Talk:Interactive voice response

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Interactive voice response article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Remove external link

Removed a spam link (several times) to a website called ivrdictionary. This is a thinly veiled attempt to put advertising on Wikipedia. Links were added by several anonymous users within a tight IP range. Website purports to list ivr terminology, but in reality it prominently displays an advertisement to Angel dot com, which is a commercial company that sells IVR related products. The same links were added to other articles that are related to IVR technology. Calltech 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Angel.com was simply advertising on my dictionary. I have removed the advertisements. Please review. The dictionary is a work in progress, but it already covers quite a bit of concepts and items that are very crucial to understanding the IVR industry. This is a real dictionary and not a marketing gimmick. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.193.153 (talk • contribs) 19:41, November 19, 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia external link policy WP:EL, specifically:
"For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception.
A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines. If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, mention it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it."
Wikipedia is not a directory or place to promote your website. Do not add this link back again. Calltech 20:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

why not add the http://gethuman.com/print.asp it han no ad's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.47.128.201 (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added DMOZ directory and external link warning

Due to the numerous attempts to add link spam to this article, went ahead and found the appropriate DMOZ directory and added it along with a Wikipedia standard warning message to potential link spammers. This follows recommended guidelines WP:EL, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Calltech 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IVR Simulation and Modeling

I added this new section to the article and in full disclosure, I am affiliated with the company that is cited and that provided the IVR simulation program. I have attempted to be neutral and welcome any contributions that would make this section even more neutral. pgillman 00:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


As far as being neutral, does that mean that quality cannot be addressed at all? Would like to know. SRV lvr (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add the IVR avoidance link

Many people despise IVR and I am one of them. I therefore added the gethuman.com list of IVR workarounds to the external links, and I note that "Calltech" has deleted it arguing that it is "advertising or promotion". It isn't. It is a link that many people reading about IVR will find helpful, since many people reading about IVR are interested in avoiding it! - sorry for that for those of you involved in the industry, but that's the way it is. I am not affiliated in any way with gethuman, and the site doesn't take advertising anyway. 67.49.117.90 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding links to WP to promote a website is against WP:EL guidelines, whether you despise IVR or love it and are promoting products, services or websites. WP is an encyclopedia, not a forum or medium to promote an agenda or website. Please review the history on this article - it is filled with companies and individuals who attempt to do this and their links are removed. Calltech 22:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your "logic". You seem to be arguing that adding any external link is akin to "promoting" a website. This is clearly false - if it were true, there would be no external links at all on wikipedia. And you also wish to lump in persons trying to add information they honestly feel is helpful and relevant, with persons promoting websites for personal gain. As previously stated, I am not affiliated in any way with gethuman. Also, the gethuman site contains reviews of IVR performance, and reviews are suggested as one suitable use of external links in the external links guidelines you reference above ("What should be linked to: 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."). 67.49.117.90 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is not a guideline, it is WP's policy. Particularly, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising". Further, under WP:EL, links to social networking sites, blogs, or links intended to promote a website are to be avoided.
You and another anonymous user have attempted to add links to this site and that's considered website promotion and link spamming. WP is not a directory of links. Please add your link to DMOZ, not here, which is the recommended WP guideline WP:EL. Calltech 12:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are, I think you are being far more dictatorial than warranted. A dictionary of IVR terms is a perfectly legitimate thing to point to. The criterion should be: is this something that can help people learn more about IVR or not. Whether there are ads on it or not is completely irrelevant. Same deal for the gethuman link. I think you are doing a agreat disservice to people who want to learn about IVR by preventing a link to that project from being listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.238.98.72 (talk • contribs) 18:35, March 27, 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for external links is spelled out clearly in the guidelines and has evolved from the discussions and input from many WP editors. This criteria is the basis for removing the above links. Please review WP:EL and WP:NOT. WP is an encyclopedia, not a Soapbox for promoting an agenda nor is it a forum to promote products or services. Calltech 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bull! A dictionary of IVR terms is not a soapbox. The site has relevant and useful content. Mentioning the gethuman.com web site and the Paul English controversy is not engaging in soapboxing. If you are not aware of Paul English and his gethuman project, then you have no business whatsoever playing gatekeeper here. I understand your concern for quality, but in this case, sir/madam, you are wrong.

