Cherry Picking

We'd prefer to see the taxpayers' money given to businesses that are considered likely to succeed, rather than randomly distributed.

In short, negative connotations arise from the context, not the expression itself. Yes, I think it does. You are slanting or skewing the information you are choosing to present. I believe that cherry picking has a negative connotation. I don't think anyone would ever brag that he had cherry picked his data; your critics are most likely to point out that you have cherry picked your data. The OED entry for cherry-picking in this sense is:. Third edition, September ; online version March By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service , privacy policy and cookie policy , and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Cherry picking A quick Google search yields the following definitions: Definition One Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. Definition Two To pick out the best, or most desirable items from a list or group, especially to obtain some advantage or to present something in the best possible light My Question: Cherry pickers will look like ticket crushers.

It might look like a good thing to start with… but it could be a sign of something troubling.

These are the tickets that look difficult at first glance, so agents skip over them in the queue. Instead of looking at the average first reply time, look at the distribution. This measures the average number of agent replies per ticket. On the flip side, your senior team members should be picking up more complex tickets. So if you see them slipping down the scale, take a look into the types of tickets they are working on.

If someone is cherry picking, they are likely to have far more tickets that are closed with one reply. None of these metrics alone will tell you if you have a cherry picker in your midst, but they can help you start the investigation. From choosing better metrics, to ongoing training and accountability, a little bit of focus will get your whole team ready to answer any questions. Why do people cherry pick? If you have a ticket closing quota, or a minimum customer satisfaction score , agents could feel pressured to hit their targets.

To boost their numbers, or avoid any negative customer reviews, they start looking for easy to solve tickets. Instead of encouraging curiosity and learning, bad metrics encourage short cuts. The first step to preventing cherry picking is to avoid making everything about the numbers — or at least the wrong numbers. By asking team members to pick up specific tough tickets, you make it harder to say no. And you can help answer any questions they might have while they work through it. This ticket has been sitting at the top of the queue for awhile.

Mind picking it up and working through it? Make sure the team knows that the oldest tickets get picked up next, no matter what, and soon it will just be a habit to dive on in. But rather than throwing them into a black void of an escalation queue, encourage follow ups.

Cherry picking

If possible, have the senior team member work with the agent asking the question to find an answer. That way, they can do it themselves next time. Make it a habit to go back at the end of the day to read over the responses to escalated tickets and learn for next time. The main cause of cherry picking is a lack of knowledge. Identify areas where tickets are frequently skipped over, or ask agents where they feel weakest.

Then, deep dive into complicated tickets in your next team meeting. For instance, a belief system may contradict another. Given that a Wikipedia article is about only one subject, not every contradiction from outside of that subject need be reported, but substantial contradiction probably should be reported or summarized as criticism.

Cherry picking – Wikipedia

Different fields of study have points of disagreement with each other. Even if the same author writes on multiple fields or disciplines in a single source, a Wikipedia article within one field of scholarship generally does not have to report contradictions emanating solely from other fields, unless they are criticisms. Qualifying information is information that might not contradict the main information but that alters how the main information should be understood.

For example, to quote a source that says that most Americans sleep late and skip work but to ignore that the source limits that by saying "on weekends" is to omit qualifying information and misrepresent the source on Americans' work customs. While qualifying information is infinite and cannot all be quoted or paraphrased, if it is significant, include it. This example of qualifying information is from a book: Either contradictory or qualifying information may be found anywhere in a source, not necessarily adjacent to the main information.

For example, while the main information may be in a middle chapter of a book, contradictory or qualifying information may be in an endnote, in an introduction, or on a cover. Many sources are well organized and make finding everything you need relatively simple, but not all sources are so helpful.

On the other hand, merely additional information does not have to be provided. For example, if a source says "brain surgery is difficult" and goes on to state the experience of a surgeon who performed it without changing the meaning of the main information, the surgeon's experience does not have to be provided in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia may consider a "source" to be just p. While many sources are organized for speedy lookups, some are not or your interest may not allow looking in just one place. For instance, if a source has several volumes, consider all the volumes.

That kind of source may have relevant content sprinkled across all the volumes. You may have to read all of them. For some, searching the index even reading the whole index from A to Z is needed. For some, you'll need to search online inside a source for various terms. When editing Wikipedia, it's not cherrypicking in general to miss contradictory or qualifying information from a different source than a source that had information already being used, because we don't expect editors to be familiar with all of the possible sources that could be cited on a topic.

