327 results found

1. Multiple Helpshift integration flags

   Advisors work on different Helpshift instances and switch between queues or titles based on business needs. Playvox, however, has a limitation where each advisor can be linked to only one Helpshift integration flag. This means an advisor can only have their data pulled from one Helpshift instance in Playvox. If advisors switch from Helpshift A to Helpshift B midweek, Playvox will only pull data from the instance they are flagged with, preventing the evaluation of their cases on Helpshift B. An option to have multiple Helpshift integration or a workaround to have cases to be pulled up for the same set of advisors from the multiple Helpshift instances.

   Advisors work on different Helpshift instances and switch between queues or titles based on business needs. Playvox, however, has a limitation where each advisor can be linked to only one Helpshift integration flag. This means an advisor can only have their data pulled from one Helpshift instance in Playvox. If advisors switch from Helpshift A to Helpshift B midweek, Playvox will only pull data from the instance they are flagged with, preventing the evaluation of their cases on Helpshift B. An option to have multiple Helpshift integration or a workaround to have cases to be pulled up for the same… more

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Workloads  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating
   Acknowleged  ·  AdminKarina Ceron V (Product manager, Playvox) responded

   Hi there!

   Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

   We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

   We appreciate your contribution to our community.

   Karina from Product

2. Display interaction name and date in the evaluation list

   Hi Team,

   In the current evaluations tab, the headers are not sufficient for our users to identify the characteristics of those evaluations. We need more information on this tab. So far, there are filters for the custom header fields we created for the scorecard, but it is not convenient for users as every single time, they need extra steps to find a particular interaction.

   For example, can we display the interaction date, interaction name, and some other variables there according to the metadata we want to see by default?

   Another option is for Playvox to capture the metadate of the interactions we evaluated.
   I.e. in the header of the list of evaluations, key metadata are also displayed for our users visibility when checking their specific evaluations, such as messaging session name(MIAW chat), or case number(Email case), Phone Call Name(Voice), interaction date, country.
   Use case:
   Easier for check a specific evaluation’s performance after applying certain filters. For instand, when filter by channe > chat, we can see all the chats evaluated, but we can’t identify which is which. (In the header, there is a # and interaction ID, however those are not what we are familiar with)

   Hi Team,

   In the current evaluations tab, the headers are not sufficient for our users to identify the characteristics of those evaluations. We need more information on this tab. So far, there are filters for the custom header fields we created for the scorecard, but it is not convenient for users as every single time, they need extra steps to find a particular interaction.

   For example, can we display the interaction date, interaction name, and some other variables there according to the metadata we want to see by default?

   Another option is for Playvox to capture the metadate of the… more

   •  

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Evaluations  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating
   Acknowleged  ·  AdminKarina Ceron V (Product manager, Playvox) responded

   Hi!

   Thank you for sharing your ideas with us! 

   Your idea will be carefully evaluated. If it gains traction, it could significantly influence our development roadmap.

   Thanks for being a valuable part of our community. 

   Karina from Product

3. Flexible scoring mechanism

   Hi Team,

   This request is related to the scoring mechanism. In our practice, we use a corresponding rating for a range of scores in our current scorecard, and we would like to have Playvox QM detect the rating according to the total points a particular evaluation gets.

   Here we have attached a screenshot showing how the scoring works for us.

   Thanks, please let us know if it makes sense and if you need more clarification.

   •  

   2 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Scorecards  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

4. Unlock the permission for the custom fields to be available for other roles and all reports

   Hi Team,

   Can you add filters for the custom fields from our scorecards(Channel, Language, Issue Type, Primary Issue, Rating, Query type, RCA) to the Section, Question, Analyst, Team, Agent reports, and Quality overview reports?

   We have that available on the 'Scorecard reports', but this is not available to everyone except for admin and super admins users.

   Basically, We need the reports to be very flexible for everyone who is using it.
   Use case:
   We are able to see the performance per custom field, and compare performance across different channels, languages, issue types, and primary issues, etc. in one go, without needing to check them one by one.

   Hi Team,

   Can you add filters for the custom fields from our scorecards(Channel, Language, Issue Type, Primary Issue, Rating, Query type, RCA) to the Section, Question, Analyst, Team, Agent reports, and Quality overview reports?

   We have that available on the 'Scorecard reports', but this is not available to everyone except for admin and super admins users.

   Basically, We need the reports to be very flexible for everyone who is using it.
   Use case:
   We are able to see the performance per custom field, and compare performance across different channels, languages, issue types, and primary issues, etc. in one go, without… more

   •  

   •  

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Reports  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating
   Acknowleged  ·  AdminKarina Ceron V (Product manager, Playvox) responded

   Hi there!

   Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

   We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

   We appreciate your contribution to our community.

