5 ms·

Is anyone there?

54 points by chaosmachine 15y ago

clobber 15y ago
From the article: "Consciously or unconsciously we think of our interlocutors as disposable or replaceable." Interesting, this must be how interviewers or HR types feel after they never get back to you.
astrofinch 15y ago
"I certainly felt ignored when a young editorial assistant at a magazine asked me to send important information to her but never acknowledged receipt of same. I waited 72 hours for her reply, and then sent the information again with a note saying, “Just re-sending in case you didn’t receive.” When another 48 hours elapsed without a reply from her, I resent the information again, this time appended, “I’m resending this because I have no way of knowing whether or not you received it.”" This guy isn't too well-versed with technology is he.
- MetallicCloud 15y ago
  I've done this before. It's more a case if you don't know if your email has mistakenly been put into the spam folder.
  - sonoffett 15y ago
    Me too. I consider myself technically well versed and I have setup mail servers before. Whenever I send an important email with an attachment I always include the phrase "Please reply on receipt" just to ensure that the other end gets it. The mail server can be unreliable by ignoring the message if it thinks its spam, especially so when you have attachments (every mail sever has it's own file size/extension limitations). You would think that there would be a notification if the message was ignored or not delivered but notifying by default can be a bad idea since attackers can easily spoof (I'm ignoring SPF TXT records) the sender's address and then use your mail sever to DDoS someone else. Also, due to the sheer volume of SPAM you would tie up considerable resources responding to legitimate senders.
- gjm11 15y ago
  I don't think this implies any lack of familiarity with technology. 1. As MetallicCloud observes, emails sometimes fail to get through because of spam filters. (Though in that case, the resends would be likely to get eaten too.) 2. Emails can get lost in other ways. (Rare but by no means unheard of.) 3. The resending also serves as a way to say "You may have been ignoring my emails; please at least confirm that you've got them" without actually having to say that.
sorbus 15y ago
> e-mails to travel with the speed of photosynthesis Am I the only person who found this metaphor a bit jarring? It seems very much like the author trying to make himself sound more cultured or intelligent, unless he's trying to say something like "travel with no outward signs of progress."
- yolesaber 15y ago
  I believe it is pseudointellectual for "speed of light."
  - dools 15y ago
    "Photosynthesis is a chemical process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight"[1] If he were using this as a metaphor for the "speed of light" you'd think he'd be referring to the emails going incredibly fast, but what he's actually referring to is his "otherwise spectacular ... assistant" sometimes taking a very long time to respond to emails (because he's busy looking at lulz). In this case I believe that the author is using "speed of photosynthesis" as a metaphor for being very slow, instead of using the more common simile "like watching grass grow". I'm not sure if "speed of photosynthesis" is really correct, though - I find it hard to compare "rate of respiration" with "rate of growth" or "rate of email response" but there you go. He's certainly doesn't mean "speed of light". [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
    - w1ntermute 15y ago
      Give the author a break. He's a journalist, not a biologist. The last real science class he took was probably in high school.
      - elliottkember 15y ago
        Right - all the more reason he shouldn't use photosynthesis in his analogies!
necubi 15y ago
This is largely a technical problem resulting from Email's unpredictability and lack of any receipt verification mechanism. While this is true of other non-real time communication mediums (like snail mail), that doesn't mean we shouldn't try solving it. Improved spam detection increases the likelihood that an email will actually reach its intended recipient. In the 7 years I've been using gmail I've seen exactly one false positive (although there is some bias here as I've long since stopped checking my spam folder). But such technology has been slow to filter out to the less technically inclined ISPs and mail providers. As far as actual verification, there are several ways to achieve this now. A popular technique is embedding a 1x1 pixel image with a unique id in its url. Unfortunately this is frequently abused by spammers looking for verification that an email address is good, so many email readers block images by default. Any real solution is going to require some sort of trust mechanism or better make the procedure opt-in. Still, anything would improve upon the current situation where letters go silently into the void
- ForrestN 15y ago
  Would you opt in? What if you don't have time to answer right now? I would hate feeling like I had to either respond immediately or broadcast that I was waiting. Part of the appeal of e-mail (or any correspondence) is that each correspondent can proceed at their own pace. It's a feature, not a bug, at least in many cases.
  - a3_nm 15y ago
    There is a difference between knowing that the message arrived in the recipient's inbox, and knowing that the recipient has opened the message. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_receipt#E-mail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_receipt#E-mail (DSN versus MDN). MDNs are not a very good idea, but widespread use of DSNs would probably be nice. There are quite a lot of cases where you just have to know if your message arrived, but it is tedious (and slightly rude) to ask for confirmation.
- jodrellblank 15y ago
  Any real solution is going to have to face the fact that it's easy to get a lot of email per day. Receipt acknowledgement doesn't seem like it would solve any real part of the (so called) problem.
ForrestN 15y ago
I for one am glad for the flexibility afforded by e-mail ambiguity. In a situation in which one person wants to go out to lunch and the other doesn't, is the better outcome that the first either confrontationally declines or reluctantly accepts the request? In the art world, the protocol for asking for a show at someone's gallery is that you invite them over to your studio for a "studio visit." The purpose of the visit, to see if they want to give you a show, is known to both parties, but never explicitly stated. If the dealer doesn't want to give you a show, then you just had a nice visit where they gave you some feedback about your work. If they do want a show, obviously there's no problem. But the perils of saying "Can I have a show?" and getting rejected are avoided by the introduction of ambiguity. You don't know anything about why they've rejected you (if it's you or them) and the relationship isn't strained by anything too outright. As annoying as it is sometimes, I think there are definitely cases in which ignoring email can be a graceful alternative to difficult options.
