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

191–200 of 232 posts

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#191

Post by Isofarro »

Paul_D_Santana wrote: post #176
mbell wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you really that damn busy that you can't spend a minute or less writing a more natural and conversational reply It's not that simple. If I'm in the middle of a coding binge I can switch over and fire off a 'VSRE' without losing place. Converting that into a 'sociable' reply requires a mental context switch out of coding land and into human land. That doesn't cost me 2 minutes, It costs me half an hour [0]. So e…

When I'm programming, I close all email and instant messaging applications, as well as put my phone on Airplane mode. I find limiting interruptions in this way to be incredible for mental focus. I highly recommend it, if you don't already do this (?). I also use the following website to set a timer for however long I have to program (whether it be a 15 minute sprint or a luxurious 90 minute block): http://www.online-…

> I copy and paste the person's name from the To: field in Outlook (this ensures I never mistype someone's name), delete the last name,

Oh, _that_ explains the number of "Dear [full-version-of-my-name]", overlooking the shorter version in my own sign off.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#192

Post by yabatopia »

tempestn wrote: post #165
__david__ wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'd find anyone that wrote "VSRE" to be very disrespectful. And since I'm a bit hot headed I'd probably write a big long response, just out of spite. :-)

My understanding was that the whole point of VSRE is to be respectful of your time. The idea is simply to let you know that there's no need to write them a long reply if you don't have the time. You're still welcome to do so if you wish. How is that disrespectful? Perhaps the acronym should've been something like VSRA (Accepted), or SROK (Short Reply OK) instead.

Or even more inviting: VSRW (Very Short Reply Welcome).

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#193

Post by Swizec »

eropple wrote: post #129
Swizec wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I find the latter response just disrespectful of my time. If all you want/need to say is you can't make it, don't write a bloody novel! All I need is an answer. There's a time and place for long communication and it's in person. Not in an email.

That would be a problem between you and...you. People are more important than "your time", and a failure to realize that is a dehumanization of the other party. The latter response demonstrates emotional sensitivity towards the other person in the conversation. Among most people, that is important. It makes the other party feel good. It reinforces that you do care about the other party enough to ensure that they are…

Thing is, we're not in high school anymore. We're all adults here and we should be able to see the difference between being rude and being terse.

"potentially affronted" is not a thing I particularly care about. If I want to affront you, oh you'll know. Believe me.

More interestingly, the only people I've ever seen write email like in that example are people who send/receive less than about 5 emails a day. The more they have to process daily, the shorter their messages become.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#195

Post by robryan »

Isofarro wrote: post #191
Paul_D_Santana wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I'm programming, I close all email and instant messaging applications, as well as put my phone on Airplane mode. I find limiting interruptions in this way to be incredible for mental focus. I highly recommend it, if you don't already do this (?). I also use the following website to set a timer for however long I have to program (whether it be a 15 minute sprint or a luxurious 90 minute block): http://www.online-…

> I copy and paste the person's name from the To: field in Outlook (this ensures I never mistype someone's name), delete the last name, Oh, _that_ explains the number of "Dear [full-version-of-my-name]", overlooking the shorter version in my own sign off.

If you want people to address you by a shorter name why not put that in the from?

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#196

Post by mtrimpe »

danbruc wrote: post #17
thatthatis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point. Is VSRE something that empowers the respondent to choose: A "social out from a full polite response"? Or is it a "social obligation to provide a short response?"

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 still prefer 'VSRP - very short reply preferred' because it's sooo close to RSVP.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#197

Post by robryan »

chmike wrote: post #178
slig wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you want to hide that you red the message ? Is it when you would like to ignore the sender but are too curious and would like to know what message he sent you ?

Also because people that know you have read the message will sometimes expect a reply straight away or will think you are ignoring them.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#198

Post by qznc »

bmelton wrote: post #182
zukhan wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you wait until you take a break to reply to emails? You're choosing to switch over during a "coding binge" when you don't need to.

I can't speak for the author, but sometimes the emails contain messages like "Major emergency - stop what you're doing right now" where, if I didn't get the email until 30 minutes later, could be problematic.

I have a filter, which pops up a notification only for certain emails. Those from my boss.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#199

Post by salvadors »

rdl wrote: post #81
slig wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

security issues?

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#200

Post by ygra »

robryan wrote: post #195
Isofarro wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I copy and paste the person's name from the To: field in Outlook (this ensures I never mistype someone's name), delete the last name, Oh, _that_ explains the number of "Dear [full-version-of-my-name]", overlooking the shorter version in my own sign off.

If you want people to address you by a shorter name why not put that in the from?

In some places you don't have control over the From (or the footer for that matter). E.g. I get a forced from in the form »LastName FirstName« which I'd rather have the other way around (also because last-first without the comma isn't common here [in fact, I've never seen it before]), yet I cannot.
Post reply on HN