5. Auto-capture metadata for interactions in the evaluation stage

   Hi team,

   We need the system to be able to auto-fill some of the objects that are listed in the "Info" of an interaction, so we don't have to manually fill them in the scorecard every time we perform an audit.
   This is important as it helps reduce the users' manual input for all evaluations and can significantly save their time considering the total amount of evaluations they do in a month.

   The info contains original data from an interaction that we pushed to Playvox, and the evaluation form has the same or similar names in the custom fields to capture those info for reporting purposes.

   Hi team,

   We need the system to be able to auto-fill some of the objects that are listed in the "Info" of an interaction, so we don't have to manually fill them in the scorecard every time we perform an audit.
   This is important as it helps reduce the users' manual input for all evaluations and can significantly save their time considering the total amount of evaluations they do in a month.

   The info contains original data from an interaction that we pushed to Playvox, and the evaluation form has the same or similar names in the custom fields to… more

   •  

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Under Review  ·  0 comments  ·  Evaluations  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

6. Have the ability to recover deleted evaluations or Archive

   There is no option to undo the deletion of samples, making accidental deletions permanent and risking critical data loss.

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Evaluations  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating
   Acknowleged  ·  AdminKarina Ceron V (Product manager, Playvox) responded

   Hi there!

   Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

   We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

   We appreciate your contribution to our community.

7. Weighted workloads

   When creating workloads we would like to define the percentage or tickets that would be evaluated for different topics. For example, we would like to create a workload with 60% of the interactions related to orders and 40% to Gigs, however at the moment we have to calculate the number of evaluations manualy and create separate workloads for each of the topics.

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Workloads  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

8. Improve Reviews function under Quality: Format feedback and comments

   Reviews functions under Quality (Review the reviewer/analyst):
   2. When composing reviews, there is no option to edit font, highlight, add links, ... even it doesn't have any paragraph break, the review looks messy/untidy. It would be better to have similar format as Evaluations for better organizing and following up.

   1 vote

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   Acknowleged  ·  2 comments  ·  Evaluations  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

9. Peer calibration feature for analyst evaluations

   We are looking to implement a peer calibration process where analysts evaluate each other's completed evaluations/reviews to assess scoring consistency and alignment with quality standards.

   The process should involve:

   Selection: Choose a completed evaluation for each evaluator.
   Assignment: Assign other team members to evaluate the same case.
   Comparison: Compare the results to identify scoring misalignments across quality standards.

   Currently, this process is manual and requires significant effort to manage and analyze. We request a dedicated feature in Playvox that allows us to:

   Select and assign evaluations for peer review.
   Facilitate the comparison of results among evaluators.
   Identify and address scoring discrepancies.

   We are looking to implement a peer calibration process where analysts evaluate each other's completed evaluations/reviews to assess scoring consistency and alignment with quality standards.

   The process should involve:

   Selection: Choose a completed evaluation for each evaluator.
   Assignment: Assign other team members to evaluate the same case.
   Comparison: Compare the results to identify scoring misalignments across quality standards.

   Currently, this process is manual and requires significant effort to manage and analyze. We request a dedicated feature in Playvox that allows us to:

   Select and assign evaluations for peer review.
   Facilitate the comparison of results among evaluators.
   Identify and address scoring… more

   2 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   0 comments  ·  Calibrations  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Submit Rating

10. Ability to add multiple email addresses for user profiles

    We require the use of ea.com email addresses for Okta verification and account security with our vendor/service partners. However, these partners internally use their own BPO email addresses, which they monitor regularly. Currently, Playvox email notifications are sent only to the ea.com addresses, which the users do not view or have access to. As a result, they miss important notifications, such as those related to evaluations and disputes.

    We are requesting the ability to add an additional email address field in user profiles to store BPO email addresses. This would allow us to select which email address notifications should be sent to, ensuring that they reach the intended recipients. This enhancement would improve engagement, potentially increase the number of disputes, and allow us to fully utilize automatic reminders to drive up the percentage of signed evaluations.

    Additionally, it would be helpful to verify if dispute notifications are being sent to the advisor's correct email address.

    We require the use of ea.com email addresses for Okta verification and account security with our vendor/service partners. However, these partners internally use their own BPO email addresses, which they monitor regularly. Currently, Playvox email notifications are sent only to the ea.com addresses, which the users do not view or have access to. As a result, they miss important notifications, such as those related to evaluations and disputes.

    We are requesting the ability to add an additional email address field in user profiles to store BPO email addresses. This would allow us to select which email address notifications should be… more

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Settings  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

11. Ability to update super admin roles without support tickets

    The ability to update a Super Admin role directly within the platform without needing to raise a support ticket. This enhancement would allow for quicker and more efficient management of Super Admin roles.

