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

171–180 of 232 posts

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#171

Post by mbell »

kyro wrote: post #144

I think people tend to grossly exaggerate how many emails they really do get. Are you really that damn busy that you can't spend a minute or less writing a more natural and conversational reply that indicates to the other person that you're reciprocating the amount of thought and effort they invested in their message? I agree with some others here in saying that this is awkward. You don't strive for efficiency in soc…

> 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 either the e-mail gets a terse response, or the sender waits a couple hours till I hit a mental break point in what I'm doing.

[0] http://blog.ninlabs.com/2013/01/programmer-interrupted/

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#172

Post by TylerE »

ycombobreaker wrote: post #169
openmx wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You pronounce lol, rofl, afaik, imho? Talk about awkward.

how else would we say "roflcopter"? I never say AFAIK aloud, but I do always pronounce it "a fake" in my head when typing.

Rofl I've always pronounced (on the rare occasions that I do), as rhyming approximately with 'waffle".

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#173

Post by zukhan »

mbell wrote: post #171
kyro wrote: post #144

I think people tend to grossly exaggerate how many emails they really do get. Are you really that damn busy that you can't spend a minute or less writing a more natural and conversational reply that indicates to the other person that you're reciprocating the amount of thought and effort they invested in their message? I agree with some others here in saying that this is awkward. You don't strive for efficiency in soc…

> 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…

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.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#174

Post by fjpoblam »

VSRE sounds like a good idea, as long as the recipient is on close enough terms to not be offended (or stifled) by "expected". (The witness will please answer with a simple "Yes" or "No".) Maybe VSRPA (Very Short Reply Perfectly Acceptable) would be more appropriate.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#175

Post by fjpoblam »

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…

Abbreviation needed? Phrase the question such that a curt response is encouraged. A la, "Herbert: we're meeting tomorrow at 2 in my office to discuss the new release of jquery. Be there?" (The question tends to elicit a "Yes" or "No")

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#176

Post by Paul_D_Santana »

mbell wrote: post #171
kyro wrote: post #144

I think people tend to grossly exaggerate how many emails they really do get. Are you really that damn busy that you can't spend a minute or less writing a more natural and conversational reply that indicates to the other person that you're reciprocating the amount of thought and effort they invested in their message? I agree with some others here in saying that this is awkward. You don't strive for efficiency in soc…

> 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-stopwatch.com/full-screen-stopwatch

As for the main topic, I have this as my signature:

  Hi [name]



  Thank you,
  Paul Santana
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, and write a few words in the middle. Done; professional and courteous email template without any additional effort.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#177

Post by lowboy »

sliverstorm wrote: post #141
lowboy wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And organic things can be inefficient.

As we are not organic beings, clearly it would be foolish of us to accept such unnecessary inefficiencies.

I agree with the second part of your statement. Why not make things more efficient where we can?

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#178

Post by chmike »

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.

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 ?

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#179

Post by endgame »

read wrote: post #30
endgame wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could probably call it a meat-level communication hack or something. I like it, but I'd probably use it in the subject line. Similar to how some people use to signal that an email has no body. Now let's see if it gains traction.

The trouble with EOM is that you still need to click on the email you received to un-bold it. EOM or not, you are still opening it.

Check if your client has keyboard shortcuts that can mark-as-read from the inbox summary. I know gmail and gnus both support it.

Re: Very Short Reply Expected

#180

Post by bwilkins »

fjpoblam wrote: post #174

VSRE sounds like a good idea, as long as the recipient is on close enough terms to not be offended (or stifled) by "expected". (The witness will please answer with a simple "Yes" or "No".) Maybe VSRPA (Very Short Reply Perfectly Acceptable) would be more appropriate.

How about VSRP - Very Short Reply Preferred?
Post reply on HN