hi 90's accuracy for legally binding docs? watchu smoking?

Post #333,088 by boxley 9/24/10 6:55:24 PM Reply	hi 90's accuracy for legally binding docs? watchu smoking? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #333,091 by crazy 9/24/10 11:13:33 PM Reply	He's corporate The VP in charge of that project declared victory and moved on. Probably got a raise, while the next guy caught hell for years. No legal consequences. Different. Beep don't get it.
Post #333,102 by beepster 9/25/10 10:55:35 AM Reply	Excuse me thats first pass. There is a validation following. So instead of elimination 100% of the keying (which is also not 100% accurate) it only eliminated 97% That's alot of free time for clerks to make sure things are correct. And no one else here seems to think its their job to make sure they are correct either, so why are you both acting surprised? Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,105 by crazy 9/25/10 11:43:10 AM 9/25/10 11:43:42 AM Reply	I don't think you know what that word means Clerk. And I don't mean one of those high paying elected positions, or those right-hand of mayor positions. I mean the type of person who you think will be able to decide what is right and wrong when it goes in, and I mean free form text. Because you are going county by county for a LONG time dealing with these records. http://en.wikipedia..../Data_entry_clerk So now, either tell me this is the type of person, with associated pay and lack of responsibility, or something else? And if something else, and they really do what you think they are supposed to so, please tell me how many more you need in the total country. Since you will be slowing down the paperflow dramatically. Every decision these people make will have legal consequences. They don't (and won't) be paid enough if they care, and if they don't care (since the gov can't get sued if they screw up), we don't want them in that position. Edited by crazy Sept. 25, 2010, 11:43:42 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,108 by beepster 9/25/10 1:47:48 PM Reply	for a guy who worked in mass mail, I would expect you to know more about doc management that anyone here. I, apparently, was incorrect. Same time of clerks that I deal with every day. Like I don't know. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,112 by drook 9/25/10 2:10:01 PM Reply	So now ... The content of the argument doesn't matter, it's all about who says it. So every discussion for you is a "my credentials are bigger than yours" dick-measuring contest? -- Drew
Post #333,114 by beepster 9/25/10 2:17:46 PM Reply	Ah, so.. all clerks are stupid is a valid argument? And he's talking about slowing down paperwork when I'm talking about systems that speed it. Thats what my expectation of his expertise was. To understand just how fast you can make paper move. Again. I've seen these systems operational. Using non standard forms where key terminology can be somewhat intelligently mapped from form header. Not entirely unlike HUD1 or similar variations. Where >clerks< were re-tasked or eliminated and document throughput was increased by over a factor of 10. but I don't know anything about it at all. THIS APPLICATION is too hard. There can be no system brought to bear that could improve throughput or accuracy of records that is less expensive than hiring data entry clerks and office managers who sit and key all day long so that there are up to 6 month backlogs created in the official record. Obviously I'm an idiot. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,142 by crazy 9/25/10 10:47:40 PM Reply	Ah, let's compare our big swinging credentials. Nah, let's not. Have I argued the tech point here? Nope. Tech is not the block. Acceptance that the tech will be used correctly, and paid for, and programmed well enough not to fuck too many people over as the kinks are worked out, etc, yeah, it's all doable. Except: WE know tech (and all possible solutions) have a possible error rate. The issue is that while tech can pretend to be all above board, we really can bury a shitload of hidden code (faulty on purpose or not) that can be to our benefit. As a non-coder, you may intellectually accept that as a reasonable statement. As a tech, is an incredibly scary one. I envision not just how the system will fail because the people involved fucked it up, I also think about how many people will be attempting to game it. Both on the tech and the politics. And if you say, sure, that's easy, just: Blah blah blah, you only reinforce the VP syndrome. This is not a bad idea. This is not an idea that can't be done. This is a simply an idea that shouldn't be done, 1st, because it simply is a transfer of power that I think is stupid (and illegal), and #2, if it even got started, it would be a gold mine for scumbags to go attack every implementation projects (and there will be thousands). The current system may suck, as far as you are concerned, but the alternative you present is far worse. SRCMC worse.
Post #333,145 by drook 9/26/10 9:19:37 AM Reply	You're still fixing the wrong problem Banks submitted paperwork that wasn't true. I'm not "favoring the banks" no matter how many times you say it. I'm not "trusting the banks to get it right", I'm saying that should be required by law with appropriate penalties when they're wrong. -- Drew
Post #333,147 by beepster 9/26/10 10:30:07 AM Reply	Re: You're still fixing the wrong problem and what appropriate penalties would those be that would necessarily also apply to all plaintiffs in all civil trials..and how would this not destroy the court system any less than advocating a check of official record in specific instance of where lenders try to confiscate property unopposed. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #333,156 by drook 9/26/10 11:54:19 AM 9/26/10 11:54:34 AM Reply	They already do Are you aware of a trend of plaintiffs in some other area of law habitually and repeatedly submitting inaccurate documents and not being sanctioned for it? Second issue: Why in this case are you saying that this change "would necessarily also apply to all plaintiffs in all civil trials", but your suggestion to task the courts with doing their own research would not apply to all courts in all civil trials? -- Drew Edited by drook Sept. 26, 2010, 11:54:34 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #333,161 by folkert 9/26/10 2:19:52 PM Reply	Look at SCO v IBM. SCO v Novell. SCO v AutoZone... SCO v Chrysler

Welcome to IWETHEY!