Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Very Short Reply Expected

blog.vrypan.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 232 posts

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#81

Post by rdl »

slig wrote: post #67
micampe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was hoping Google Wave would take off an neatly combine the two. This is the best thing about Facebook messages: they’re hafway between chat and email and a conversation can seamlessly morph from one form to the other and back.

Facebook messages suck. - You can't read them without announcing that you did. - FB parses and might even censor you message if it contains blacklisted domains.

I actually really like facebook messages (except for the security issues); I tend to use them for social messages with my facebook friends (which is essentially a superset of my real life friends). I use it to message my girlfriend (tied with iMessage) about "when do you want me to pick you up from work", etc.

(The obnoxious thing is that both of our phones are Verizon iPhones; there's no simultaneous voice and data, and unlike me, she tends to do long voice calls with people. I'm trying to get her to switch to a SIP client, so we can do G.722 wideband and crypto/vpn on the voice too, and non-extortionate international long distance.)

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#82

Post by blantonl »

asveikau wrote: post #76

One thing I've noticed is that people who expect short replies sometimes write very short mails to begin with. I think that might be more effective to set expectations than coming up with a new acronym and having to wait for it to catch on (if ever). If the content you need a short reply to is a bit longer, you can also write a short summary before the longer part. Something like "Below is blah blah blah, wondering i…

I believe that Steve Jobs was one that practiced this when dealing with customers. And it seamed like his responses were always dead on target - whereas a PR team would launch into a long winded response to a customer, Steve summed it up in one sentence.

That surely drove Apple's PR team crazy...

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#83

Post by TeMPOraL »

lwat wrote: post #50
TeMPOraL wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not social awkwardness. This is social efficiency.

You say efficient, we say awkward.

You say awkward, I say me and my efficient friends will have faster communication, tighter feedback loop and outcompete you in everything. :p.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#84

Post by mistercow »

rdl wrote: post #79

I don't think politeness and length of message really correlate. "Can I marry your daughter?" "Sorry, no" or "Sorry, no, she's already married" isn't less polite inherently than a 30 page screed about how you would rather just give her a shotgun to kill herself instead of torturing her like that, etc. In fact, my shorter replies are usually my most polite. I think there is a point where it gets too short (single word…

>"Can I marry your daughter?" "Sorry, no" or "Sorry, no, she's already married" isn't less polite inherently than a 30 page screed about how you would rather just give her a shotgun to kill herself instead of torturing her like that, etc.

Counter-examples aren't a very good denial of correlation though. Sure, you can come up with examples of long replies and short replies where the longer reply is less polite, but that doesn't say anything about the general trend.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#85

Post by andrewflnr »

andrewvc wrote: post #58
TeMPOraL wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not social awkwardness. This is social efficiency.

No, you've got it all wrong! Geeks aren't socially awkward, they're socially "efficient" Social conventions aren't established by protocol drafts, they're organic. Also, people write long replies for a reason. Wording indicates emotional state. If you have trouble reading emotional state, you don't care. If, like most people, you do care, then this proposal is ridiculous. An example: "How about we schedule lunch next…

So, this is an attempt to add something organically. It's optional. If you would find a VSR an affront, don't say VSRE. The whole point is a declaration that the sender won't find it an affront. It says you don't need the emotional state transmitted like that.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#86

Post by salvadors »

slig wrote: post #67
micampe wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was hoping Google Wave would take off an neatly combine the two. This is the best thing about Facebook messages: they’re hafway between chat and email and a conversation can seamlessly morph from one form to the other and back.

Facebook messages suck. - You can't read them without announcing that you did. - FB parses and might even censor you message if it contains blacklisted domains.

You can have them forwarded to real email, which doesn't announce that it's been read.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#87

Post by d23 »

blantonl wrote: post #78

If a sales/business dev guy sent me a unsolicited message promoting their latest ad delivery platform or obscure SAAS solution, with VSRE at the end of his message - I would definitely view his approach in a better light. But, likely my response would still be: "No."

Which, despite the "VSRE," would probably still come across as douchey. I don't think the op's idea would actually even work in practice, because the recipient still isn't communicating that what they are saying is polite. For all the sender knows, they could still be saying it gruffly.

Smilies can accomplish what the author intended.

    "Can't, busy this week"
Becomes

    "Can't, busy this week :("
If you don't mind looking like a wuss.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#88

Post by gbog »

blantonl wrote: post #82
asveikau wrote: post #76

One thing I've noticed is that people who expect short replies sometimes write very short mails to begin with. I think that might be more effective to set expectations than coming up with a new acronym and having to wait for it to catch on (if ever). If the content you need a short reply to is a bit longer, you can also write a short summary before the longer part. Something like "Below is blah blah blah, wondering i…

I believe that Steve Jobs was one that practiced this when dealing with customers. And it seamed like his responses were always dead on target - whereas a PR team would launch into a long winded response to a customer, Steve summed it up in one sentence. That surely drove Apple's PR team crazy...

That's something I learnt the hard way: to customers, and internally between services, the less you write the best position you have.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#89

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

cjh_ wrote: post #37
danbruc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make it explicit - VSR A vs VSR E , acceptable vs expected. But this makes the whole thing unnecessarily complex and I would prefer VSRA - I am fine with getting a very short reply. If it is not possible a, long reply is also fine but try to keep it as short as possible. Different suggestions from the comments. CURT - condensed unfussy reply tolerable CURT - CURT unfussy reply tolerable NLRN - no long reply needed TC…

I quite like the idea of using the OP's original phrasing of 'welcome' as I find that pleasingly polite VSRW - Very short reply welcome

I came to the comments hoping this would be here. "Expected", well, seems to place an additional expectation on the recipient, whereas "Welcome" merely invites an additional option.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#90

Post by TeMPOraL »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #43
andrewvc wrote: post #40

Annnnnnd this is why geeks have a reputation for social awkwardness.

This is not social awkwardness. This is social efficiency.

BTW. Since we're talking about efficiency down this thread, here's a very nice example of optimizing communication:

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker%27s_rules

I wish this concept was more widely known though.

EDIT: original description (http://www.sl4.org/crocker.html) is dead but I found it's contents in cache, so I'm quoting it below:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline.

Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.

"Crocker's Rules" are named after Lee Daniel Crocker.

Post reply on HN