3 ms·

Surprised to see emoji. I feel like those almost always come across insincere when they're not expected. Idk why, maybe I'm the odd one.

by tayo42 3y ago

Aeolun 3y ago
Not sure. I always use them as a stand in for facial expression.
TylerE 3y ago
I think the occasional emoji is ok, especially in chat, but excess, especially multiples of the same emoji in a row are just childish.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Emojis and emoticons in any serious piece of communication are simply unprofessional and insincere. Do not use them, unless your intent is actually to piss your recipient off. Textbook example is the recent fiasco over at Linus Tech Tips, where they even used an emoji in an email to Billet Labs saying they "accidentally" auctioned off Billet's stuff. Anyone worth their paycheck doesn't use emojis in business communiques.
  - strken 3y ago
    If your communication is straightforwardly positive you can use as many emoji as you want without much in the way of consequences. Sticking :tada: in a Slack announcement of good quarterly performance, or even an official blog post, is unlikely to upset anyone in the same way "You're fired! :fire:" would.
    - sethammons 3y ago
      > "You're fired! :fire:" I snorted at that; thank you
  - calderwoodra 3y ago
    What's your opinion of slack? Seems to be the gold standard of team communication platforms (all other platforms follow their lead) and emojis are an integral part of it.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      If it's just water cooler conversations, yeah whatever. If it's actual business communications, no emojis. What matters isn't the medium, it's the context concerning the communication.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- tayo42 3y ago
  Sometimes, I guess if its used as a more interesting exclamation point. Like great job !<emoji goes here> People who punctuate with smileys seems odd and forced to me. Or when they correct things, "Hey all you need to do is X,Y,Z here here and here :-)<emoji>" Idk that bothers me. This article linked here that were talking about was like a perfect example of what seems to me fake corporate emoji use that comes off weird.
nickjj 3y ago
You're right about the "unexpected" part. I think it really depends on the context and the person. Both factors play a big role here. Imagine being in a spot to review a new hire's PR and you've barely interacted with them before this encounter. A reply of "Your method technically works but next time try xyz instead. It's more efficient. ;)" is extremely hostile in my mind. That phrasing is already over the top horrendous but the ;) amplifies it by 10x. As for a breakdown of why I think it's horrendous: "Your method" <-- You're already tying it directly to them "technically" <-- An unnecessary word, it's adding salt to the wound and makes you come off as arrogant "Next time" <-- Majorly condescending "Try xyz instead" <-- A bit direct "It's more efficient" <-- At least it describes the 'why' but there's 100 other ways to say this ";)" <-- Keyser Söze tier ruthlessness I think if I were really in this spot I'd probably reply with something like: "Hey, I ran your solution and it's working nicely. Thanks a lot! By the way, recently I've been working on profiling our code so performance is on the top of my mind. I ran the profiler against this PR and noticed a dip in performance in one of the functions. Do you want to hop on a call sometime to explore a few ways we can refactor xyz function? Really curious to hear what you think and after thinking about this for a while I have an idea or 2."
- leetcrew 3y ago
  the fact that neither of your wordings makes it clear whether I actually have to address your comment to get my code merged is much worse than the tone of the first version. like it or not, you are temporarily in a position of power when you are a required reviewer on someone else's change. they need to satisfy you to move their ticket into the "done" column, and you both know it. rather than dance around this uncomfortable situation with soft wordings, just focus on making it clear what is mandatory and what is optional.
- pxc 3y ago
  > Hey, I ran your solution and it's working nicely. Thanks a lot! By the way, recently I've been working on profiling our code so performance is on the top of my mind. I ran the profiler against this PR and noticed a dip in performance in one of the functions. Do you want to hop on a call sometime to explore a few ways we can refactor xyz function? Really curious to hear what you think and after thinking about this for a while I have an idea or 2. But that's making a PR comment into a meeting, which is something I'd kinda dread and want to avoid. That said, I agree that this > Your method technically works but next time try xyz instead. It's more efficient. ;) is awful. But it's not just the use of an emoticon. It's that it's the wrong emoticon. > this works, but xyz would be better (more efficient) :) Would be a bit ambiguous in tone, but I think at least invites an optimistic reading as well. For me I'd rather the niceties in a PR (as well as proposals to meet) live in a comment at the beginning or end of a PR. Individuak requests for specific changes within a PR review should be clear and simple, not bogged down in formal crap or fluff, imo.
coffeebeqn 3y ago
I only use the eyes emoji to throw them off

Surprised to see emoji. I feel like those almost always come across insincere when they're not expected. Idk why, maybe I'm the odd one.

by tayo42 3y ago

Surprised to see emoji. I feel like those almost always come across insincere when they're not expected. Idk why, maybe I'm the odd one.

