h a l f b a k e r yInexact change.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I find the telephone engaged tone massively frustrating. The other person will be on the phone for a time proportional to the urgency of your message.
Why don't the phone companies say "engaged", then tell you a joke instead. And that "duh duh duh (ascending tone) sorry, the number you've dialled has
not been recognised" is even worse. Again, simple message then a bit of humour.
[link]
|
| |
Instead, people should record an "engaged" message to be played when someone tries to reach them while they're using the line. This way it would be a personalized joke. |
|
| |
isn't what you're looking for an 'answer machine', where they can leave you a message and they can call you back.
sorry [paraffin], but I don't want to waste my time listening to corporate humour. |
|
| |
Why do I get a an option for a ____, just to click on it and get nothing? Idea is now ugly, space clogged? |
|
| |
Think it's a bug in the new image stuff being tried at the mo [blissmiss]. For a successful demo, see the "GargantuFan" idea... |
|
| |
All I want from automatic answering equipment is the bare facts. I don't want a message every five seconds that my call is important to them. I don't want opera over MIDI with a dance beat (yes, I have experienced this). I definitely don't want to hear the first three words of the same crap joke every time I try to contact someone. |
|
| |
So not a phone with a "suck on this" feature? |
|
| |
[ds] - I think technology is at a point where it could be randomly generated. Anyway, the point was to do away with the beep-beep-beep and simply say 'engaged'. Being on-hold was never mentioned. |
|
| |