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 > >>>>>>[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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
