It sure seems that way to me, particularly when it comes to e-mail.

Case in point: I have an inquiry about a billing problem. Send e-mail to credit card company using the hot link.

CSR#1 answers, says (s)he needs additional information and would I send it to him (includes "her" hereafter). I send it, specifically noting the CSR's name in the first line.

CSR#2 replies; reply is totally irrelevant and non-responsive. Apparently #2 noticed one word - "dispute" - in the information I was sending back to #1 and automatically sent a canned response set up for use in cases where customer wants to "dispute" a charge. Had #2 taken the time to read even the first sentence of my response, he would have known this wasn't a "dispute".

I respond, asking that whoever gets this one (a) read it, and (b) pass to CSR#1 for action.

CSR#3 replies; again non-responsive, and again (apparently) not having read or checked the information in my inquiry.

I write back again, summarizing the inquiry, and asking for a responsive response. No reply.

Had the same situation a couple of times when I had a Hotmail problem, dealing with the Hotmail CSRs. It could take five or six e-mails before I would get a responsive response. Don't know if that means I got a CSR that could (and would) read, or whether it was simpy that the randomly-selected response happened by chance to be responsive to the question asked.

I suspect they are indeed judged on how many responses they send out, not on whether the responses are either responsive or correct. This would lead to glancing at the inquiry, finding what appears to be a key word, and hitting a canned response (or just selecting one at random).

Obviously no QC/QA being done, just number crunching ("Gee, you answered 237 inquiries in one hour. That's Outstanding!")

That's pitiful.