Prioritized hunt

[netswork]

I have only ever used "Ring All". I dont have a system I can test on right now. When you setup the timer for a prioritized hunt do the phones ring in order for the timeout value until it gets to the last one and then goes to the no answer setting?

So if I have two phones and the timer is 10 seconds will the first one ring for 10 seconds then the second...then no answer?

On another note lets say someone has their phone call forward no answer setting set to their assistant. Their assistant has their no answer setting set to go to voicemail. If someone calls the first phone and then it forwards to the second phone...then hits the no answer which is set to go to voicemail on the second phone...will it go back to the voicemail box for the first extension?

Normally I would just test this but I am traveling to do an install and dont have access to a system to test.

 

[leejor]

I've only used "ring all", as well but I believe you are correct in, your assumption of the behaviour for a prioritized hunt call.

However, hunt group routing takes priority over extension forwarding, so if there is no answer by any extension, the call should still go to the hunt group "no answer" option, rather than to any call forward options on any of the extension members. The hunt group essentially "owns" the call.

 

[netswork]

Thanks for your reply. My comment about the other forwarding was a separate issue. I know in the cisco systems if you have your phone call forward no answer to another phone...and that phone has call forward no answer to voicemail. That when call ends up hiting the no answer for the second phone it goes back to the original phones voicemail box.

I will try and test that hunt group this evening.

 

[leejor]

Sorry, It didn't click that the call forward issue was not involving a ring group. The voicemail scenario, as you distributed is also how it's done on many other systems as it would not make sense to send the caller to a mailbox not belonging to the person they originally called. that would just cause confusion for both parties.

 

[netswork]

Does 3cx work that same way?

 

[lneblett]

Leejor is correct (of course), the Ring Group owns the call and the incoming call will ring each phone sequentially for the number of seconds specified until such time as one of the extensions answers or the unanswered rule you have established comes into play. I have used the sequential frequently and usually set-up a VMail specific to the task (phantom so to have a unique greeting) as the last step.

On your other question, not involving a ring group. If a call comes in and goes to a phone that does not answer and is configured to forward to another phone which also does not answer, but has their setting to go to Vmail; the call will remain with that last person's Vmail was set. It does not rebound to the original extension's Vmail.

I am more inclined to think that this is actually the better way to handle rather than a bounce back to the original. I think the intent is to provide the greater chance for a response. Presumably, there was a conscious decision on the part of the original extension holder to forward. If not, then why not simply go to Vmail in the first place? The risk as I see it is that the original extension holder might be out for some (extended) period of time and may not have access to or want to be bothered by Vmail or its various notification methods. At least the second extension where the Vmail ended up can call the person back to try and help. To reduce the confusion, the first extension owner could always adjust their personal greeting to explain the the situation and that if immediate attention is required to contact XXXX at YYYY whereupon the caller could exit Vmail and get to the that person.

I also suggest that otherwise, the second extension owner might see the call as being missed and may make an effort to find out if a misdial, hang-up, valid, etc.

 

[leejor]

How a call behaves (which voicemail it ends up at), when the call is forwarded internally, will vary by office/situation.

For example, if there is a pool of people, that all do the same sort of job, and reaching a particular person , in that department, is not critical, then it would not be a concern as to who a message was left with. However, if i were to call "Jane", and end up reaching "bobs" voicemail, my first thought would be that I miss-dialled, and i would hang up and try a second time. Reaching Bob's voicemail a second time would have me wondering what was going on, but if the issue could be dealt with by him, leaving a message.

In theory, a call should end up in the voicemail box of the person you dialled, because that is who you wanted to contact in the first place. If they are away for an extended period, then, obviously an outgoing message to that effect, should be left. along with information as to who else to call for any further assistance.

Again, all situations are different.