momotomo 15y ago
Avoiding giving a reply or simply being disorganised when it comes to following up with responses isn't tech specific. Penpals who take six months to reply, people who screen their calls, giving a polite reply of "yes" when really you're never going to show up - it happens. With the examples the author gave in a professional context - if you require a reply on something, set the expectation rather than assume someone communicates the same way as you. If you're cold soliciting people over email for love or profit it should be with the understanding that it doesn't necessary honour the other party to reply.
Cyph0n 15y ago
Isn't that what emails are all about? They're meant to take time to reply to, at least that's what I think. Unless the recipient of your email is sitting on his/her PC 24/7, there is the chance that you'll have to wait for him/her to reply, and that may take some time. Don't want to wait at all? Use IM, or even social networking.
- trustfundbaby 15y ago
  ... or text message
Hisoka 15y ago
I do think the author has a valid point. Yes, sure you don't have to respond immediately but taking too long to respond isn't very kind as well. You gotta have some emotional intelligence. In fact, this sort of thing happens beyond email.. it's also about phone calls that don't get returned, and failing to "ping" friends regularly. I know we live in a busy world, but you gotta have some insight into what ticks other people. Ignoring people for too long leads to bitterness as you wonders why he/she has forgotten about you. It also leads to a negative view of the world. You start to think it's dog eat dog.. It's true.. we don't respond right away unless it's a sex text. We don't really care about others unless there's an orgasm in stake, or at least an indirect path to an orgasm.
stephth 15y ago
In the end, short of asking for e-mail receipts, which many consider rude, our only hope seems to lie in philosophical repositioning. I acquired some of that entity when [P.M. Forni] told me that, online, “we communicate because we can and not because we have something important to say.” “We invest in the swapping of trivialities,” he said, “precious time that we could use for serious reflection. I want to believe that when we stumble upon black holes of silence on the net, that depends at least in part on someone reacting against the tyranny of hyperconnection. “There must be brave and smart souls who came to realize that thinking is more important than communicating,” he continued. “I see them in my mind’s eye a brave minority, sitting in silence, pondering and planning — the way it used to be.” I like this guy's style. Superbly written article by the way. Thanks for sharing @chaosmachine.
- stephth 15y ago
  Downvoters, would you like to share your reasoning? I don't care about my hn karma, I'm just really curious.
  - fractallyte 15y ago
    I discovered a little while ago that it's hazardous to post opinions, because of 'random drive-by downvoters'. In a sense, these are the real trolls: misusing the voting system... to what end? Or is it just sheer laziness? Downvoting should be employed against spammers or trolls; for everything else, write a sensible reply!
    - mquander 15y ago
      I choose to employ downvoting against people making absurd meta threads about downvotes.
      - yid 15y ago
        Allow me some meta, meta-surprise that your comment isn't downvoted.
  - 15y ago
inkaudio 15y ago
well if you just wanted to know if someone read or opened your email, there are services like didtheyreadit.com and toutapp.com and that will track this info for you, sort of like a receipt. If you're looking for a quick hack(limited results), you would embed an image in the email and track how many times it is accessed. And most email marketing software track this information for you. That solves the problem of "Is there anyone there", but not the getting the person to reply problem.
- thurn 15y ago
  How does this work? Now that most email clients block images and stuff in HTML email, isn't it basically impossible to know if they read your email?
  - inkaudio 15y ago
    yeah if the image is blocked then yeah, it won't work, but if they did read it more than likely they would click show images/html. But like I said it is a quick hack it is limited. The other service, use a more sophisticated method and it works for me, I know it email was opened. And if it was opened more than once, I know more than likely it was read.
    - eru 15y ago
      I almost never view HTML emails, and if I do, I load pictures even more rarely.
wccrawford 15y ago
Email can be very painful if you use it incorrectly, yes. I've been dating a girl I met recently, and the other day, I sent her an email that laid my heart open. After I sent it, I realized she probably wouldn't read it for hours, and then it might be even longer before she can craft a reply! I moped around for an hour and a half, when she sent a reply saying she was sorry it took her that long to respond, and she knew what I must be going through, waiting for a response. She addressed only that painful bit, and responded to the rest when she had time later. She's obviously a keeper. ;) The moral of the story is that if you don't respect the properties of the medium, you can do yourself a lot of damage. Email is usually delivered instantly, but -not always-. And it's a medium that is usually used for thoughtful replies, and not quick ones. If you want an instant answer, you need real-time communication.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  Email is usually delivered instantly, but -not always- Isn't that the truth, The longest delivery time I have ever seen on an email was around three weeks.
- wccrawford 15y ago
  Update: She just did the same thing to me. I managed a 25 minute turnaround time, though. lol We apparently aren't learning our lesson from this.
frankus 15y ago
One problem with so many emails is that they're much faster and easier to write than to thoughtfully respond to. Something like "how much would a clone of ebay.com cost?" takes 5 seconds to write by an eternity to answer in any thoughtful way (excluding true but glib responses like "more than you can afford"). For message-delivery emails, a "Please let me know if you've received this" goes a long way, as does following up with another medium. For "quick question" emails, make sure they're as quick to answer as they are to ask. You don't have to go all the way to a multiple-choice form, but aim for mostly yes-or-no or which-of-the-above questions.

