3 ms·

I don't get why people suggest the use of EOM and NTTR (btw, why is it not spelled NNTR? That would be far more logical to me. anyways..). If there is a clear s

I don't get why people suggest the use of EOM and NTTR (btw, why is it not spelled NNTR? That would be far more logical to me. anyways..). If there is a clear sign that the sender wants me to reply (such as a question, or a request for feedback etc) then I reply. Otherwise I read the email and archive it. I guess what I mean is, EOM/NTTR should be obvious from the content.

koralatov 14y ago
NNTR (or something similar) can be pretty useful: a lot of people send long, rambling emails that don't clearly state what they want. In cases like that, `NNTR' or `Just FYI' can be a God-send. I also like the idea of a checklist at the top of emails, as suggested in Inbox Zero[1]: This email is: [ ] actionable [x] fyi [ ] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none I've never actually used them myself, but they seem like a great idea if you could avoid getting lynched for using them. I don't think they would go down particularly well in a lot of offices. (I also dislike the wording used, but that's a nit-pick more than a valid criticism.) EOM is pretty superfluous, though -- it's clear from the fact that there's no more text that I've reached the end of the message. [1]: http://www.43folders.com/2005/09/19/writing-sensible-email-messages http://www.43folders.com/2005/09/19/writing-sensible-email-m...
- wereHamster 14y ago
  If they want a reply, they should write a clear question. If it's just long rambling without any apparent question or call to action, how should you respond anyway? I'm one of those who ignores (or rather, doesn't respond to) more emails than I should. But if it's something really important then people will send me a second email with clear instructions. And after a while they'll learn to do so in the first email.
  - koralatov 14y ago
    I'm in complete agreement with you: if they just spent a little time up front writing clear, concise emails, it would save a lot of trouble down the line. As it is, though, they don't, so hacks like that act as a sort of triage for the problem. I've tried, without success, the `ignore until clear' tactic, but it tends to result in me getting the blame for not replying.
- roel_v 14y ago
  "EOM is pretty superfluous, though -- it's clear from the fact that there's no more text that I've reached the end of the message." Originally the idea was to put EOM at the end of the subject line when the whole message fit in the subject. That way you didn't have to 'open' the email. Never made much sense to me, since the process of 'opening' an email doesn't cost more than the effort to select the subject, but maybe it depends on the email client - I can see how one on a 800x600 screen may use an email client that shows the message list in one screen, and the body in another.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jbester 14y ago
    Sounds similar to NT (No Text) on usenet...
JonYolk 14y ago
It is NNTR sorry about the typo. You think most people would be like you but most aren't in our experience. It's the simple emails that just say 'thanks' that add to the clutter.

koralatov 14y ago

NNTR (or something similar) can be pretty useful: a lot of people send long, rambling emails that don't clearly state what they want. In cases like that, `NNTR' or `Just FYI' can be a God-send. I also like the idea of a checklist at the top of emails, as suggested in Inbox Zero[1]: This email is: [ ] actionable [x] fyi [ ] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none I've never actually used them myself, but they seem like a great idea if you could avoid getting lynched for using them. I don't think they would go down particularly well in a lot of offices. (I also dislike the wording used, but that's a nit-pick more than a valid criticism.) EOM is pretty superfluous, though -- it's clear from the fact that there's no more text that I've reached the end of the message. [1]: http://www.43folders.com/2005/09/19/writing-sensible-email-messages http://www.43folders.com/2005/09/19/writing-sensible-email-m...

wereHamster 14y ago
If they want a reply, they should write a clear question. If it's just long rambling without any apparent question or call to action, how should you respond anyway? I'm one of those who ignores (or rather, doesn't respond to) more emails than I should. But if it's something really important then people will send me a second email with clear instructions. And after a while they'll learn to do so in the first email.
- koralatov 14y ago
  I'm in complete agreement with you: if they just spent a little time up front writing clear, concise emails, it would save a lot of trouble down the line. As it is, though, they don't, so hacks like that act as a sort of triage for the problem. I've tried, without success, the `ignore until clear' tactic, but it tends to result in me getting the blame for not replying.
roel_v 14y ago
"EOM is pretty superfluous, though -- it's clear from the fact that there's no more text that I've reached the end of the message." Originally the idea was to put EOM at the end of the subject line when the whole message fit in the subject. That way you didn't have to 'open' the email. Never made much sense to me, since the process of 'opening' an email doesn't cost more than the effort to select the subject, but maybe it depends on the email client - I can see how one on a 800x600 screen may use an email client that shows the message list in one screen, and the body in another.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jbester 14y ago
  Sounds similar to NT (No Text) on usenet...

JonYolk 14y ago

It is NNTR sorry about the typo. You think most people would be like you but most aren't in our experience. It's the simple emails that just say 'thanks' that add to the clutter.