 

[lneblett]

Oh, I understand the issue about the potential for confusion very well. Hell, I have a hard enough time getting folks to set-up a personalized greeting in the first place. The stage fright issue or whatever it is, is simply astonishing to me and I never will understand why people who will go to the extent of installing a phone system of this capability are willing to risk lost business because they won't change the generic greeting. Many callers simply hang-up as they have no idea what or who they have reached.

In any event, I agree that it is a matter of discipline and how the size and scope of the office or business play into it. To me, however, it is particularly incumbent on the part of the extension owner who is out to take the responsibility to mitigate the possibility for confusion in the first place. It is he who has the option of changing his personal greeting to forewarn of his absence (be it short or long) and that the caller has options - leave a message, exit out and call back to yyyy, etc. He could have also elected to forward to his cell. Presumably, if the decision was made to forward to B, then he has briefed B on what might transpire (or maybe they work closely together and do not need it) or, simply (ugh!) transfer back to the receptionist/operator for further handling (take a message (ugh, ugh!). In many cases, hopefully B is not an unknown....but, I am certain that such is not true in all.

I agree with your In-theory aspect; hence why I suggested always going to the owner's mailbox first and then letting the caller decide how best to handle, but this is just my opinion of how I would prefer rather than how the default programming of the system should attempt to overcome.

My only argument with the original scenario is that people being people, there is the risk that a VM, if on a auto-rebound back to A because B did not pick up, could stay in the box for an extended period.

I can see the logic, that is clear....You want A, you get a live B or an A in absentia. My guess is that either way, if the caller does not get a response or is not made aware of how long a response may be in coming, they will call back.

 

[netswork]

In my situation I have a loan officer at a bank that if he does not answer his phone in x rings it then goes to his assistant. If his assitant does not answer it then goes back to the loan officer's voicemail. Since they get their voicemail in their email he can check it whenever he wants.

Case in point if there is some sort of sensitive information the caller needs to leave the assistant should not hear.

So right now I am doing it with a ring group. I send the inbound DID for the loan officer to the ring group which I can then control to send back to the officers voicemail.

Now if he has his phone forward no answer to his assistant and someone calls his extension internally then there is no way to get to the officers voicemail without dialing *4+extension.

I know in the cisco systems I have installed the voicemail goes back to the orginal extension dialed, I wish we had that option here as well. I suppose I could forward no answer to another ring group that rings the assitants phone and then back to the voicemail box of the officer after timeout. Its just a bit of trouble to set up and when someone comes behind me to support the system it might take a while to fully understand how the system is configured.

 

[leejor]

I know in the cisco systems I have installed the voicemail goes back to the orginal extension dialed, I wish we had that option here as well.

If, on 3CX if it does not do this, and I haven't verified it myself, perhaps there is a need for an option available in the extension settings, a "tick" box, that states..."Return any forwared, unanswered call to my voicemail box"

 

[AndreasP_3CX]

You can select to which extension voice mail you want the call to go if it goes unanswered. Log in to your Management Console, go to edit your ring group and at the "destination if no answer" option select "Voice mail box for Extension" and select the extension that you want to send the call to.

 

[lneblett]

AndreasP_3CX

In this case of where, he is not using the ring group. Billy is asking about ring group handling in one instance, but while working this one, also asks about where a VM ends up if not using a ring group.

My testing indicates that a call will end in the VM of the extension last transferred to. The other's experience has them wishing the VM would go back to the original extension's VM and not that of the last extension forwarded to as the call was originally meant for the 1st extension contacted, not the second or third, etc.

 

[AndreasP_3CX]

Yes that is correct the call will end will in the VM of the last extension it was forwarded to there is no way to send it back to the original extension. However you can create a virtual extension and forward calls from one (or more extensions if need be) to its voice mail and then check them from your extension (dial 999 then hit # then at the prompt dial the extension number and then the pin(. that should at least make sure that (like in the scenario mentioned at this post with the secretary and confidential information) that no confidential information is left in a voice mail it shouldn't be. Let me know if this methods helps you.