I just had a time travelling customer
I just had a customer try and tell me that he sent the phone he got through warrenty exchange back, the day before he got it. I wonder if QA would ding me for quoting Enstiens thoery of quantom mechanics?
...
if you know enstien's theory of quantom mechanics why are you working for cingular? 😉
...
probably because neither of you can't spell Einstein. lol just playing around
...
If I could go back in time I would slap the person who thought that it was a good idea to change the Former ATTWS cust bill to Cingular and the new Cingular Bills look just like the FORMER ATTWS CINGULAR bill... 👿
...
Wha? My Cingular bill looks exactly the same as it always has for the past two years. Are you just talking about the name on the bill or the entire bill?
I wish former ATTWS bills said "Former AT&T Wireless" instead of "Cingular". It would cut down on a lot of the confusion I get from customers.
I wish former ATTWS bills said "Former AT&T Wireless" instead of "Cingular". It would cut down on a lot of the confusion I get from customers.
...
I'm with you 100% then. I cant even count the number of conversations I've had that include:
me: "If we switch you to Cingular we can..."
cust: "I'm already on Cingular"
me: "Actually you're still on the same plan you signed up on x years ago with the same account number and information... blah blah blah"
It makes me wanna stab myself in the hand.
me: "If we switch you to Cingular we can..."
cust: "I'm already on Cingular"
me: "Actually you're still on the same plan you signed up on x years ago with the same account number and information... blah blah blah"
It makes me wanna stab myself in the hand.
...
It makes me wanna stab myself in the hand.
MEEEEEEEEEEEE2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think part of it is that cingular chose to market it as a merger, when in all actuality it really wasnt. It was a buy out. Nextel-Sprint, thats a merger.... but this really wasnt a merge technically speaking.
...
to answer your question about QA dinging you...
if you can explain it withing the national QA guidelines for your department and the customer doesnt take offence to the statement then yes you can quote the theory,
i think it would fall under education, just dont quote it incorrectly or you would be marked off for accuracy of information.
also try to quote it while you are working ont he account and only when since this may not be considered small talk and may affect your handle time since it is not something company related.
and yes i am a QA analyst, i think i would die laughing while dinging you to a zero if i heard this 🙂
if you can explain it withing the national QA guidelines for your department and the customer doesnt take offence to the statement then yes you can quote the theory,
i think it would fall under education, just dont quote it incorrectly or you would be marked off for accuracy of information.
also try to quote it while you are working ont he account and only when since this may not be considered small talk and may affect your handle time since it is not something company related.
and yes i am a QA analyst, i think i would die laughing while dinging you to a zero if i heard this 🙂
...
Our QA group are Nazis, i've gotten three QA's of 75's because i dindnt say "I'm sorry your having problems with such and such", never mind I fixed their issues, and on two of them the customer actually wrote in commendation letters...go figure 😕
...
Ok .. I know this thread is old. But I couldn't help it. Einstein is who you would associate with The theory of General Relativity.. ie : Gravity. Not Quantum Mechanics.
His main contribution to QM would be the 'theory' of photoelectric effect. Im pretty sure he got a Nobel prize for it .. but I'm too lazy to go check. At any rate, its not a theory of QM it's just one little piece of a giant puzzle... which happens to be about extremely small things (almost unimaginably small) and how they react with other extremly small things. As opposed to General Relativity which would explain how very large objects (sometimes unimaginably so) react with other extremly large objects. I could write about this stuff all day, in painfull detail, but it te...
(continues)
His main contribution to QM would be the 'theory' of photoelectric effect. Im pretty sure he got a Nobel prize for it .. but I'm too lazy to go check. At any rate, its not a theory of QM it's just one little piece of a giant puzzle... which happens to be about extremely small things (almost unimaginably small) and how they react with other extremly small things. As opposed to General Relativity which would explain how very large objects (sometimes unimaginably so) react with other extremly large objects. I could write about this stuff all day, in painfull detail, but it te...
(continues)
...
. . . on this same topic, I had a customer refer to porting her number to another carrier as "teleporting" . . . I was rolling on the floor laughing. 🤣 🤣
...
