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

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#51

Post by to3m »

wpietri wrote: post #27
peterwwillis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, the word 'specific' in the sentence is what makes it specific, not the phrasing. You already know they want you to provide a request for something, but you don't know it's something specific until they specify specifically. 'give a specific ask' and 'ask a specific question' are therefore equivalent, with the exception that the former looks like it was written by a 5th grader.

I'm not claiming it isn't horrific; I wouldn't say it myself. But "ask" is a pretty clear term of art. Also, I'm not sure Hacker News denizens can really complain too much about other people's jargon. Among many others, we inflicted "blog" and "tweet" on the world.

`Blog' and `tweet' are at least neologisms. `Ask' on the other hand has been a verb for a very long time, and has so far resisted being made a noun. That suggests to me, and probably to most people, that it's a verb, solidly so, and not to be used as a noun.

Fighting this kind of tradition will be an uphill struggle. A losing battle. A tall order. (For those still in primary school, those are all different ways of saying "a big ask", by the way.)

It's a real shame that the article's author had to drop this particular clanger, because the article provides sound advice in a succinct fashion.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#52

Post by dudus »

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?

Most people don't make a good use of BCC.

Another instance where it is useful is when asking a question at a mail list but asking that anyone who answers only addresses the you not the whole email list.

Just send the email with the list in BCC, and that's gonna be automatic.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#53

Post by kingnight »

peterwwillis wrote: post #12

> makes a specific ask You mean ask a specific question? Or is this silicon valley jargon? edit: Through the power of The Googles I now realize he could have been using the stock market form of 'ask'. It makes some sense since you're asking for an investment. Not that I like it any better... The price a seller is willing to accept for a security, also known as the offer price. Along with the price, the ask quote will…

I actually just had to look this up in a different context and came across this explanation

http://english.stackexchange.com/a/4247

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#54

Post by bentcorner »

rayiner wrote: post #33
wpietri wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes - things like Twitter, IM group chats (FB/Hangouts/even IRC), all have a single "ring" of attention. A message is either to you, or to a group. There is no way for the sender to dial up/down the level of "attention" or send other signals when sending a message.

Some examples (admittedly, these are how they are used in my workplace and life, other people may perceive these differently, which is also interesting):

- BCC has an interesting side-effect of being able to drop somebody from the conversation, but notify them of that fact at the same time.

- CC is sometimes used as a "heads up". It means "I'm interested in you reading this, but I'm not asking you to do anything right now."

- To is explicit "I would like you to read this, and there's probably some action you need to do."

That said, these are used in my workplace so these rules don't really apply when sending more informal mails between family members and the like. I have tended to use CC at home when sending emails to teachers, keeping my spouse in the loop.

You can't really deliver the same messages within a Facebook conversation or a Google Chat. I think Twitter has some potential since the "to" line is fluid, but I treat the platform as read-only and find it extremely chaotic and unorganized.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#55

Post by bentcorner »

dudus wrote: post #52
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?

Most people don't make a good use of BCC. Another instance where it is useful is when asking a question at a mail list but asking that anyone who answers only addresses the you not the whole email list. Just send the email with the list in BCC, and that's gonna be automatic.

And then face the rage of a thousand suns when you break email filtering rules ;)

(personally I have rules that catch this sort of behavior so it doesn't bother me, but I've seen it happen).

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#56

Post by bsirkia »

jorde wrote: post #29
tvladeck wrote: post #11

If you're like me, and sometimes jump to the discussion before reading the article, please go ahead and read the article. It's one of those rare ones that is truly a summary of itself: super short, information dense, with every part having meaning and nothing else. This protocol is super simple, and allows for very efficient transfer of information without putting people in uncomfortable situations.

Here's another take on the subject: double opt-in introduction by Fred Wilson: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/11/the-double-optin-introductio...

As with anything, it always depends on the context. If I'm introducing someone to an investor I barely know, I'll make sure they opt in. If I'm introducing them to an investor I see every day and know they trust me, I'll just go for it w/o the opt-in. This article and Fred Wilson's are great examples of how to maximize etiquette.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#57

Post by gngeal »

tvladeck wrote: post #11

If you're like me, and sometimes jump to the discussion before reading the article, please go ahead and read the article. It's one of those rare ones that is truly a summary of itself: super short, information dense, with every part having meaning and nothing else. This protocol is super simple, and allows for very efficient transfer of information without putting people in uncomfortable situations.

You can't put me in an uncomfortable situation. Reading these things only confirms to me that I will never be able to understand all the other people.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#58

Post by crygin »

potatolicious wrote: post #24
peterwwillis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, the word 'specific' in the sentence is what makes it specific, not the phrasing. You already know they want you to provide a request for something, but you don't know it's something specific until they specify specifically. 'give a specific ask' and 'ask a specific question' are therefore equivalent, with the exception that the former looks like it was written by a 5th grader.

They're not the same thing. An "ask" is the item being requested, it is not the question. "Can I have a cookie?" is a question, the cookie is the ask. An ask is implicitly tangible or substantial. "What's the weather today?" is a question, it doesn't really have an ask, since the item being demanded is trivial. It exists in business jargon specifically to separate minor requests "can you send me that file?" from subs…

This is incoherent. Is the ask the item being requested, or is it a demand? Neither of these are how it's used in the article, either.

Which mostly goes to show that it's not a word with a definition as we think of it -- it's a word that displays familiarity with the tech scene and is used as a social signal.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#59

Post by pbreit »

gcv wrote: post #45
peterwwillis wrote: post #12

> makes a specific ask You mean ask a specific question? Or is this silicon valley jargon? edit: Through the power of The Googles I now realize he could have been using the stock market form of 'ask'. It makes some sense since you're asking for an investment. Not that I like it any better... The price a seller is willing to accept for a security, also known as the offer price. Along with the price, the ask quote will…

It's nasty language change which has spread, kind of like "I spoke to she about that problem" is spreading. Not specific to SV, but extremely common here.

"ask" as a noun is fine (even outside of finance). I've never seen or heard "spoke to she" and Google doesn't seem to turn up anything.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#60

Post by digikata »

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.

BCC is pretty close to the social dynamics of in-person conversations that sound like: "Don't tell I told you but FYI ...".
Post reply on HN