Aeolun 3y ago

Not sure. I always use them as a stand in for facial expression.

TylerE 3y ago

I think the occasional emoji is ok, especially in chat, but excess, especially multiples of the same emoji in a row are just childish.

Dalewyn 3y ago
Emojis and emoticons in any serious piece of communication are simply unprofessional and insincere. Do not use them, unless your intent is actually to piss your recipient off. Textbook example is the recent fiasco over at Linus Tech Tips, where they even used an emoji in an email to Billet Labs saying they "accidentally" auctioned off Billet's stuff. Anyone worth their paycheck doesn't use emojis in business communiques.
- strken 3y ago
  If your communication is straightforwardly positive you can use as many emoji as you want without much in the way of consequences. Sticking :tada: in a Slack announcement of good quarterly performance, or even an official blog post, is unlikely to upset anyone in the same way "You're fired! :fire:" would.
  - sethammons 3y ago
    > "You're fired! :fire:" I snorted at that; thank you
- calderwoodra 3y ago
  What's your opinion of slack? Seems to be the gold standard of team communication platforms (all other platforms follow their lead) and emojis are an integral part of it.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    If it's just water cooler conversations, yeah whatever. If it's actual business communications, no emojis. What matters isn't the medium, it's the context concerning the communication.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tayo42 3y ago
Sometimes, I guess if its used as a more interesting exclamation point. Like great job !<emoji goes here> People who punctuate with smileys seems odd and forced to me. Or when they correct things, "Hey all you need to do is X,Y,Z here here and here :-)<emoji>" Idk that bothers me. This article linked here that were talking about was like a perfect example of what seems to me fake corporate emoji use that comes off weird.

nickjj 3y ago

You're right about the "unexpected" part. I think it really depends on the context and the person. Both factors play a big role here. Imagine being in a spot to review a new hire's PR and you've barely interacted with them before this encounter. A reply of "Your method technically works but next time try xyz instead. It's more efficient. ;)" is extremely hostile in my mind. That phrasing is already over the top horrendous but the ;) amplifies it by 10x. As for a breakdown of why I think it's horrendous: "Your method" <-- You're already tying it directly to them "technically" <-- An unnecessary word, it's adding salt to the wound and makes you come off as arrogant "Next time" <-- Majorly condescending "Try xyz instead" <-- A bit direct "It's more efficient" <-- At least it describes the 'why' but there's 100 other ways to say this ";)" <-- Keyser Söze tier ruthlessness I think if I were really in this spot I'd probably reply with something like: "Hey, I ran your solution and it's working nicely. Thanks a lot! By the way, recently I've been working on profiling our code so performance is on the top of my mind. I ran the profiler against this PR and noticed a dip in performance in one of the functions. Do you want to hop on a call sometime to explore a few ways we can refactor xyz function? Really curious to hear what you think and after thinking about this for a while I have an idea or 2."

leetcrew 3y ago
the fact that neither of your wordings makes it clear whether I actually have to address your comment to get my code merged is much worse than the tone of the first version. like it or not, you are temporarily in a position of power when you are a required reviewer on someone else's change. they need to satisfy you to move their ticket into the "done" column, and you both know it. rather than dance around this uncomfortable situation with soft wordings, just focus on making it clear what is mandatory and what is optional.
pxc 3y ago
> Hey, I ran your solution and it's working nicely. Thanks a lot! By the way, recently I've been working on profiling our code so performance is on the top of my mind. I ran the profiler against this PR and noticed a dip in performance in one of the functions. Do you want to hop on a call sometime to explore a few ways we can refactor xyz function? Really curious to hear what you think and after thinking about this for a while I have an idea or 2. But that's making a PR comment into a meeting, which is something I'd kinda dread and want to avoid. That said, I agree that this > Your method technically works but next time try xyz instead. It's more efficient. ;) is awful. But it's not just the use of an emoticon. It's that it's the wrong emoticon. > this works, but xyz would be better (more efficient) :) Would be a bit ambiguous in tone, but I think at least invites an optimistic reading as well. For me I'd rather the niceties in a PR (as well as proposals to meet) live in a comment at the beginning or end of a PR. Individuak requests for specific changes within a PR review should be clear and simple, not bogged down in formal crap or fluff, imo.

coffeebeqn 3y ago

I only use the eyes emoji to throw them off