Hacker News Reader

Comment by degenerate | Hacker News Reader

The audio interfaces are so bad I resort to one-word answers to every question, to get me to a human as fast as possible.

"Hi, in a few words, what can I help you with today?"

> "billing"

"It sounds like you have a question about your bill. I can help you with that! If you can give a few words to describe the reason you are calling, I can help you with your bill."

> "billing"

"OK, let me get you to a representative who can help!"

... instead of spending 10 minutes wrangling with the vapid AI, I can actually move on with my day after speaking to a human. Was this the future we envisioned in the 90s? I think not. Some systems let you spam 0 (zero) and it transfers to a human, but more and more are requiring you to interface with the system in some way, even if disabled or impaired.

View on HN

"Please enter you account number"

> one two three etc

"Please hold"

"Hello this is agent a, Can I verify your X"

> It's XXXX

"Looks like you have <totally unrelated subject to what you called"

> Yeah but, I called for Y

"Oh ok"

> Y this, Y that, I need Y to do Z

"Let me forward you to an agent that can help you"

"Hello this is Agent Q"

> I need to do Y! damn it I've been on hold and transfering for 20 minutes

"I can help you with Y, but first, I need your account info

> FREAKING A 1234

"Can you verify XYZW?"

> YES GOD DAMN IT YYYY

"Ok sir, I'll need you to FAX it in"

> What, that's technologies from the 1920s

"I'm sorry sir, is there ANYTHING ELSE I can help you out with <condescending voice>"

> PLEASE KILL ME NOW

"Would you like to take a survey?"

a week later, 7pm you get a robo call

"You had a call with Agent X how did that call go"

This happens way too often. I wish I knew why systems ended up like this. Seems to be a business opportunity to fix them once and for all. This is 2018, we can do better

It seems like it's a pattern to ensure security and discourage people from calling.

Vendors do this because they know they can get away with it, i.e. no perceived counter party risk. However what they don't understand, is that there is a HUGE counter party risk.

If its a charge on my credit card or checking, that's what I do, I give them this counter party risk. I call and do a charge back. Basically after 20 minutes with a vendor on hold, I declare that they are being unreasonable and they are unable or unwilling to refund me, I call the bank to do this charge back.

Now, what you tell the bank is critical. For whatever reason, vendors have been able to un-do my chargeback. So instead, I tell the bank that I dispute the charge -- but that I am also disputing the method of payment. So if they argue that the charge is valid in the investigation, I say that is fine -- however, the bank is not authorize on my behalf to pay them, and if they think the charge is authorized they must contact me to arrange a different method of payment. And under no circumstances can they use the bank to make payment. So yeah if they argue the charge is legit, that's fine, contact me (I wish I could put them on hold haha), and I'll pay them -- but the bank can't. The bank likes this because they are off the hook and I like it because they don't get to screw me. Worked every time.

If everyone did this, and made this a huge country party risk, these vendors would stop putting people on hold and ignoring or purposely inadequately addressing their greivences with their product/services.

how can you dispute payment method especially when they tell that you used your card with OTP/signature giving your consent to use this payment method? Just trying to understand so can use this technique if situation arises :)

A solution for me is to avoid dealing with shitty companies like this and seek online-only alternatives (with a good web UI), and failing that, if a shit company screws up and I can’t fix it quickly through their awful customer support I stop paying and let them call me.

It’s funny how they never keep their promises of calling you back until you actually stop giving them money. They also magically start paying more attention to what you say, and complaint letters that went unanswered for months and presumed “lost” suddenly become found and answered.

The reason why is that the phone tree/IVR and back-office systems were developed by someone like IBM, Accenture, Oracle, etc instead of actually competent developers. The budget being blown on the aforementioned companies, they have no choice but to stick with it.

USAA really impressed me recently with a really slick feature: I was in their mobile application, and realized that what I wanted to do was a little too complex for what the app could handle. So I called support, and they (1) automatically identified me based on my number and (2) knew I was just using the app, and asked if I'd like to transfer directly to a person!

It is probably not the most complex integration technically, but it made the experience so smooth.

USAA can be pretty great. In some ways they are ahead in tech, and have been for a long time. I do wish they'd add support for virtual credit cards tho.

The app also has a useful feature to launch the website with session tokens, so it keeps you logged in if you were logged into the app.

So if you know where the thing you're looking for is on the website, you can just launch the website and use that.

Super simple feature but it seems like for so many companies, if you go online, it redirects you to their mobile site which has been "phased out" and tells you to the get their app, which you have and would have used if it had the feature you needed.

For such a "post computer" world it seems ridiculous how often I throw my hands up and find my laptop when trying to complete an online chore from my mobile.

Haha. Meanwhile all the business people meet at conferences and get high on AI and blockchain... get the real easy stuff right first!!!