54 points by chaosmachine 15y ago

From the article: "Consciously or unconsciously we think of our interlocutors as disposable or replaceable." Interesting, this must be how interviewers or HR types feel after they never get back to you.

astrofinch 15y ago

"I certainly felt ignored when a young editorial assistant at a magazine asked me to send important information to her but never acknowledged receipt of same. I waited 72 hours for her reply, and then sent the information again with a note saying, “Just re-sending in case you didn’t receive.” When another 48 hours elapsed without a reply from her, I resent the information again, this time appended, “I’m resending this because I have no way of knowing whether or not you received it.”" This guy isn't too well-versed with technology is he.

MetallicCloud 15y ago
I've done this before. It's more a case if you don't know if your email has mistakenly been put into the spam folder.
- sonoffett 15y ago
  Me too. I consider myself technically well versed and I have setup mail servers before. Whenever I send an important email with an attachment I always include the phrase "Please reply on receipt" just to ensure that the other end gets it. The mail server can be unreliable by ignoring the message if it thinks its spam, especially so when you have attachments (every mail sever has it's own file size/extension limitations). You would think that there would be a notification if the message was ignored or not delivered but notifying by default can be a bad idea since attackers can easily spoof (I'm ignoring SPF TXT records) the sender's address and then use your mail sever to DDoS someone else. Also, due to the sheer volume of SPAM you would tie up considerable resources responding to legitimate senders.
gjm11 15y ago
I don't think this implies any lack of familiarity with technology. 1. As MetallicCloud observes, emails sometimes fail to get through because of spam filters. (Though in that case, the resends would be likely to get eaten too.) 2. Emails can get lost in other ways. (Rare but by no means unheard of.) 3. The resending also serves as a way to say "You may have been ignoring my emails; please at least confirm that you've got them" without actually having to say that.

sorbus 15y ago

> e-mails to travel with the speed of photosynthesis Am I the only person who found this metaphor a bit jarring? It seems very much like the author trying to make himself sound more cultured or intelligent, unless he's trying to say something like "travel with no outward signs of progress."

