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

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#61

Post by pbreit »

swalkergibson wrote: post #47
livingtech wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I tend to agree with you here. In the scenario proposed by the article, the busy person is still essentially doing the same amount of work. Having to consider the intro, reading up on the subject and the requester, etc, etc. If the answer is a flat no, then so be it, but let them hear it directly from the person. I find it hard to believe that somebody could be so busy that taking a few minutes to respond to such a r…

The problem isn't that the "busy person" is too busy to respond, it's that the "busy person" did not request to be involved and should be forced to be the bearer of the bad news.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#62

Post by eternalseven »

gngeal wrote: post #57
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.

You already understand there are different kinds. Some people shut down under fairly minimal pressure/stress, especially if their lives are already busy. I'm with you, but I've come to realize the importance of following such rules in order to keep things smooth ultimately for myself.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#63

Post by larrys »

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…

The origins of bcc from back in the days of carbon paper (and after that the xerox, dot matrix printer and laser printer) was strictly as a way to give a copy of a particular correspondence to someone without the actual recipient knowing that you were doing so.

The current use of bcc more or less contradicts that and has taken on a whole new meaning.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#64

Post by yuvadam »

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.

That's a pretty rude and selfish way to approach a mailing list.

I wouldn't be surprised if such a question goes on to be ignored.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#65

Post by larrys »

digikata wrote: post #60
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 ...".

Not exactly. At least with the original meaning.

It's more like making a tape recording of a conversation you are having with someone and playing it to someone else who wasn't part of the conversation. And without the person being recorded knowing that you did that.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#66

Post by carterschonwald »

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...

thats what I do! I explicitly ask both parties before I make an intro.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#67

Post by larrys »

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…

"Now, you need an introduction "

While it is harder to cold call for sure (the fact that you are referred to someone means they will at least read and/or listen to what you have to say) not being referred is not a show stopper at all.

You just have to be more creative in your approach in order to stand out.

If you don't have that skill simply practice at it with less valuable targets to start. Make your mistakes there and learn from them what works and what doesn't.

I've been cold calling from back before the internet. But one of the first things I learned from when I used to get free press by writing to reporters was to start out the email by telling them what a great article they wrote as opposed to telling them something that they could add to the story that they might have missed.

The emails where I contacted them that way almost always got a reply. So I continued with that formula and got a pretty good amount of major press writeups (NYT, WSJ etc.)

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#68

Post by jakejake »

digikata wrote: post #60
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 ...".

Definitely sometimes the case that it's secretive. I'd say I more usually use BCC like "You don't need to get involved in this conversation, but your name was mentioned and/or it's something you would want to know about." Kinda like covering your own ass so that somebody doesn't think you were talking behind their back or going over their head.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#69

Post by meowface »

peterwwillis wrote: post #48
potatolicious wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Alright, so 'ask' here is just synonym for 'request', then. Looked it up... most dictionaries don't have a noun form of 'ask', though macmillan has a separate page just for it. (It's also a Scandinavian myth about the first man made from an ash tree, but that's probably not the intended use from the OP)

I think this is the simplest definition. Swap in "request" anywhere you see "ask" (the noun) and you'll keep the exact same meaning.

Re: Email Introduction Etiquette

#70

Post by gngeal »

eternalseven wrote: post #62
gngeal wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You already understand there are different kinds. Some people shut down under fairly minimal pressure/stress, especially if their lives are already busy. I'm with you, but I've come to realize the importance of following such rules in order to keep things smooth ultimately for myself.

I have a paper from my shrink that says that essentially, I have had a blind spot for these things since my childhood. Only in recent years have I started to understand what it means. My "if you have something to tell me, why do you dance around it?" brain simply does not compute these things.
Post reply on HN