Call does not leave the queue

Architect & Flows
1

Hello,

we all know that if we place multiple targets under the same TargetList, the scope of the call would slowly expand as it times out from one virtual queue to the one under it. This is a documented and expected operation.

I was wondering if I am the only one who noticed that in some cases a call would not be diverted from the queue even if it was placed to a different queue from a different TargetList. Here is the scenario:

I create a TargetList. Under it I place one TargetObject which is an agent group named NewYork. The queue for this TargetObject is defined as VQ_NewYork with a waiting time of 30 seconds.

Beneath it, I place an IF statement followed by another TargetList with a target object of Athens and a virtual queue of VQ_Athens with wait time of 10000 seconds.

After placing a call to this strategy, a call enters first virtual queue VQ_NewYork and parks there for thirty seconds. After that if drops out of that TargetList and enters a new TargetList and VQ_Athens.

Here is where the fun starts if agent in VQ_NewYork becomes available, call is immediately connected to that agent inspite exiting that virtual queue and TargetList.

What is going on and am I the only one who just noticed it?

Perplexed but ticking,
Jeff

2

When the first 30 secondes terminates the call does not drop out of your Newyork queue. It stays there, and the script queues the call to the second Athen Q. So the call can be answer by both target, which ever comes first.

3

Denise,are you sure that this is the right way to think about it?
After reading through his email, I think he means that even if a call
leaves TargetSelect in a strategy, it continues to actually be there.
I do not see a merit in this kind of implementation. I like the idea
expanding scope of the call via multiple ListTargets, but not with
TargetSelect. Is it actually how it is supposed to be working? On a side note:
I think the terms TargetList and Target should actually be read
TargetSelect and ListTarget respectively. What do you think?

Vic