On the flipside, think of the joy of realizing you've finally been connected to a smart, competent person who is empowered to solve your problem. It is like finding a call center unicorn.

That's like saying death is a good thing because you still get to live a few decades.

Lots of people say that every time the subject of human immortality arises.

That's not a terribly uncommon position, not everyone wants to live forever. Arguably it's a healthy attitude to take, since death will come for you eventually whether or not you make peace with that inevitability.

I had this experience once and it was the result of finally getting a local call centre with better trained and empowered employees (most calls were being farmed out to overseas call centres which followed a very simple script).

It really depends on what sort of organization you're dealing with. My credit union has always been a pleasure to deal with because their phone people are all hired and trained locally. On the other hand they only take calls during business hours which can be a little awkward when I'm in another timezone.

Sounds like calling any medical insurance or provider company in the US. It's the ubiquity of fax that is most flabbergasting.

It's one thing I don't miss at all after getting out of health tech. I hope to never read the phrase "secure fax" again.

This. So many times I dictate or enter my account number, only to have to say it again once I get an actual human.

Can't they see what I just typed before? Seriously, how bad can this be.

'Agent' or 'representiative' will usually do it faster.

But I hear you. I recently wanted to change the ownership of my cellphone account. "Change ownership", "It sounds like you want to change cellphone plans, is that correct?", "Agent", "Okay, let me get you to a representative".

The only tasks these things are equipped to do, are the tasks that I can do via the company's online portal, and in a much less frustrating manner. I wonder who is actually using these things.

It's likely that these are for company itself. Ain't no one got time to deal with questions that are already explained on the website. This is made to filter mindless or lazy drones who don't want to search and its totally fair.

In other words, paying customers

So make getting to an agent at least as difficult as figuring out the web interface?

I've noticed that companies without IVR lines have switched from hold music to recordings that repeatedly list all the things you can handle online instead.

It's annoying when my issue isn't on the list, since I'll have to hear it 50 times. And it's incredibly aggravating when my issue is on the list, but the website doesn't actually work right. But it's not hard to understand why it happens.

Oh my Goddess, there is nothing worse than hearing: "It's on the website".

Yeah, that's unhelpful if "the website" is a sprawling, vast wasteland. Finding a specific thing on an obese, convoluted site is like trying to find the bucket of ice cream in Siberia. I always check the site first, so if I am calling... it's because your website is pretty bad.

So if I do find the thing I need and it is broken, then I call and dodge the idiot AI, and the beleaguered agent or offers the pathetic advice of: "It's on the website". I tell them it doesn't work, and this has led to two outcomes, either the agent tries to do it and it is so broken and fucked up that they tell me that's it's down and I have to call back or try the website days or weeks later, or I am lucky and the agent has to do a tedious task that I would have preferred to do myself online.

I was on hold with my insurance to file a claim, the IVR loop said for the third time "Did you know? You can file your claim online!" so I gave in, hung up, went online and all the form asks for is my contact information (phone + email) and my preferred method, so I enter email.

I get an email "Hey, I need to contact you so we can proceed, what method would you prefer?" I reply "Email, please" provide the information I assume the rep needs and which the online form should have been able to ask me and offer "What else do you need".

"Is there a time I can call you and [go over the script and fill out a form on my computer, as if you'd just stayed on hold hours ago]?"

10/10

I see you too have had to deal with AAA.

This is always annoying because the only reason I would ever call is if I've exhaustively tried every way to use the website and encountered some sort of roadblock/edge case where they tell you to call in.

This is stacked against power user just like anything else in this world. Technology is dumbed down for the average user whereas I believe we should strive to make the average user smarter instead. Not happening tho it seems.

Like when you call an ISP because your internet is down and their recorded message goes "check our website...." well I'd love to but...

Or immediately hitting "0" once the prompt begins.

Bashing # several times quickly also works on a lot of systems. I always give it a go first time around - when it works, the voice bot typically says 'I didn't understand that, I will connect you with a.. [human]'.

Failing that I also resort to answering in one word answers. Bots can't handle any sort of ambiguity. Even when they manage to solve the language-parsing problem, people will still just bark one word answers at anything that looks or sounds remotely non-human[1] because that's how the early AI's trained us. The future-concept of people chatting away to robots is incredibly unlikely because to do that you need a level of empathy for the person/object you are talking to. We've clearly shown so far that we just don't have it for bots.

[1] Like the 19th century British Explorer shouting English at the natives.

Great points, one word answers/commands are, in our minds, the most compatible with a non-human system.

Mashing # works well too.

Usually you'll get it try to say stuff, give up and then say "Thanks, I'll put you through to one of our team"

I think you answered your own question.

The people using the automated phone services are the people without internet or even computers.

