

PragDave: Followup on the EMail Experiment - bradly
http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2011/11/followup-on-the-email-experiment.html

======
masterponomo
That's a great idea. Back in the 90's, hoping to cut down on my contact with
work during vacation, I told people I would be "rafting in Utah." I had no
idea that Utah was such a popular rafting destination--living as I did in
Atlanta, it sounded just remote enough to make people think I was out of
reach, even though I was in fact at home the whole time. It worked to
eliminate attempts to contact me, but for the 20 years since then I have had
to maintain the fiction that a) I am a white-water rafting enthusiast (I am
not); and b) that I went to Utah in 1991 (I DID go there in 2003 on business,
but no rafts were involved). In retrospect, just letting the phone ring or
routing my email to the bit-bucket would have been a lot better.

------
rogerallen
Personally, I'm a bit freaked out about the negative reaction some people have
to this. Everyone should be allowed some time off and that includes email. If
you aren't ignoring work, then it isn't a real vacation.

That said, I would encourage a slightly different tone with an autoresponse
email. Saying you will not even attempt to read the email is over the line in
my book. Yes, skimming 5,000 emails will take time, but it isn't _that_
difficult. Say something like:

* I'm going on vacation and will not see this email until I return on <date>

* I will make an effort to respond, but due to the volume of email I receive, it may take some time.

* Please resend your email with '[urgent]' after <date> if you would like me to respond faster.

What's so bad about that?

~~~
Legion
What you're describing is fine. It doesn't require me to write emails twice
(one that goes to /dev/null and gets instructions, then the re-email with the
special don't-delete-me-bro code that makes it go through).

Just keep my first email and have your auto responder let me know that you're
not reading email until <date>.

~~~
kbutler
Would you actually write the email twice? Your sent folder should let you
trivially re-send it with the "urgent" flag if you care.

"Keep the email" is fine if almost all of them will need attention in two
weeks. What percentage of email he receives will be important enough in two
weeks to demand part of his attention during those overloaded first day(s)
back?

I think the affirmative filter is a great idea - "I won't be able to help with
this for two weeks, and then I'm going to be really busy for a few days.
Please confirm that this is something that will need my time in two weeks."

------
JamisonM
I hate to be cynical but it seems like doing this is just saying, "I am more
important than the people who send me email, so I will place the burden of
tracking my schedule on them." The other interpretation of this is that his
email inbox is generally full of useless dreck that does not matter all that
much to either him or the sender. Perhaps the success of this experiment says
more about the kind of email he receives than it does about the general
applicability of the experiment itself.

~~~
Bo102010
In my experience, having an e-mail hit your inbox doesn't necessarily mean
that you're the most important recipient.

At work I may be on the CC list for a number of ongoing e-mail threads -
usually they don't require any input from me, but I might have to read through
them to determine whether this is the case.

These types of e-mails will fill up your inbox, but don't quite sink to the
level of "useless dreck," but sometimes you can legitimately say that your
time is currently too important to spend sifting through lots of e-mail.

~~~
JamisonM
I think you kind of missed my point, for example if you are on the cc list for
a series of emails that you are not directly involved in this strategy assumes
that instead of you taking responsibility for catching up on this interaction
when you return one or more people that are a part of this interaction need to
take on that responsibility for you. This is effectively making them serve you
in order to have your attention _after_ you return from vacation.

That strikes me as casting yourself as more important than everyone else (not
with respect to the interaction but as a person and/or employee).

------
Legion
This is one of those things that's a novel idea when one person does it
(particularly when that person still has a support staff available to field
emails), but would be incredibly obnoxious if it were a common practice.

~~~
MichaelApproved
I disagree. It would be much nicer if everyone understood that, while on
vacation, you should only send the most important messages so the messages
don't pile up and actually have a chance to get the attention they deserve.

Saying "I'm on vacation, try to deal with things on your own as much as
possible and only send me the most important stuff." isn't obnoxious at all.

------
guylhem
Thanks for the follow up.

Still, I wouldn't place such a rude "I don't care, it's deleted, mail me again
when I'm back" autoresponder.

------
bitstream
If I took this approach with my clients, they'd award me with a zero inbox
count for perpeturity.