Question: what is the process for getting those two links seriously considered for addition. It can't be that one person is going to bully the rest into not adding what I believe is legitimate material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.238.98.72 (talk • contribs) 23:54, March 27, 2007 (UTC)

This article has already been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Link Controversy at Interactive voice response as requiring the input of outside editors. If you disagree with what those editors have to say when they come here, and I strongly suspect that you will, your next step is to request comments from the larger Wikipedia community. This can be done at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Thank you, Satori Son 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The censorship continues. Reference to Paul English and the gethuman project keeps getting removed under the bogus pretext that it's spamming. Clearly, the censor has no business guarding the IVR page if they are not aware of the Paul English controversy and the gethuman project. YOU WILL NOT PREVAIL, sir. I will mobilize against this unwarranted bullying. I will spread the word to IVR groups to join this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.193.153 (talk • contribs) 23:56, March 28, 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely not the way to handle this. Such a tactic will only succeed in getting this article semi-protected, which means IP address users such as yourself will not be able to edit it or its talk page. Wikipedia operates on a policy-based consensus model, not mob rule. Please stop making futile threats and instead calmly wait for other editors to comment here. -- Satori Son 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Whenever people invoke a policy on wikipedia, I feel as though there is one policy which is sorely underrated, and that is Ignore the Rules. I fail to see how anyone could object to adding a very relevant and useful link to this article. I think a lot of people would like to know about the gethuman project, and isn't that what wikipedia is all about? Providing useful relevant information to the masses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.10.20 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add an external link that is merely, "http://www.telephonyworld.com/basics/call-center-lingo-translator-for-geeks/" and is actually pro-IVR, but it is the only place I could find, outside of GetHuman.com of course, where it is admitted by anyone that corporations use IVR to enforce their business rules on individual customers. Enforcing "individual business rules" is a new fad, closely related to "Fire that Customer" current business fad.Dustysrainbow (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article (in this link) reads like a promotion for Angel with an 800 phone number to call, etal. Thus I removed the link. Calltech (talk) 11:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A compromise on gethuman.com / Paul English?

I agree that gethuman.com is a useful reference site, and not advertising, but, arguably, it is also barely an encyclopaedic reference about IVR technology.

Caltech: Take a closer look at gethuman.com. You certainly should be aware of it as an editor of this area, and it appears you are not. You should see that its aim it to help and inform the 'everyman' out there (like WP does) with regards to real IVR systems... Labelling as spam/advertising is wrong. I agree it should be linked to one way or another as a way to get 'real world' information about IVRs. I don't see that DMOZ is relevant.

How about a compromise: Make a new WP gethuman page and neutrally discuss what the 'gethuman' movement is about there. Then link to that WP page from here? What do people think? How does that fit with the guidelines? Peter nann 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion here WT:WPSPAM under the WP Spam project based upon the spamming history of this user (who operates under multiple IPs) and who has been issued multiple warnings by other users User talk:68.227.193.153. Calltech 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to add a mention of anti-IVR activist Paul English

I am frustrated by Calltech's stubborn and headless insistence that a reference to Paul English and his anti-IVR crusade is spam. This is completely absurd and clear proof that Calltech has no right being an editor of IVR. I am starting to suspect that he is censoring the Paul English because he is associated with the IVR industry. Someone please help me with this. What is the process to getting this glaring gaping hole in this article filled and barring this dictatorial Calltech from abusing his little power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.193.153 (talk • contribs) 01:09, March 29, 2007 (UTC)

The dispute resolution has been started already; see my comment above. More importantly, calling other editors "headless" and "dictatorial" is, among other of your comments, a violation of our Wikipedia:Civility policy. Please refrain from doing so. Discuss the edits, not the editor. Thank you, Satori Son 13:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise a good idea, but some information about English is valid here as well.