Believe me, they exist ;)

"CONNECT ME WITH A HUMAN, YOU INFERNAL MACHINE."

"Okay, let me get you to a representative."

I encountered a system that replied in the following way:

"I'm sorry, it looks like you want to talk to a representative. You need to answer a few questions first."

Very HAL-like.

And then when you get to the representative, he proceeds to ask you the exact same questions.

>> The only tasks these things are equipped to do, are the tasks that I can do via the company's online portal, and in a much less frustrating manner. I wonder who is actually using these things.

Old people. I'm not kidding. I used to do PCI compliance work with call centers. I've listened in on many a call to verify procedures. Call centers deal with an unending stream of older people who cannot or will not use "computers". They want to talk to a person on a phone. The people who are comfortable with the online interface only call when the online interface fails them. Old people go to the telephone first.

And there is a growing subset of old people who are functionally illiterate. I don't mean they don't know how to read, I mean their eyesight is diminished to the point that using the computer/phone/tablet is uncomfortable. Or their fingers don't move well enough for a keyboard/touchscreen. The phone is simple and reliable, not requiring either visual or physical dexterity.

I agree with everything you've said, and I feel really badly for how tech's dark patterns, crappy UX, and removal of humanity have treated the elderly.

Even non tech items like opening a bag of chips or box of crackers. I estimate that some packaging must require 40+ lbs to open. And I think of the "how it's made" show and how advanced manufacturing plants are. So they use all this tech to make a box of crackers as cheaply as possible, they have cameras fast enough to find and remove a single dark grain of rice in a torrential stream, but put zero thought into the UX experience and how the user can open the box.

It sounds like the simplest "tech fix" for this phone menu is once their account is found,

if (age > 60 ) sendToPerson ();

Furthermore, you could do "soft" account verification with their number. So if they call from a number that matches an elderly customer, just route it straight to a human, even though numbers can be spoofed it's not going to harm the customer to just assume it's them for that step only and fully verify their acct later.

You think old people don't just hit zero, pound, or say 'agent', to go to a person, to do the things the phone tree can do?

If they don't, is that because they don't know any better, or because they actually want to use the IVR?

My guess is either they go straight to a person, or they don't know that's an option. So if I'm correct (and I think the onus would be to prove that old people think differently than everyone else in this regard), these things exist to take advantage of the ignorance of old people to save a company some money. Greaaaat.

There needs to be an alternate queue for people who call because the online interface failed.

"We are sorry our website didn't work, let me get you a human..."

If only "Shibboleet" worked: http://xkcd.com/806/

Unpacking it...

Haiku: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku_%28operating_system%29

Penguin doll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tux

Bearded dude with swords: http://blog.xkcd.com/2007/04/19/life-imitates-xkcd-part-ii-r...

which is a recursive reference to XKCD: http://xkcd.com/225/

Shibboleet: Shibboleth from Judges 12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth

combined with "leet"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet from hacker culture

Bearded dude touching the blade of shin ken with his fingers - stick to programming bearded dude!

- Phone: Say "representative" to talk to an agent

- Me" "REPRESENTATIIIVE"

- Phone: Sorry, I didn't get that. Say "representative" to talk to an agent

- Me" "REPRESENTATIIIVE"

- Phone: Sorry, I didn't get that. let me transfer you to a representative

(This specific one happens on United calls, every single time.)

For many of these systems, you actually are talking to a human. The person listens to what you say then directs your call as (hopefully) appropriate. They don't have a mic, so clarifying questions are limited to buttons they can push on a glorified soundboard -- in your case it sounds like there were several departments that handle different aspects of billing and they were trying to sort out where to route your call.

The guy you were talking to eventually just routed you to someone with the same job but who has a mic, because you weren't giving him anything to go on and all he'd have been able to do is push the button again to ask you the exact same question (and having a person do it who can at least vary the inflection of the question is less infuriating than seemingly being stuck in a chatbot's infinite loop).

Source: have a friend who used to have this job. He has thankfully moved on to something less soul sucking than being a human literally pretending to be a robot.

That seems utterly nonsensical and dehumanizing. If you have a human greeter/operator, why not expose that to the customer? You are already paying for the human to be in the loop, why not benefit from the impression of a friendly human touch as well?

I'd love to know more about these operations, thanks for mentioning this.

I guess during the time the recording talks, they can listen to another call? So you end up having to hire less people.

Sadly I know very little more about it, other than being able to confirm that it really is dehumanizing. You're essentially being paid for your capability of performing simple natural language processing. The amount of courtesy that call-center people get is already pretty low, and bundle in that the frustrated person thinks they're talking to a robot that literally doesn't have feelings... he had some Bad Days (though he did say that you could let a lot of things slide by just reminding yourself of how comically nonsensical the whole situation is).

