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 > > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>_______________________________________________ > > >>Asterisk-Users mailing list > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ > > >Asterisk-Users mailing list > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