A separate gethuman article isn't a bad idea (I'd suggest it should be framed around the non-profit group, not the web site). A mention, however, of English and his activities certainly seems warranted in the "Criticism" section of this article as well. Is there a reason it wouldn't be valid to add criticism from gethuman.com and then cite it as a source?

To the editor of this article I would also say that there's an appearance of a double standard here. The "Call Center Simulation Models" link in the "Reference" section certainly seems to be promoting a web site. Jlgunnell 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for adding IVR Dictionary

Calltech has deemed the on-line IVR dictionary "spam". Please visit http://www.ivrdictionary.com/ and judge for yourself. Please consider voting for the link to be allowed to be added to the "external links" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.193.153 (talk • contribs) 02:19, March 30, 2007 (UTC)

First, please add comments to the talk page at the bottom (either within a section or talk page itself). Also sign all of your comments using 4 tildes (~). (The guidelines have been place on the top of this page to assist you.)
Second, it is imperative that you read the guidelines WP:EL about adding links to websites, particularly those that you own or control. WP is not a directory of links. Once again, you have been warned on numerous occasions not to promote your website on WP User talk:68.227.193.153 and on previous anonymous user ID's. Calltech 13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guide Speech IVR edits

Reverted recent edits by an anonymous user who restored an article that was nominated for deletion Guided speech IVR based upon lack of notability of the term. Result of nomination was a consensus to redirect the article here. Anon user restored original article and added extensive edits here. If other editors feel these edits are appropriate, then lets gain a consensus here first. Calltech 15:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like "Guided Speech IVR" is now a trademarked term for a company called "Spoken Communications." In my experience, "guided speech" has always described a type of voice user interface design for speech recognition based IVRs. I agree with the reversion of the edits at this time. --LarryMac 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge EasyIVR with this page and split EasyIVR product information to it's own page.

I recently ran across a link that brought me to a page where the link showed IVR, but you ended up at the page EasyIVR. Clicking the "What Links Here" button I see that there are lots of links where the TERM IVR has been changed to go to EasyIVR#WhatIsIVR sub-link. I think this is spam or advertising but it is well written so I don't want to just delete it. Is it possible to merge the good content here while splitting product specific content into it's own article. For instance half the page is giving definitions or listing clients. It should be about the product itself if the product is deemed important enough to have a page.

