From the Relay Review Newsletter

[Nesmuth]

January 4, 2006

//-----------------------\\
December Totals
\\-----------------------//

Agents (110 Total)
--------
IP-Relay (22)
Hamilton (22)
Sorenson (18)
CSD (14)
HOVRS (13)
Sprint (8)
AT&T (6)
I711 (4)
CAC (3)
Lifelinks (0)

Ratings (119 Total)
--------
IP-Relay (27)
Hamilton (22)
Sorenson (19)
CSD (17)
HOVRS (14)
Sprint (9)
AT&T (6)
i711 (5)
CAC (3)
LifeLinks (0)

Top Ranked (Average Rating/Calls Rated)
--------
1. CAC (5.0/3)
2. IP-Relay (4.4/27) tied
2. HOVRS (4.4/14) tied
3. Hamilton (4.3/22)
4. i711 (4.2/5)


Page Visits
--------
16,855


//-----------------------\\
Open Letter
Posted December 24, 2005
http://www.relayreview.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=20

Like many of you, I'm a consumer of relay services.

I'm profoundly deaf, and so is my wife. She and I use ASL. We are alums of both
Rochester Institute of Technology and Gallaudet University.

I earned my bachelor's degree in Information Technology specializing in web
programming and am employed full-time at Crave Online Media LLC. With these
skills, I am positioned to take advantage of the web. But I will not abuse it,
and do not want to see it abused by others. The web is a medium shared by all;
when used correctly and for the right reasons, it can empower us.

Frankly, reliability is probably the most valuable asset Relay Review has and
works to maintain. To protect this asset, Relay Review employs several security
measures. However, there is only so much we can do. We will continue to make
judgment calls based on what information we have. Some of the deletions may be
incorrect, which we regret. However, all call ratings that do not belong in
Relay Review will be removed.

Relay Review feels that if site visitors know how easy it is for us to moderate
comments and ratings, they will think twice before making offensive or
fraudulent call ratings. There is a separate page, private and secure from the
general public, where we quickly administer the information flowing into the
site. A screenshot is available at http://www.relayreview.com/board/viewtopic.ph
p?t=20

We will continue to think of new ideas and approaches to ensure that Relay
Review will preserve what is most important to you: reliability.

And this we promise you: Relay Review will remain as independent and unbiased as is possible.

======================================

 

[apathrev]

You want to know why this site is a bad idea? Because it is not biased. Reviews are based solely on caller's opinions and experiences, not taking into account the realities of relay. There are government, company, and private agencies that monitor and review calls already. I think the last thing we, RO's, need is to worry about public disgrace, too.

In one review call under IP Relay, a review complained that the RO demanded that they type GA after entering the number. The truth about this is 1. you ALWAYS have to type GA when you're finished typing and ready for a response, including in your introduction, and 2. the operator was very likely using a script that their FCC-approved reference guide tells them to use. This is a prime example of what I am referring to in my first paragraph. Just last week, I had a user refer to me as a rude brat because I did my job EXACTLY by the book. When I attempted to redirect them to customer service, they disconnected. This kind of crap has happened far too many times before. See why I'm so sick of this job?

And while on the topic of this "review" site, I think it is a violation of our privacy to openly publish our Agent codes on this website. If a user has a complaint about a specific RO they need to make a complaint with either the FCC or with the provider's customer service department. You cannot choose who you're operator is going to be. By posting RO codes publicly, this site is suggesting "if you get this RO, disconnect and try to get a different one." It's not enough that we have teenage kids recording us saying sexually explicit, vulgar, and often self-derogatory statements, and post those recordings on the internet, but now we have to worry about public degradation from actual users who feel we did a shitty job, despite the fact we did it by the book? Real cool.