4 ms·

As with so much ... it depends. Sometimes when I'm working I need to chat open so I can get urgent requests and feedback. In that case it's really, really ann

As with so much ... it depends. Sometimes when I'm working I need to chat open so I can get urgent requests and feedback. In that case it's really, really annoying for someone to pop something completely different into my feed and just baldly ask the question. It's a form of nerd-sniping[0], showing no consideration for my work mode. Better to pop in something like this: > I have a question, should take you X (second|minutes), ping me when you're free If I'm busy I can ignore it, if I have an expected time of availability I can send that back, and if I'm free now I can send back a "Go!" I strive to get into flow, but sometimes the overall context is such that people should be able to break that with urgent questions. Popping non-urgent questions into my time-line breaks flow and is a destroyer of productivity So "it depends" - having blanket rules such as proposed in the post can be counter-productive. [0] https://xkcd.com/356/ https://xkcd.com/356/ Edit: I get that not everyone will agree with me, but it's so, so annoying to construct what I hope is a clear, reasoned response, just to get a downvote. And no, this isn't a complaint about getting the downvote, I've learned to expect downvotes when I express a contrary view, even one as mild as this. No, this is an expression of disappointment that someone just won't engage in the discussion. Very disappointing ... usually HN is better than that.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
StavrosK 6y ago
I, too, am puzzled by your downvotes. > In that case it's really, really annoying for someone to pop something completely different into my feed and just baldly ask the question Why? Can't you just reply whenever you can?
- xuhu 6y ago
  After someone spent 15 minutes typing a wall of text, it might be rude if you ignore it. Them asking first allows you to tell them to hold off until later.
- ColinWright 6y ago
  > I, too, am puzzled by your downvotes. OK, so it's not just me, but I can see that others continue to hold contrary opinions. Which, as I say, is fine, I just wish they'd express them (as some have - thank you) and not just downvote without feedback. >> ... annoying for someone to pop something completely different into my feed and just baldly ask the question > Why? Can't you just reply whenever you can? No, because of the nerd-sniping problem. If it's an interesting question that requires thought, I'll inevitably start thinking about it now, even if only in background, resulting in context-switching, and my productivity goes way down. I'm guessing that many in the HN community quite simply work differently from how I work. I'm learning something already from the responses, and I'm getting the sense of a real disconnect between us (me and them, not me and you).
corty 6y ago
Asking if I have time for something unimportant is as inconsiderate as just saying 'hi' imho. I will still have to remember to call them back (so their problem is now a task more for me to remember) and I'll still have to consider if it isn't important after all to ping them immediately. Because maybe last time they pulled the same stunt with a major problem and I initially got chewed up for doing minor stuff instead of asking about theirs... So imho: either state the problem in a concise way and state your priority evaluation. I may adjust that evaluation based on my interpretation. Or just don't bother me with it because it isn't important.
bsmithers 6y ago
I think it's on you - as the receiver of a message - to appropriately deal with your messaging app of choice such that it doesn't interupt your flow. Otherwise, you are placing an impossible burden on the sender of the message to some how telepathically know if it's a good time. IMHO, your preferred workflow makes it seem that your time is more valuable than the other person's as you're now asking them to hang around waiting until they can actually ask their question. The asynchronous nature of messaging is important to preserve.
- ColinWright 6y ago
  That's why I say "It Depends". If I'm working I've already set my system to say (a) I'm working, and (b) only receive from colleagues. Then they can choose to wait (because I'm working), ping me (because they will need a response when I get a break), or ask now (because they need the answer now). If their judgement turns out not to match my expectation then we can talk later about priorities, and each adjust to the other, thus improving the working relationship. > IMHO, your preferred workflow makes it seem that your time is more valuable than the other person's as you're now asking them to hang around waiting until they can actually ask their question. Not at all, there is a balance. Sometimes what I'm doing really is more important than answering their question, sometimes it isn't. If what I'm doing is more important, then simply blurting the question into my message stream, as suggested by the article, is a "Bad Thing(tm)". That's why I say ... "It Depends". I believe it depends on the question you want to ask, and the current working context.
MaulingMonkey 6y ago
>> I have a question, should take you X (second|minutes), ping me when you're free I can't remember the last time someone asked me a question where they have enough information/context that they'd be able to make a reasonable guess to X. There's a reason they're asking me a question! And curiosity about what their question is typically snipes my attention and disrupts my flow more than if they'd simply asked their question. If they want to show consideration for my flow, I'd much rather have either have something in my email queue instead of a chat ping, or - if they must chat - a query along the lines of: > When you're free - [some kind of question or request]? No rush. Or: > Do you happen to know off of the top of your head where to find XYZ? I'll leave chat pings unread for a minute if I'm in the middle of a thought. Once I do read chat, it's often easier for me to quickly answer (or redirect to a better resource), than it is to remember to ping them later, or wait for a second/third/fourth interruption later when I ask them to ping me after lunch/a meeting/dinner/??? if I haven't gotten back to them before then.
rascul 6y ago
I prefer the person to just ask the question. If I can't handle it now, I can come back to it, if they're around. Otherwise I have to engage with them just to determine what they want, which can be time consuming, and a potential time loss if it's not something I can handle. Also, they generally have no idea how long it might take, and too often the "quick questions" tend to be anything but.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