yolesaber 15y ago
I believe it is pseudointellectual for "speed of light."
- dools 15y ago
  "Photosynthesis is a chemical process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight"[1] If he were using this as a metaphor for the "speed of light" you'd think he'd be referring to the emails going incredibly fast, but what he's actually referring to is his "otherwise spectacular ... assistant" sometimes taking a very long time to respond to emails (because he's busy looking at lulz). In this case I believe that the author is using "speed of photosynthesis" as a metaphor for being very slow, instead of using the more common simile "like watching grass grow". I'm not sure if "speed of photosynthesis" is really correct, though - I find it hard to compare "rate of respiration" with "rate of growth" or "rate of email response" but there you go. He's certainly doesn't mean "speed of light". [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
  - w1ntermute 15y ago
    Give the author a break. He's a journalist, not a biologist. The last real science class he took was probably in high school.
    - elliottkember 15y ago
      Right - all the more reason he shouldn't use photosynthesis in his analogies!

necubi 15y ago

This is largely a technical problem resulting from Email's unpredictability and lack of any receipt verification mechanism. While this is true of other non-real time communication mediums (like snail mail), that doesn't mean we shouldn't try solving it. Improved spam detection increases the likelihood that an email will actually reach its intended recipient. In the 7 years I've been using gmail I've seen exactly one false positive (although there is some bias here as I've long since stopped checking my spam folder). But such technology has been slow to filter out to the less technically inclined ISPs and mail providers. As far as actual verification, there are several ways to achieve this now. A popular technique is embedding a 1x1 pixel image with a unique id in its url. Unfortunately this is frequently abused by spammers looking for verification that an email address is good, so many email readers block images by default. Any real solution is going to require some sort of trust mechanism or better make the procedure opt-in. Still, anything would improve upon the current situation where letters go silently into the void

ForrestN 15y ago
Would you opt in? What if you don't have time to answer right now? I would hate feeling like I had to either respond immediately or broadcast that I was waiting. Part of the appeal of e-mail (or any correspondence) is that each correspondent can proceed at their own pace. It's a feature, not a bug, at least in many cases.
- a3_nm 15y ago
  There is a difference between knowing that the message arrived in the recipient's inbox, and knowing that the recipient has opened the message. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_receipt#E-mail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_receipt#E-mail (DSN versus MDN). MDNs are not a very good idea, but widespread use of DSNs would probably be nice. There are quite a lot of cases where you just have to know if your message arrived, but it is tedious (and slightly rude) to ask for confirmation.
jodrellblank 15y ago
Any real solution is going to have to face the fact that it's easy to get a lot of email per day. Receipt acknowledgement doesn't seem like it would solve any real part of the (so called) problem.

ForrestN 15y ago

I for one am glad for the flexibility afforded by e-mail ambiguity. In a situation in which one person wants to go out to lunch and the other doesn't, is the better outcome that the first either confrontationally declines or reluctantly accepts the request? In the art world, the protocol for asking for a show at someone's gallery is that you invite them over to your studio for a "studio visit." The purpose of the visit, to see if they want to give you a show, is known to both parties, but never explicitly stated. If the dealer doesn't want to give you a show, then you just had a nice visit where they gave you some feedback about your work. If they do want a show, obviously there's no problem. But the perils of saying "Can I have a show?" and getting rejected are avoided by the introduction of ambiguity. You don't know anything about why they've rejected you (if it's you or them) and the relationship isn't strained by anything too outright. As annoying as it is sometimes, I think there are definitely cases in which ignoring email can be a graceful alternative to difficult options.

momotomo 15y ago

Avoiding giving a reply or simply being disorganised when it comes to following up with responses isn't tech specific. Penpals who take six months to reply, people who screen their calls, giving a polite reply of "yes" when really you're never going to show up - it happens. With the examples the author gave in a professional context - if you require a reply on something, set the expectation rather than assume someone communicates the same way as you. If you're cold soliciting people over email for love or profit it should be with the understanding that it doesn't necessary honour the other party to reply.