~~~
mseebach
Whether that's by design or something you wrongly believe to be true,
congratulations, you have allowed your e-mail to enslave you.

~~~
bitstream
I think you're missing a key distinction. My clients, wouldn't begrudge me a
vacation. They would however, be quite offended if my autos-responder told
them their message has been deleted. Quite frankly, it comes off as rude. You
wouldn't forgive 'BigCorp' for replying to you this way, why should a small
business be any different?

------
6ren
> And those rapid responses would in turn trigger another round of email, and
> another.

This reminds me of an effect of specials at a supermarket: it's not just that
people will buy more, to stock up; nor that it becomes affordable to more
people (price elasticity); nor that new people will try it - but that if you
_have_ more, you will _use_ more. Like more roads create more traffic.

This is partly personal price elasticity, in that when something is cheaper,
you can start using it in more ways - as a substitute for more expensive (or,
if you have previously found substitutes _for it_ , because it was too
expensive; now you can stop substituting). But this is a change in behaviour
which persists into the future (familiarity/habit), bumping up your
consumption a notch.

A quick email response is like a special at a supermarket. It's so cheap, you
use more. Not responding is like a price increase - sales drop off.

------
hunvreus
Interesting to see such a radical approach; it is surprising how much you can
improve the S/N by simply taking a more aggressive stand on triage and
accessibility.

By focusing my online presence on one IM and one email address (dropping in
the process legacy emails and inadequate IMs; MSN, Yahoo, Skype...) and
enforcing some sane triage on my clients/partners to ensure that they properly
address requests (personal v. professional, urgent v. low priority), my daily
volume of discussions has dropped significantly.

------
hmottestad
So I'm going to try this next summer. I've always wanted to, but never heard
of anyone who actually went through with it.

I've also heard of someone setting up a script that automatically sent out a
"I have not read you email since it arrived 2 weeks ago...if you need an
answer reply to this email and I'll get back to you".

And it's not like people who actually have something important to tell me
can't give me a phone call.

~~~
_delirium
> And it's not like people who actually have something important to tell me
> can't give me a phone call.

That's what I'd be worried about in doing something like that, actually. I
don't really like phone calls, and I'd prefer even people who have my phone
number to email me if the matter doesn't absolutely require a phone call. So I
wouldn't want my email habits to push more people to call me.

------
plasma
One problem may be that if someone sends you an e-mail and gets the responder,
they may decide "Oh well I don't want them to worry about it then", except the
e-mail was already sent.

Maybe auto responders should ask the senders to re-send the e-mail if they
still need to send it?

------
mhb
Wouldn't it be more sensible to make a white list of people whose email you
will read - relatives, important work people, etc.? That would minimize how
much you piss off people you care about and probably still reduce your email
volume by 90%.

~~~
mseebach
That group of people is also likely to be the most sympathetic to you actually
relaxing properly on your vacation.

~~~
mhb
But they're not likely to stay that way if you take advantage of their
goodwill by permanently ignoring their correspondence instead of deferring it
until you return.

------
chimeracoder
The beautiful thing about email is that the 'features' have stayed the same -
today's email can do essentially the same stuff that email ten years ago could
- and yet it has evolved as a method of communication beyond its original
uses.

The unfortunate thing about email is exactly that - it has evolved beyond its
original uses. Not too long ago, paper communication was a must for any
important document. Now, most banks encourage customers to use online banking
for their statements - which, like many important online activity, is
authenticated by email.

I don't think there's a person around who doesn't receive more emails today
than they did a decade ago - many even by an order of magnitude. As OP shows,
there are ways to adapt email organically, without changing the underlying
protocol or standard. These sorts of adaptations are only going to be come
more necessary as time passes and the volume (and type!) of email that people
receive grows.

------
georgieporgie
Sounds like another person in need of smarter inbox management. Coming back to
5,000 emails? Maybe he needs to unsubscribe from some mailing lists, and set
up filters for project-related group discussions.

