions.

Overall part of it is everyone has there own style. We have our own responses we use and as long as the editors meet our guidelines I really dont care how they tackle the URs as long as we are improving the map. We also see plenty of different levels of editors tackling URs which translates to different skill sets to analyze the data. Our priority to should be solve issues and not close the URs but recognizing that currently there does exist areas that the volume of URs are impacting the performance of WME.


Thank you qwaletee for summarizing some thoughts with your strawman, hopefully this helps build upon that.

and for the older pinned topic for those who may not have seen it
-John
-------
[ img ][ img ]
VT - State Manager
New England - Multi State Manager
johnsninja58
PartnerCoordinator
PartnerCoordinator
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:05 am
Location: New England
Has thanked: 480 times
Been thanked: 498 times

PreviousNext

Return to New York

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users