    To ensure security, a check should be implemented to confirm that there is at least one active Super Admin before allowing any changes. This is particularly important when the site owner, who might also be a Super Admin, needs their role updated. Enabling this feature would streamline the process and reduce reliance on support for role management.

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Workloads  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating
    Acknowleged  ·  AdminKarina Ceron V (Product manager, Playvox) responded

    Hi there!

    Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

    We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

    We appreciate your contribution to our community.

    Karina from Product

12. Ability to display case number instead of case ID in interactions and workloads tabs

    Currently, in the interactions tab and workloads tab within Salesforce, the default reference ID displayed is the Case ID. However, our team primarily uses the Case Number as our reference across all other reporting tools, including Tableau. This mismatch creates additional work on the backend as we have to manually match the Case ID with the Case Number for accurate reporting.

    We are requesting the ability to change the default reference ID from Case ID to Case Number in these tabs. This change would align with our reporting needs, streamline our workflow, and reduce the time spent on manual data matching.

    Currently, in the interactions tab and workloads tab within Salesforce, the default reference ID displayed is the Case ID. However, our team primarily uses the Case Number as our reference across all other reporting tools, including Tableau. This mismatch creates additional work on the backend as we have to manually match the Case ID with the Case Number for accurate reporting.

    We are requesting the ability to change the default reference ID from Case ID to Case Number in these tabs. This change would align with our reporting needs, streamline our workflow, and reduce the time spent on manual data… more

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Interactions  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

13. Skipped Evaluation Reporting and Exporting

    It would be highly beneficial to introduce a feature that allows the identification, reporting, and exporting of skipped evaluations. Currently, if an evaluation is skipped, there is no straightforward way to track or understand the reasons behind it.

    By implementing a system that records when an evaluation is skipped and allows managers and analysts to generate reports or export this data, they can gain valuable insights into patterns or issues that may be causing evaluations to be skipped. This feature would enhance the overall evaluation process by providing transparency and enabling better decision-making.

    4 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  1 comment  ·  Workloads  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

14. Ability to Skip Evaluations in a Sequence When Needed

    When reviewing multiple cases for the same analyst/advisor, the current system requires that the first case be fully completed before moving on to the next. However, there are instances where the first case needs to be put on hold, and it would be helpful to have the ability to skip the first case and proceed with reviewing the second one without having to complete the first.

    This flexibility would allow for more efficient evaluation management, particularly when additional information is needed for a case that cannot be immediately resolved. Enabling the option to temporarily bypass a case and return to it later would make the evaluation process smoother and less restrictive.

    When reviewing multiple cases for the same analyst/advisor, the current system requires that the first case be fully completed before moving on to the next. However, there are instances where the first case needs to be put on hold, and it would be helpful to have the ability to skip the first case and proceed with reviewing the second one without having to complete the first.

    This flexibility would allow for more efficient evaluation management, particularly when additional information is needed for a case that cannot be immediately resolved. Enabling the option to temporarily bypass a case and return to… more

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Workloads  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

15. Auto-Start Next Evaluation in Workload Sequence Without Returning to Interactions Tab

    To enhance the efficiency of the evaluation process, it would be highly beneficial to implement a feature that automatically starts the next evaluation in the workload sequence once an analyst completes the current one. Currently, after completing an evaluation, the analyst has to return to the main Interactions tab to begin the next evaluation. This extra step can be time-consuming and disrupts the workflow.

    By auto-starting the next evaluation in the sequence, analysts can maintain their focus and momentum, leading to a more seamless and productive evaluation experience. This feature would streamline the process and ensure that analysts can work through their assigned workloads more efficiently.

    To enhance the efficiency of the evaluation process, it would be highly beneficial to implement a feature that automatically starts the next evaluation in the workload sequence once an analyst completes the current one. Currently, after completing an evaluation, the analyst has to return to the main Interactions tab to begin the next evaluation. This extra step can be time-consuming and disrupts the workflow.

    By auto-starting the next evaluation in the sequence, analysts can maintain their focus and momentum, leading to a more seamless and productive evaluation experience. This feature would streamline the process and ensure that analysts can work… more

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Workloads  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

16. Ability to identify the origin of completed evaluations - the ability to check if the completed case is from a workload or not.

    In the evaluation tab, it would be incredibly useful to have a feature that identifies whether a completed evaluation originated from an assigned workload or from the interaction tab. Currently, there is no clear way to determine where the evaluation was initially triggered, which can lead to confusion and difficulty in tracking the source of evaluations.

    Implementing a feature that tags or highlights the origin of the evaluation—whether it came from a workload or directly from the interaction tab—would enhance clarity and improve the management of evaluations. This would provide evaluators and managers with better insights and allow for more accurate reporting and analysis of evaluation sources.