Cyph0n 15y ago

Isn't that what emails are all about? They're meant to take time to reply to, at least that's what I think. Unless the recipient of your email is sitting on his/her PC 24/7, there is the chance that you'll have to wait for him/her to reply, and that may take some time. Don't want to wait at all? Use IM, or even social networking.

trustfundbaby 15y ago
... or text message

Hisoka 15y ago

I do think the author has a valid point. Yes, sure you don't have to respond immediately but taking too long to respond isn't very kind as well. You gotta have some emotional intelligence. In fact, this sort of thing happens beyond email.. it's also about phone calls that don't get returned, and failing to "ping" friends regularly. I know we live in a busy world, but you gotta have some insight into what ticks other people. Ignoring people for too long leads to bitterness as you wonders why he/she has forgotten about you. It also leads to a negative view of the world. You start to think it's dog eat dog.. It's true.. we don't respond right away unless it's a sex text. We don't really care about others unless there's an orgasm in stake, or at least an indirect path to an orgasm.

stephth 15y ago

In the end, short of asking for e-mail receipts, which many consider rude, our only hope seems to lie in philosophical repositioning. I acquired some of that entity when [P.M. Forni] told me that, online, “we communicate because we can and not because we have something important to say.” “We invest in the swapping of trivialities,” he said, “precious time that we could use for serious reflection. I want to believe that when we stumble upon black holes of silence on the net, that depends at least in part on someone reacting against the tyranny of hyperconnection. “There must be brave and smart souls who came to realize that thinking is more important than communicating,” he continued. “I see them in my mind’s eye a brave minority, sitting in silence, pondering and planning — the way it used to be.” I like this guy's style. Superbly written article by the way. Thanks for sharing @chaosmachine.

stephth 15y ago
Downvoters, would you like to share your reasoning? I don't care about my hn karma, I'm just really curious.
- fractallyte 15y ago
  I discovered a little while ago that it's hazardous to post opinions, because of 'random drive-by downvoters'. In a sense, these are the real trolls: misusing the voting system... to what end? Or is it just sheer laziness? Downvoting should be employed against spammers or trolls; for everything else, write a sensible reply!
  - mquander 15y ago
    I choose to employ downvoting against people making absurd meta threads about downvotes.
    - yid 15y ago
      Allow me some meta, meta-surprise that your comment isn't downvoted.
- 15y ago

inkaudio 15y ago

well if you just wanted to know if someone read or opened your email, there are services like didtheyreadit.com and toutapp.com and that will track this info for you, sort of like a receipt. If you're looking for a quick hack(limited results), you would embed an image in the email and track how many times it is accessed. And most email marketing software track this information for you. That solves the problem of "Is there anyone there", but not the getting the person to reply problem.

thurn 15y ago
How does this work? Now that most email clients block images and stuff in HTML email, isn't it basically impossible to know if they read your email?
- inkaudio 15y ago
  yeah if the image is blocked then yeah, it won't work, but if they did read it more than likely they would click show images/html. But like I said it is a quick hack it is limited. The other service, use a more sophisticated method and it works for me, I know it email was opened. And if it was opened more than once, I know more than likely it was read.
  - eru 15y ago
    I almost never view HTML emails, and if I do, I load pictures even more rarely.

wccrawford 15y ago

Email can be very painful if you use it incorrectly, yes. I've been dating a girl I met recently, and the other day, I sent her an email that laid my heart open. After I sent it, I realized she probably wouldn't read it for hours, and then it might be even longer before she can craft a reply! I moped around for an hour and a half, when she sent a reply saying she was sorry it took her that long to respond, and she knew what I must be going through, waiting for a response. She addressed only that painful bit, and responded to the rest when she had time later. She's obviously a keeper. ;) The moral of the story is that if you don't respect the properties of the medium, you can do yourself a lot of damage. Email is usually delivered instantly, but -not always-. And it's a medium that is usually used for thoughtful replies, and not quick ones. If you want an instant answer, you need real-time communication.

stonemetal 15y ago
Email is usually delivered instantly, but -not always- Isn't that the truth, The longest delivery time I have ever seen on an email was around three weeks.
wccrawford 15y ago
Update: She just did the same thing to me. I managed a 25 minute turnaround time, though. lol We apparently aren't learning our lesson from this.

frankus 15y ago

One problem with so many emails is that they're much faster and easier to write than to thoughtfully respond to. Something like "how much would a clone of ebay.com cost?" takes 5 seconds to write by an eternity to answer in any thoughtful way (excluding true but glib responses like "more than you can afford"). For message-delivery emails, a "Please let me know if you've received this" goes a long way, as does following up with another medium. For "quick question" emails, make sure they're as quick to answer as they are to ask. You don't have to go all the way to a multiple-choice form, but aim for mostly yes-or-no or which-of-the-above questions.