11 ms·

It is very interesting that "reply all" is a forbidden action with email. Other mediums have the possibility, sometimes by default, to let messages and replies

by rakoo 4y ago

It is very interesting that "reply all" is a forbidden action with email. Other mediums have the possibility, sometimes by default, to let messages and replies be visible by everyone not just in the conversation but in the whole world and it's working fine. Why is it forbidden with emails ? The functionality is useful. It is forbidden not because it is useless, but because the UX of emails make every single new message the most important thing to read and process. It is there in the Inbox, it is at the top, you can't ignore it. Other UX make this more manageable. Usenet is used to frequent back-and-forths, so it arranges them inside their respective threads. Zulip lets you focus on the topics you're interested in and come back to a specific thread when you want. I keep thinking we don't have a problem with email, we have a problem with UX.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
I think the reason is also that people receiving emails have not necessarily opted in to receive it. Someone in a Whatsapp group has chosen to join it. They can leave whenever they want and turn off notifications as a middle ground. Someone emailing the entire office because of a massage class is just lazy or an attention seeker (and the people replying to all "please remove me from this list" are total idiots) I blacklist the "massage class tomorrow at lunch time" ladies in our office upon the first email but the problem is I still get all the replies to all. Email lacks advanced management options.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > I think the reason is also that people receiving emails have not necessarily opted in to receive it. Having an email address amounts to opting in to receiving email. I think the reason is people not knowing how to use email. Most people make much more use of instant messaging services than email; with IM, generally you either reply or you don't. Reply-all storms have always been a problem; I think it was made dramatically worse by Microsoft Outlook, which idosyncratically placed the cursor above the (quoted) message being replied to. That encouraged people to reply without scrolling down (because they've already seen what they're replying to); so they don't see how many quotes of quotes of quotes they could safely trim before clicking send. They just type a one-liner, and happily send off 16K of stuff that everyone else has already seen too. Trim and contextualize. That is, keep those parts of what you're replying to directly, and remove all the dross. It's too late to say "Please don't top-quote" - unfortunately that ship sailed two decades ago.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    > Having an email address amounts to opting in to receiving email. Well yes but from everyone. There is no granularity which is the problem.
    - rakoo 4y ago
      If you have a mail account in a company, it is normal to receive company-wide communication
morsch 4y ago
I use reply productively all the time, in asynchronous technical discussions that involve two to four people. Most stories where things go wrong involve catch-all addresses that forward to thousands or tens of thousands addresses, which either shouldn't exist in the first place or should be limited access.

by rakoo 4y ago

GekkePrutser 4y ago

I think the reason is also that people receiving emails have not necessarily opted in to receive it. Someone in a Whatsapp group has chosen to join it. They can leave whenever they want and turn off notifications as a middle ground. Someone emailing the entire office because of a massage class is just lazy or an attention seeker (and the people replying to all "please remove me from this list" are total idiots) I blacklist the "massage class tomorrow at lunch time" ladies in our office upon the first email but the problem is I still get all the replies to all. Email lacks advanced management options.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> I think the reason is also that people receiving emails have not necessarily opted in to receive it. Having an email address amounts to opting in to receiving email. I think the reason is people not knowing how to use email. Most people make much more use of instant messaging services than email; with IM, generally you either reply or you don't. Reply-all storms have always been a problem; I think it was made dramatically worse by Microsoft Outlook, which idosyncratically placed the cursor above the (quoted) message being replied to. That encouraged people to reply without scrolling down (because they've already seen what they're replying to); so they don't see how many quotes of quotes of quotes they could safely trim before clicking send. They just type a one-liner, and happily send off 16K of stuff that everyone else has already seen too. Trim and contextualize. That is, keep those parts of what you're replying to directly, and remove all the dross. It's too late to say "Please don't top-quote" - unfortunately that ship sailed two decades ago.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  > Having an email address amounts to opting in to receiving email. Well yes but from everyone. There is no granularity which is the problem.
  - rakoo 4y ago
    If you have a mail account in a company, it is normal to receive company-wide communication

morsch 4y ago

I use reply productively all the time, in asynchronous technical discussions that involve two to four people. Most stories where things go wrong involve catch-all addresses that forward to thousands or tens of thousands addresses, which either shouldn't exist in the first place or should be limited access.