    In the evaluation tab, it would be incredibly useful to have a feature that identifies whether a completed evaluation originated from an assigned workload or from the interaction tab. Currently, there is no clear way to determine where the evaluation was initially triggered, which can lead to confusion and difficulty in tracking the source of evaluations.

    Implementing a feature that tags or highlights the origin of the evaluation—whether it came from a workload or directly from the interaction tab—would enhance clarity and improve the management of evaluations. This would provide evaluators and managers with better insights and allow for more… more

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Workloads  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating
    Acknowleged  ·  AdminKarina Ceron V (Product manager, Playvox) responded

    Hi there!

    Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

    We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

    We appreciate your contribution to our community.

    Karina from Product

17. Hierarchy - Multi-Site Functionality - the amalgamation of multiple instances into one.

    The addition of an additional permission tier that will allow the amalgamation of multiple instances into one. This will allow reporting at an enterprise level, as we do not utilize any of the current reporting because it is site/instance-specific.

    Brief specifications on how we would like the multi-site functionality to work -

    Permission Tier:
    Sits above the current "Team" level, consolidating multiple Teams.
    Users with Group-level access can manage and compare data across all Teams within the Group.

    Consolidated Reporting:
    Enables reporting across different instances/sites, allowing enterprise-level analytics.
    Group-level users can generate reports that compare performance across Teams and instances.

    Hierarchical Structure:
    Group > Teams > Agents: Groups contain multiple Teams; each Team contains multiple Agents.
    Flexible structure for organizing Teams based on partners, clients, or other needs.

    Role-Based Access Control:
    New roles specific to the Group level (e.g., Group Manager) with appropriate permissions.

    Centralized Dashboard:
    A dashboard for Group-level management, with customizable views and reports.

    Enterprise-Level Reporting:
    Ability to generate and compare enterprise-level reports across Groups and instances.

    The addition of an additional permission tier that will allow the amalgamation of multiple instances into one. This will allow reporting at an enterprise level, as we do not utilize any of the current reporting because it is site/instance-specific.

    Brief specifications on how we would like the multi-site functionality to work -

    Permission Tier:
    Sits above the current "Team" level, consolidating multiple Teams.
    Users with Group-level access can manage and compare data across all Teams within the Group.

    Consolidated Reporting:
    Enables reporting across different instances/sites, allowing enterprise-level analytics.
    Group-level users can generate reports that compare performance across Teams and instances.

    … more

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Reports  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating
    Acknowleged  ·  AdminKarina Ceron V (Product manager, Playvox) responded

    Hi there!

    Thank you for sharing your idea with us! 

    We will thoroughly evaluate it, and if it gains traction, it could greatly impact our roadmap.

    We appreciate your contribution to our community.

    Karina from Product

18. Add indicator how many interactions there are when apply a filter (or without filter)

    Hi Team, we noticed that if there are multiple pages in the interaction page, each page contains 50 interactions. However it is inconvenient to count if the page is not full, or if there's only one page of interactions when some filters applied.
    Could you add the numbers there at the bottom of the interactions page?

    •  

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Interactions  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

19. Ability to dispute the feedback options selected in the audit

    We can currently dispute scores, which is great, but we rely heavily on the Feedback Options for our reporting to understand what went wrong.

    We also report on this level of error per advisor in many markets, and this means we get disputes that don't necessarily impact the score, but impact the feedback options selected.

    Currently we can't accept a dispute to change only the feedback options, we have to change the score.

    So this means we currently 'reject' the dispute - which is misleading, and then manually edit the original audit so the reporting data is correct.

    Ideally we would love to be able to update the feedback options selected within a dispute. So an accepted dispute doesn't require you to change the score.

    An alternative solution could be to have the option to have 3 'decisions' available. Accept & reject as we do currently, and then another option, such as 'Accept - Feedback only', or maybe just 'Other' (as I've seen other requests for more options so that would cover all different business requirements) This would mean we could track these auditing errors in the same way we can errors in scoring.

    Errors with Feedback options have just as much importance to our business as errors with scoring.

    We can currently dispute scores, which is great, but we rely heavily on the Feedback Options for our reporting to understand what went wrong.

    We also report on this level of error per advisor in many markets, and this means we get disputes that don't necessarily impact the score, but impact the feedback options selected.

    Currently we can't accept a dispute to change only the feedback options, we have to change the score.

    So this means we currently 'reject' the dispute - which is misleading, and then manually edit the original audit so the reporting data is correct.

    Ideally we… more

    9 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Disputes  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating

20. Hide questions marked N/A to the agent in the evaluation result page

    We don't want to show the questions marked with N/A to agents on the Evaluations results page. So there's less noise on the page.

    2 votes

    Vote Vote Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Vote

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Acknowleged  ·  0 comments  ·  Evaluations  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    Submit Rating