Re:Why is this job not handled by a machine yet?
by yellowapple on Thursday February 09, 2017 @06:24AM
(#13606166)
Automated telephone systems should be required by law to respond to "shibboleet" and take the appropriate action. Or, at the very least, should be required to let me press 0 for an operator.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why is this job not handled by a machine yet?
by PeterisP on Thursday February 09, 2017 @10:48AM
(#13607707)
Well, most automated systems are that way because the company doesn't really want to talk to you. You can't legislate good service if the company has decided that they don't want to provide good service but want (as evidenced by their actions in e.g. phone systems) to provide either cheap service or no service. I mean, having a person that says "fuck you, don't call us ever again" and hangs up the phone without listening would be a technically valid solution to a law that requires "to let me press 0 for an operator".
Re:Why is this job not handled by a machine yet?
by yellowapple on Thursday February 09, 2017 @04:01PM
(#13610942)
Honestly, I'll take that over the phone robot telling me "we care about your call" for the 152nd time. At least they're being honest that way.
Re:Why is this job not handled by a machine yet?
by YeGoblynQueenne on Thursday February 09, 2017 @06:46AM
(#13606238)
With most voice-recognition systems if you blow a couple raspberries down the receiver (or rub your finger on the mic or otherwise generate some noise) they'll give up after a couple of tries and take you to a human.
Re:Why is this job not handled by a machine yet?
by therealidiot on Thursday February 09, 2017 @07:12AM
(#13606364)
Some just hang up on you when they give up. Quite awful
Re:Why is this job not handled by a machine yet?
by StavrosK on Thursday February 09, 2017 @08:18AM
(#13606666)
I usually just tell them "sales" (because sales treats callers the best of all the departments, as they usually want your money) and then wait for the actual person to transfer me to the appropriate department.