Therefore, to have gotten information from one source without acknowledging that it was contradicted or qualified in another source is not a valid criticism of an editor's work in Wikipedia as cherrypicking. However, an article as a whole should reflect the range of sources available on the article's subject. This does not require using every source that exists, just that the sourcing cited be reasonably representative of the range of sources that exist. This applies regardless of who edited it in the past.

While an individual editor is not required to know all of the significant sources on a subject, it is helpful if you do, or if you know at least some of them.

How to find the cherry pickers

Therefore, if you are familiar with a different and unused source that should be used, feel free to edit an article consistently with the different source, if the source is otherwise eligible to be used in Wikipedia. A later edition of a work usually replaces all earlier editions.

Earlier editions are usually not authoritative as sourcing against later editions. However, an editor may not know of a newer edition or may not have access to it. Therefore, it generally is not cherrypicking to get information from an earlier edition and not from a later edition. An editor with a later edition is encouraged to edit accordingly. If an editor finds that a later edition contradicts or qualifies an earlier edition that was cited in Wikipedia, the editor who found it should treat the newer edition as if it is a separate source and edit the Wikipedia article, perhaps replacing or editing old content and old citations or just adding new content and new citations.

Citing multiple editions in one article is permissible if the content is sourced to multiple editions. A statement being kept and which is supported by an older edition should continue to be supported by the older edition in a citation, unless an editor has found that the newer edition also supports the statement, in which case updating the citation to reflect the newer edition is helpful, or that the newer edition contradicts the statement, in which case the statement and the citation should both be updated.

It may be appropriate to cite an older edition even when a newer edition is also being cited, or instead of a newer edition, but this would be rare. The older information would have to be entitled to weight apart from the newer. One case is when writing about the historical development of an idea or of an author's views. Another case is when two editions of the same work are actually about different subjects; an example is with some popular guides to computer software, where an older edition of a book may be about an older version of the same software.

Printings and impressions may be treated like editions for these editorial purposes. Although in the U.

For instance, errors may be corrected between printings even if they're of the same edition. Unfortunately, library catalogues often do not indicate what printing is in a library, differentiating only between editions. It is possible that, for current editions of modern books, libraries tend to buy first printings whereas bookstores may stock more recent printings, although you may have to visit in person to find out. Printings are often marked in a modern book on the copyright page but only in a code, such as a line that says only "1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10" or perhaps "10 9 8 7 6 5 4", in which the smallest number visible is often the printing number.

Newspapers traditionally have idiosyncratic ways of labeling different editions in the course of a day, especially in past decades, so that the labels may not make clear which is earlier or later, especially to an out-of-town reader. Additionally, the publisher may arbitrarily designate one edition as authoritative and, almost always, microforms , PDFs , database copies, and library hard copies of a newspaper are limited to one edition per day, and that is not necessarily the last edition.

Some newspapers that maintain their own websites may choose to put the latest version on the website, and sometimes corrections are even added days or weeks later, but that is not guaranteed. Databases may or may not be updated to match newspapers' own websites, since database publishers are often separate from newspaper publishers, even if they are connected by contract.

In any case, we use what is available, and, if we have a choice, we should use the best available, and we cite what we use. With regard to one author's views, editions per se do not matter because any later work that contradicts or qualifies any earlier work replaces the earlier work as authority. For example, if an author wrote in in the third edition of a Paris travel guide that ethology is wholly nonsense but in in the first edition of a cookbook that ethology is reliable, that author's view has changed and the later view is authoritative, regardless of which edition was first or third.

However, if a distinction can be found between two views about one subject, both would be authoritative for that author and we would not report a change.

• Using Intranets: To Implement Strategy, Build Teamwork and Manage Change?
• Ardmore. We Are Because of Others: The Story of Fée Halsted and Ardmore Ceramic Art.
• Strictly Business (A Big Country Lodge Story, Book 2) (Erotic Romance - Holiday Romance);
• How To Move Your Support Team From Cherry Picking To Queue Crushing.
• Wikipedia:Cherrypicking.

If the distinction is minor, the earlier view may not be entitled to weight in Wikipedia. Anthologies should be considered as collections in which each contribution has its own authorship, whether that results in all the contributions having the same or different authors.