StavrosK 6y ago

I, too, am puzzled by your downvotes. > In that case it's really, really annoying for someone to pop something completely different into my feed and just baldly ask the question Why? Can't you just reply whenever you can?

xuhu 6y ago
After someone spent 15 minutes typing a wall of text, it might be rude if you ignore it. Them asking first allows you to tell them to hold off until later.
ColinWright 6y ago
> I, too, am puzzled by your downvotes. OK, so it's not just me, but I can see that others continue to hold contrary opinions. Which, as I say, is fine, I just wish they'd express them (as some have - thank you) and not just downvote without feedback. >> ... annoying for someone to pop something completely different into my feed and just baldly ask the question > Why? Can't you just reply whenever you can? No, because of the nerd-sniping problem. If it's an interesting question that requires thought, I'll inevitably start thinking about it now, even if only in background, resulting in context-switching, and my productivity goes way down. I'm guessing that many in the HN community quite simply work differently from how I work. I'm learning something already from the responses, and I'm getting the sense of a real disconnect between us (me and them, not me and you).

corty 6y ago

Asking if I have time for something unimportant is as inconsiderate as just saying 'hi' imho. I will still have to remember to call them back (so their problem is now a task more for me to remember) and I'll still have to consider if it isn't important after all to ping them immediately. Because maybe last time they pulled the same stunt with a major problem and I initially got chewed up for doing minor stuff instead of asking about theirs... So imho: either state the problem in a concise way and state your priority evaluation. I may adjust that evaluation based on my interpretation. Or just don't bother me with it because it isn't important.

bsmithers 6y ago

I think it's on you - as the receiver of a message - to appropriately deal with your messaging app of choice such that it doesn't interupt your flow. Otherwise, you are placing an impossible burden on the sender of the message to some how telepathically know if it's a good time. IMHO, your preferred workflow makes it seem that your time is more valuable than the other person's as you're now asking them to hang around waiting until they can actually ask their question. The asynchronous nature of messaging is important to preserve.

ColinWright 6y ago
That's why I say "It Depends". If I'm working I've already set my system to say (a) I'm working, and (b) only receive from colleagues. Then they can choose to wait (because I'm working), ping me (because they will need a response when I get a break), or ask now (because they need the answer now). If their judgement turns out not to match my expectation then we can talk later about priorities, and each adjust to the other, thus improving the working relationship. > IMHO, your preferred workflow makes it seem that your time is more valuable than the other person's as you're now asking them to hang around waiting until they can actually ask their question. Not at all, there is a balance. Sometimes what I'm doing really is more important than answering their question, sometimes it isn't. If what I'm doing is more important, then simply blurting the question into my message stream, as suggested by the article, is a "Bad Thing(tm)". That's why I say ... "It Depends". I believe it depends on the question you want to ask, and the current working context.

MaulingMonkey 6y ago

>> I have a question, should take you X (second|minutes), ping me when you're free I can't remember the last time someone asked me a question where they have enough information/context that they'd be able to make a reasonable guess to X. There's a reason they're asking me a question! And curiosity about what their question is typically snipes my attention and disrupts my flow more than if they'd simply asked their question. If they want to show consideration for my flow, I'd much rather have either have something in my email queue instead of a chat ping, or - if they must chat - a query along the lines of: > When you're free - [some kind of question or request]? No rush. Or: > Do you happen to know off of the top of your head where to find XYZ? I'll leave chat pings unread for a minute if I'm in the middle of a thought. Once I do read chat, it's often easier for me to quickly answer (or redirect to a better resource), than it is to remember to ping them later, or wait for a second/third/fourth interruption later when I ask them to ping me after lunch/a meeting/dinner/??? if I haven't gotten back to them before then.

rascul 6y ago

I prefer the person to just ask the question. If I can't handle it now, I can come back to it, if they're around. Otherwise I have to engage with them just to determine what they want, which can be time consuming, and a potential time loss if it's not something I can handle. Also, they generally have no idea how long it might take, and too often the "quick questions" tend to be anything but.