[Asterisk-Users] app_queue, fewestcalls and leastrecent logic

[Brian West]

I see. :P

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote:

> my point was your logic regarding 'calculating magic/metric' for
> extremely long call times shouldn't be part of the 'logic' it
> SHOULD be 'inhouse' policy where the mgr gives agentA a nice long
> chat about how to sell/service the client more effectively.
>
> i know there is at least one other out there that agrees with
> me.  <G>
>
>
> Brian West wrote:
> >
> > I was speaking in a logic related to real call routing and queueing.  In
> > House policy can be built on top of your call strategy.  What we are
> > needing is input on logic only ..
> >
> > bkw
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote:
> >
> > > translation:  manager gets off thier fat ass and actually talks to
> > > agentA regarding 'INHOUSE' policies, and how it will effect the agents
> > > employment!
> > >
> > > <G>
> > >
> > > Brian West wrote:
> > >
> > > >But how do you translate inhouse to logic for app_queue. :P
> > > >
> > > >On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>ok and what happens when agentA in on a 3 hour call? once again i think
> > > >>this type of 'senario' should be covered by 'in house' policy.. not some
> > > >>super queue tweek <G>
> > > >>
> > > >>Brian West wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Ok just had my boss point something out:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>"I'd think dumping calls on most-idle would be fairly straightforward, but
> > > >>>could be skewed if agentA is on a 40 minute call, agentB has a bunch of 5
> > > >>>minute calls"
> > > >>>
> > > >>>So total call time should be counted in the logic somewhere.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>bkw
> > > >>>
> > > >>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Brian West wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>I think we are starting to see what type of logic people are wanting in
> > > >>>>fewestcalls and leastrecent strategy.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>bkw
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>i disagree, instead of thinking 'fallback' how about 'order' the agents
> > > >>>>>(by effecting the 'metric') so you 'target' the agent you want first
> > > >>>>>then if fail they go right to the next one in the 'ordered' list.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Brian West wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>leastrecent suffers the same fait as fewestcalls onlying ringing the
> > > >>>>>>leastrecent agent over and over endlessly.  It should have a fallback
> > > >>>>>>option.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>roundrobin with leastrecent first
> > > >>>>>>roundrobin with fewestcalls first
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>I would like to see a roundrobin with leastbusy first option.
> > > >>>>>>(just because you have taken less call or leastrecent doesn't mean you
> > > >>>>>>haven't been a busy agent!)
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>I'm sure better autologoff logic as per my first email would be a great
> > > >>>>>>idea also.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>bkw
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Richard Lyman wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>well if you ask me, the leastrecent part would work if you reversed the
> > > >>>>>>>logic on the metric.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>my other last_used mod would do a time_t on that agent the last time it
> > > >>>>>>>was 'tried' (ast_request'd) then (i was using arrays) qsort so that (new
> > > >>>>>>>agents) '0' would be on top, and the agent that got the most recent
> > > >>>>>>>attempt would be on the bottom '1057174447' (below is an example)
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>  -- sorted agent array: 317 last_used: 0
> > > >>>>>>>  -- sorted agent array: 318 last_used: 0
> > > >>>>>>>  -- sorted agent array: 319 last_used: 0
> > > >>>>>>>  -- sorted agent array: 300 last_used: 1057174447
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>that way, (for leastrecent anyway), you are always working with a full stack of agents.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>Brian West wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>First of all I would like to thank Mark for getting roundrobin to go
> > > >>>>>>>>roundrobin.  Good job.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Now we have some options here for leastrecent and fewestcalls strategy. It
> > > >>>>>>>>needs some work on the logic and Mark recommend that I ask the list and
> > > >>>>>>>>get some input before he makes any changes to it.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>fewestcalls from what I have seen would always ring the agent with the
> > > >>>>>>>>fewestcalls first then go into roundrobin if that agent didn't answer.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Next new caller would ring fewestcalls agent first then start roundrobin.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>What do you think should happen in fewestcalls?  Right now it just rings
> > > >>>>>>>>the agent with the fewestcalls over and over with current app_queue logic.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>leastrecent from what I have been looking at will ring the agent that has
> > > >>>>>>>>least recently take a call first then if they don't answer go into
> > > >>>>>>>>roundrobin.  Then the next new call coming from queue would first go to
> > > >>>>>>>>the leastrecent first then try every agent in roundrobin till answered
> > > >>>>>>>>then starting over again.  New caller from queue hits leastrecent agent
> > > >>>>>>>>first.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Same thing happens in leastrecent strategy. The leastrecent agent will
> > > >>>>>>>>ring over and over with current app_queue logic.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Now some of you might recommend autologoff options.  But that also might
> > > >>>>>>>>need some work.  I don't want to log off an agent for not answering the
> > > >>>>>>>>phone only once.  So here is how I would like to see autologoff work.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Example:
> > > >>>>>>>>queue timeout = 20
> > > >>>>>>>>agent autologoff = 60
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>The agent would have to not answer their phone 3 times in a row to get
> > > >>>>>>>>logged off.  As it stands now they did not answer just once and get logged
> > > >>>>>>>>off.  Thus allow for an employee to use the excuse for not working when
> > > >>>>>>>>they should be logged in and taking calls.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Unless i'm wrong here.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Please post your input on these options and how you would like them to see
> > > >>>>>>>>them function function.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>>>Brian
> > > >>>>>>>>CWIS Internet Services
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > > >>>>>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>_______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > > >>>>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>_______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > > >>>>>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > > >>>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>_______________________________________________
> > > >>>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > > >>>>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > > >>>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>_______________________________________________
> > > >>>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > > >>>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > > >>>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>_______________________________________________
> > > >>>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > > >>>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > > >>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>_______________________________________________
> > > >>Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > > >>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > > >>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >_______________________________________________
> > > >Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > > >Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > > Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asterisk-Users mailing list
> > Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>