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

Email Introduction Etiquette

blog.42floors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#31

Post by josh2600 »

bentcorner wrote: post #22

I find the social dynamics of To/CC/BCC really interesting. You only see it in Emails and it doesn't exist in any other communication medium. Most social communication platforms I can think of the top of my head only really support the "To" part of email.

CC and BCC originate from secretaries taking notes on desks in large firms. There was a note for the person who the message was intended for and a carbon copy (literally a sheet of carbon under the top note) that would be archived. Blind Carbon Copies were simply copies that the original intended recipient was not aware of; ergo, one might say that Carbon copies are significantly older than email.

CC and BCC are practical parts of communication but only formalized in a technical manner (beyond their physical carbon counterparts) in email, but we certainly engage in conversations which are of an "FYI" nature all the time.

Source: I am a communications nerd both from a technical and historic perspective.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#32

Post by wpietri »

bentcorner wrote: post #22

I find the social dynamics of To/CC/BCC really interesting. You only see it in Emails and it doesn't exist in any other communication medium. Most social communication platforms I can think of the top of my head only really support the "To" part of email.

Actually, the To/Cc thing predates email by quite a bit. CC stands for "carbon copy" [1], which referred to typing a letter with a sandwich of regular paper and carbon paper, so that you got one or more copies in addition to your original. The To/Cc headings were a common thing on paper memos.

I'm sure the Bcc behavior was common as well with paper memos, but I suspect the name only appeared with the invention of email. [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_copy

[2] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=carbon+copy%2C...

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#33

Post by rayiner »

wpietri wrote: post #32
bentcorner wrote: post #22

I find the social dynamics of To/CC/BCC really interesting. You only see it in Emails and it doesn't exist in any other communication medium. Most social communication platforms I can think of the top of my head only really support the "To" part of email.

Actually, the To/Cc thing predates email by quite a bit. CC stands for "carbon copy" [1], which referred to typing a letter with a sandwich of regular paper and carbon paper, so that you got one or more copies in addition to your original. The To/Cc headings were a common thing on paper memos. I'm sure the Bcc behavior was common as well with paper memos, but I suspect the name only appeared with the invention of ema…

I presume the "it doesn't exist in any other communication medium" refers to "the social dynamics" not the concept of CC and BCC.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#34

Post by auctiontheory »

livingtech wrote: post #5
joelandren wrote: post #2

This is spot on, but this is still a PITA for everyone involved. There should still be a better way.

Yes, I fully expected this to be an article about how to "fix" this problem situation. I have to say that I have been in a few of the positions in this sort of chain, and now if I'm the inviter, I always just CC both. Not forwarding on the entire chain feels dishonest. (Obviously the invitee doesn't need to read the whole thread, but it's there for posterity, and to give context.) If the "busy person" is so rude that…

Not forwarding on the entire chain feels dishonest.

Knowing what information (is appropriate) to share with whom is not only not dishonest, it respects other people's privacy, and is a key life skill for effectiveness.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#36

Post by goblin89 »

Can anyone clarify—why BCC?

More precisely, what purpose does moving Mark to BCC, and then acknowledging that and addressing him in the letter, serve? Why not just exclude him from the conversation completely, or leave in CC if you're still addressing him?

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#37

Post by patrickmay »

goblin89 wrote: post #36

Can anyone clarify—why BCC? More precisely, what purpose does moving Mark to BCC, and then acknowledging that and addressing him in the letter, serve? Why not just exclude him from the conversation completely, or leave in CC if you're still addressing him?

It confirms to Mark that you received his email and are responding to Suzanne but leaves him out of the rest of the conversation when Suzanne replies.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#38

Post by jkaljundi »

goblin89 wrote: post #36

Can anyone clarify—why BCC? More precisely, what purpose does moving Mark to BCC, and then acknowledging that and addressing him in the letter, serve? Why not just exclude him from the conversation completely, or leave in CC if you're still addressing him?

You say thanks to Mark, but save him countless minutes of pressing Delete on the future CC's back and forth. Busy people get already too much e-mails and it is often a pain to get out from those discussions.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#39

Post by StavrosK »

omarkatzen wrote: post #7

This is why it's unreasonable to have any faith in the contemporary Silicon Valley. Cold-calling used to work out there, because it was full of people who just wanted to do a good job and help each other succeed. Now, you need an introduction because it's full of emasculated social climbers who need some way of determining whether a person is of sufficient social status to merit 30 seconds of consideration. Because o…

I upvoted this because you make an interesting point that goes against popular opinion. I think the ensuing discussion would be interesting, and I'd hate it if opinions were buried only because they were unpopular.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#40

Post by [deleted] »

goblin89 wrote: post #36

Can anyone clarify—why BCC? More precisely, what purpose does moving Mark to BCC, and then acknowledging that and addressing him in the letter, serve? Why not just exclude him from the conversation completely, or leave in CC if you're still addressing him?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN