Sunk Cost Fallacy?
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
maybe that post should be it's own thread. /shrug. it is less about the sunk cost and more about phone functionality.
Definitely should be a post as part of your PBX series.
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
Of course not. Each parking lot is an extension itself.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
-
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
My guess is that to "steal" a call you call the extension that has the call on hold and push a button. That brings that on hold call to your handset.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
Yep, IIRC it goes against FreePBX best practices but it is available.
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
Yep, IIRC it goes against FreePBX best practices
There is no such thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
Yep, IIRC it goes against FreePBX best practices
There is no such thing.
Best practices? I could have sworn they recommend in the interface that you shouldn't have more then 15 parking lots. It was a warning on that configuration page. I could easily be recalling incorrectly and this was related to something else.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The inherent problem with a parking lot is remember what slot the call is in. Equally so is someone else picking up the wrong call, then parking them in a different slot, so the original party can never find them.
With the Mitel system, this is a complete non issue. You place the call on hold on your own phone, from any other phone in the system you dial 4 + the extension the call is holding on. Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
You, of course, could do the same thing with parked calls. You can program the "hold" button to always park the call at 4+extension number. This will involve a lot of parking lots but would work.
Yeah that's sounding familiar.. basically there would have to be a single slot parking lot for every extension in the place.
Yep, IIRC it goes against FreePBX best practices
There is no such thing.
As a best practice? yeah this would seem like a weird best practice. perhaps a better way to phrase it would be typical practice.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
Where the fuck did blind transfers come from?
It was specifically asked how you handle lots of calls to a single extension.
More specifically, I would ask how do you handle the second call after a call is already parked to an extension.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
Where the fuck did blind transfers come from?
It was specifically asked how you handle lots of calls to a single extension.
More specifically, I would ask how do you handle the second call after a call is already parked to an extension.
Yeah, that's what I was wondering. Just one more call and how can you tell from another room what you are grabbing.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch question - can parking lot extensions been the same as actual extensions?
What is it that you actually want?
He's mentioned it in a few threads. From what I gather his current system allows handsets to "steal" calls from other handsets.
How does that related to the extension question, though?
It relates because if I have a parking lot button that puts the current caller on parking lot my extension, then I always know where it is 'on hold' at.
How does this work with the Mitel if you have lots of calls to a single extension?
Our workflow doesn't do much if any blind transfers, and absolutely does not do any blind transfers to on hold. Blind transfers would always be to a typical ringing state, and if not answered transferred to VM or back to the transferer.
You mention that you don't do this here. But in a previous comment you said.
Additionally, I can send a call to your phone and instantly put it on hold on your phone by hitting - transfer + ext + hold button.
So you want a feature that you don't use? Or did I misread this?
-
Remember that he has a digital key system. So he uses really bad terms, due to that.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Remember that he has a digital key system. So he uses really bad terms, due to that.
That must be it, I started with SIP and haven't touched many legacy systems.