I'm posting this here because more people will see it and it appears to be stealing links from this page probably for the purposes of Search Engine Optimization. Should this page be merge with EasyIVR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.132.25 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC).66.227.132.25 21:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I am the author of EasyIVR, I will respond here as well since I have already explained this on your talk page. Some of the links you attempted to revert were from the corporate article (Database Systems Corp) which references the products and services it offers including IVR. An internal link into EasyIVR referencing the terms IVR and Interactive voice response are completely appropriate, since this is the division offering those solutions. The content and definitions come from the company websites. pgillman 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi pgillman, thanks for responding. I disagree. I will find the specific rules again but I remember reading that wikipedia article should never redirect common terms to specific products just because some corporate literature has it written that way. Wikipedia is not a brochure. A wikipedia article about a product should be only about the product. Please look at the Microsoft Word article for example. It does not attempt to define "Word Processor" - it simply talks about the product. I'll post the guidelines on the article page or your user page when I find them so you can make the edits yourself if you like. --GreatTurtle 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Without sounding argumentative, the way the link is presented in the article Database Systems Corp. could not be more direct and to the point. Saying that "EasyIVR provides IVR services" and pointing IVR to the direct section in the EasyIVR article that describes these IVR solutions provides the reader one clear link to obtain this information; not general IVR information, but specifically what EasyIVR IVR services are provided. I'm still not quite sure why you think there is a problem in doing it this way?
Thanks and I do appreciate any editing and guideline suggestions you may have and will definitely implement any changes if the way these links were made are in violation of WP guidelines. pgillman 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
(Further comment) I researched your comment about Microsoft and "Word Processor" and found several examples where the article gives extensive definitions (OLE, for one) for terms or technologies it implements that already has a WP article. There is nothing in EasyIVR that duplicates what is in this article (Interactive Voice Response) but it clearly describes IVR in terms of its own specific offerings and implementations. pgillman 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, I'll try to be more clear. The problem I was describing was in two parts. One - your page has it's own definition of IVR without linking back to this page for more detail. And two - that the other pages you have written link to your own definition of IVR instead of this page which should be the "official" definition of IVR. Consider how the quality of Wikipedia would decrease if every product listed on wikipedia linked to it's own definition of what it does.
Reworded sections in EasyIVR to remove any suggestion of a definition. pgillman 04:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed several additional links that were to these definitions. Also, reworked parts of this article per your suggestions on the talk page. pgillman 15:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The page that says "EasyIVR provides IVR services" then links to your own defintion of IVR. The sentence already links to your product via the EasyIVR link. Sending the link for the term IVR there too is hijacking the definition. Consider the following sentence:
Microsoft Speech Server provides IVR services.
If you don't know what IVR is, then you click the IVR link. You should get the IVR page, not MS's version of what IVR is, or how they do it different. That would be covered in the product page. What you are saying would make perfect sense on your own website. It is close to spam or vandalism on wikipedia.
Database Systems Corp. section was changed to use the link titles with EasyIVR in the link description, i.e. IVR becomes EasyIVR IVR. pgillman 04:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So to fix it just make sure you always link the term to the actual page and not your own made up definition. If you need to link to your product, then make sure the link clearly names your product and doesn't try to redefine a term like some SEO people attempt to do. --GreatTurtle 02:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you GreatTurtle, I just removed the Outbound IVR redirect-hijacking. It looks like 66.227.132.25 had already removed about 10 of those spam redirects. I have also added {{advert}} and {{COI}} tags to both the Database Systems Corp. and EasyIVR articles. (Requestion 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC))
No problem. I think it was Search Engine Optimization, even if not intended. I am surprised to see that it worked and how fast they dropped from the ranking when Google detected the wikipedia change. I swear last week that EasyIVR was on the front page of a search for IVR or Interactive Voice Response. The EasyIVR and related pages have been deleted it seems. Today I don't see EasyIVR listed at all in the first few pages of google results. If wikipedia links have such value we'll have to be extra watchful of this happening again. Adding these pages to my watch list.--GreatTurtle 20:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add external link to BT Agile Media

BT Agile Media have some interesting televoting call stats here: http://www.agile-media.co.uk/downloads/Agile_Media_RIDE.pdf from which I took the 191k calls in a minute figure. Whilst I appreciate the desire not to have the links full of spam, linking to this would be a valid reference? Daveknell 16:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Link is to a commercial website promoting a product or service and is discouraged in the WP:EL guidelines (#4 in links to avoid). Calltech 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, true, but its addition makes the statistic verifiable, and that's important - see WP:V. Although BT's case studies aren't a reliable source as defined, it's unlikely - given who they are - that they're making things up. Daveknell 08:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following statement from the article and placed it here for discussion purposes.
"BT's RIDE platform has answered 191,000 calls in a single minute."
Singling out a commercial website and service based upon its performance numbers appears promotional. Calltech 12:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Further note: To be included in this article, statements such as the one above need to come from third party, neutral references (i.e. respected industry journals, books, etc.), rather than from the company website. Calltech 13:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've nothing to do with BT, apart from being a residential customer of theirs. I have, though, worked in IVR for over a decade. I cited BT's figures because they are mind-boggling, both from the technological view and as an illustration of the power of participation TV. Whilst WP's policy for references works for the mainstream, it doesn't for the long tail: there simply isn't a respected industry journal covering IVR, and any press articles which I might be able to dig up (http://www.theproductionguide.co.uk/casestudies.aspx for a poor example) would simply parrot BT's figures. A question: does that statistic improve the article? Daveknell 04:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's an interesting reference: http://www.bpoindia.org/faq/ - An India point of view on the business. They have created an acronym for everything. Also, interesting how they address health problems of Indian citizens who work in call centres.Dustysrainbow (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That article appears to be about outsourcing rather than interactive voice response. -- SiobhanHansa 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)