I'm just speculating here, but I suspect it means that the employee needs less training. All he needs is a quick flow-chart to route the calls. No training for how to talk to customers, no liability regarding things he might say, etc.

He was glad when he found another job.

> For many of these systems, you actually are talking to a human.

Is this practice widespread at all? I've worked at several contact center software companies with many customers and never once heard of this. It's always been automated IVR software controlling this. This sounds to my ears like maybe an outlier of a particularly awful contact center? I'd certainly pause before claiming this is how it works for "many of these systems".

That's actually a good question -- I don't know. My only window into this world was through him, and from his point of view it seemed widespread. I'll update my comment accordingly.

Edit: ahh I can no longer edit it :|

Wow, I'm sorry your friend had to go through that. This is the first time I've heard that this job actually exists!

It seems very strange to have a human who can listen but can't speak. I guess these companies think that by removing speech as a possibility, they're able to pay the employee less or something?

I think it's less about having to pay them less and more about less "customer interface" training, less concern about liability with regards to what the person might say, not having to worry about the potential stigma associated with a foreign accent, etc. But I'm just speculating here.

Weird! A Nuance license would be cheaper and works just as poorly.

A colleague of mine worked on the automated call center systems in the early 80s. The fastest way to get to a human is to cuss it out. This has worked for almost every system I’ve worked with so far (not sure if they’re using the same underlying software or if this behavior has been ported over). I only opt for this trick when I have no idea where to go given the menu read out to me because I like to think that support menu systems are designed to make it easier to navigate an organization’s own bureaucracy primarily, not necessarily to help me with my issues.

> "more and more are requiring you to interface with the system in some way, even if disabled or impaired."

In a sort of sick and very selfish way, I find myself somehow glad that blind and deaf people exist and are protected by accessibility legislation. I've often found accessibility features, particularly those in software, to be exceptionally useful even though my vision and hearing are fine.

Reminds me of a tech talk I went to last year, where the speaker/developer was trying to get on the Alexa hype train by building a "virtual doctor" application of some sort. He was very excited about the possibility of reducing physicians' administrative overhead, but my thought the whole time was, "seems like one of those terrible phone navigation systems..."

What I need to replace a virtual doctor is automated medical testing.

I need a machine to take all of the measurements and make decisions entirely without any kind of subjective judgement on my part.

Please, validate my health the same way automated testing and other such diagnostics checks work.

A fun hack on a lot of these systems is to start cursing a lot. It's like dialing "0" for operator.

This does work, but I worry the AI's will hold it against me someday.

I worry the human operators will hold it against me. The quality of assistance they provide may be biased by how irate and short tempered they think I am, even if I was just putting on a show for the robot.

I wouldn't expect a human to be offended by "operator agent fucfucfuc" spoken in a calm voice. There's no need to yell at the robot.

Hah, I really do, if ever so slightly, feel this way. Surprised by the down votes. Just disapprove because you frown on humor, which it wasn't intended as, or somehow did I offend you?

By and large, voice user interfaces still fail to abide by Grice's Maxims[1]. In your example, that's the maxim of manner:

> when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity

In a sense, this is not unlike an unskilled and nervous attendant who, faced with a request that they don't understand, starts to chatter more and more in hopes of eliciting the information they really need.

[1]: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html

There's also a rise of interfaces where talking to a human is not an option, and it's actually very challenging to break out of the default set of options. AirBNB is an example of this. This might be OK for the majority of calls, but when you need something outside of the normal set of problems, good luck. They're almost trying to not document the problems that they haven't already documented.

https://gethuman.com/ is an excellent resource!

I've noticed a sharp increase over the last year or two maybe in the number of companies that will bypass the awful classifier and connect you to a human immediately if you yell the word "fuck" into the phone because the machine thinks it's got an angry customer on the line. IME it weirdly has to be the word "fuck" and it has to be loud. I don't pretend to know all the ins-and-outs of IVR systems, but it seems like maybe one of the bigger service providers these companies use have this one weird trick programmed into them?

Note that a lot of the time, the point of those interfaces isn't to direct your call, so much as it is to collect information ahead-of-time, and transcribe it with voice-recognition, so that when you do begin speaking to a representative, they already have your question in front of them on the screen.

And yet for some reason I have to tell them my account number after I have already entered it on a keyboard. This frustrates me beyond belief as it says to me they have disparate software systems that don't talk to one another.

I'd like a "billing" tab on their website the most.

Always having to ask for permission is tiring.

I just yell “aaaaaaa” and usually after three attempts it gives up and sends me to the human.

I just mash the zero key frantically until it connects me to a human. Works ~95% of the time.

I find cursing at the bot gets me to a human right away. It's also therapeutic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com