
Please write shorter emails - roder
http://five.sentenc.es/
======
_delirium
I think this is the opposite of how I prefer things. I much prefer higher-
content, lower-iteration-speed email. Someone sends me 3-5 paragraphs that
clearly and thoroughly explains an idea, and I respond within a few days with
a response that I've had some time to think about (bonus: this exchange is now
preliminary documentation). Trading 5-sentence emails is way too much
iteration overhead imo. If I need that kind of communication, I'll get on IM
or meet in person.

~~~
roder
I've employed this technique for the past year and I have found it effective
and efficient.

It has forced me to write more concisely and directly the same point in which
I was "wordy". There are always times when deeper/richer context is necessary,
but that should be the exception to the rule - less is more. When I'm
receiving 100s of work emails per day, I would rather read an email written
like it was from Ernest Hemingway than Kurt Vonnegut.

You can convey a lot in 5 sentences, as I just did.

~~~
inboulder
"Ernest Hemingway than Kurt Vonnegut"

I think you're trying to make a 'smart' reference but are confused. Overall,
Vonnegut was generally at least as, or more concise; there is an entire page
in _For Whom the Bell Tolls_ dwelling on the sweat on someone's brow.

~~~
roder
I was referring to Hemingway relying on Kansas City Star style guide, where he
began his career:

<http://www.kcstar.com/hemingway/ehstarstyle.shtml>

[edit] which is quite different than how Vonnegut writes

~~~
sprout
I think you managed to demonstrate precisely why concision is overrated. In
your quest for concision you used an obscure reference to a facet of an
author's literary career most of us were unaware of, thus completely obscuring
your point and requiring further clarification.

~~~
roder
_When I'm receiving 100s of work emails per day, I would rather read an email
written like it was from Ernest Hemingway than Kurt Vonnegut._

That's not what I'd call "quest for concision". It was a light-hearted
comment.

------
kellishaver
Please have an attention span greater than that of a 4yr old.

I'd rather get 1-2 lengthy emails from someone, explaining all the details I
need on a topic rather than have to have an IM-like exchange via e-mail to
pull that information out of them.

Sure, maybe I won't respond immediately, but when I do, if you've given more
more information to work with, then my response is, in turn, also going to be
more well thought-out and useful.

Otherwise, well, garbage in, garbage out, and it just wastes everyone's time.

~~~
chadgeidel
I agree - with the focus on "details I need _on a topic_ ". One topic/subject
per email.

And if I had one "email wish" granted - it would be that people use a
descriptive subject line and change the subject when the topic is changed.

------
Groxx
So, wait. The solution to inboxes taking too long to empty is _to cause more
emails to be exchanged_? Sure, each one may take less time to deal with, but
it still adds up. And which is more of a drain: 5 larger emails, or 25 short
ones? And keep in mind the woeful state of email threading across multiple
servers.

As to using _terse_ emails with people who get a lot, by all means, do so. It
lets them read instead of skim, possibly missing important parts, and at worst
is a better use of their time.

Personally, I tend to write large emails in two parts: a super-summary at the
very top, labeled as such, so it can be quickly categorized and dealt with
appropriately. Following that, a full explanation of whatever I think they may
want / need / find interesting.

Where it can't be easily separated, I bold + slightly color key words so one
can at least skim and _only_ consume those words and likely understand the
problem in its entirety. That tends to get reserved for the multiple-printed-
page length emails, however. And runs the risk of seeming like you're
"shouting" if you don't clarify before-hand somehow.

------
cscheid
The other way to think of emails is as datagrams. Sometimes you'll get a
reply, sometimes you won't. Or, from the other side: sometimes you'll be able
to answer, sometime you won't. Don't feel bad about the latter case. If you
don't hear back after a while and you really really need an answer, simply
resend.

People go through email bankruptcies a few times a year. It's safer to assume
it is an unreliable channel.

~~~
code_duck
I wish that more people understood how unreliable the whole system is.

------
InclinedPlane
Please write _better_ mails, especially professionally.

There is a mail disease that is common in the tech workplace, everyone merely
adds their own 2 cents onto a large (and important) email thread, forwarding
it around and giving every recipient the same problem: reproduce the relevant
context by reading the entire thread again (including every single false path)
and hope you come up with the same context as everyone else.

Corporate tech email would be a million times better if people spent a lot
more time summing up the current state of affairs succinctly and laying out
assumptions explicitly.

------
mayutana
I usually prefer making it smaller. As much as possible, I try to write the
content in the subject, to make it easy for the receiver to decide if it is
important enough to reply or not. I do write longer mails when necessary, but
I find that the short version suffices in most cases.

------
bengl3rt
I think this is the opposite of what we need. Twitter and other things that
encourage us to consume only bite-sized information (like <http://tldr.it/>)
are basically making everyone dumb (or at least giving us ADD). The skill of
articulating a complete and well supported or explained thought is critical in
almost every line of work, but following things like this we train our own
mental bandwidth for long-form stuff out of existence.

Detail is critical for understanding, analysis, and response. Teaching people
to operate without it is dangerous.

~~~
roder
I completely agree with the fact that we're becoming more dumb or increasing
in incident of ADD; however that doesn't make a case for writing effective
emails. In that case you should blog to practice your thought articulation and
critical thinking.... However, I think writing concise emails, direct to the
point, sans fluff is good for effective communication.

------
baddspellar
The author goes too far.

Sometimes emails need to be longer than 5 sentences because they need to
convey more than 5 sentences of information. I can't tell you how many 1-2
sentence e-mails I receive every week where I have to ask the sender what
they're talking about. This is a waste of my time.

If an e-mail is very long, however, it should include a brief introductory
paragraph summarizing its main point and action items so the recipient can
figure out whether or not he/she actually needs to read the whole thing.
Sometimes the main point and action item summary is enough.

------
tophat02
Most of my emails are short. When I must write a long one, it's usually
because it includes technical content. In that case, I do this:

Bob,

I discovered why the frobnostication terminal was slow and submitted a fix. It
will be QA'd tomorrow. Please find the technical details below.

Regards, tophat02

<A bunch of newlines so Bob can see it's a short email with some appendix-type
stuff below>

Now here's where I get into the technical details of the blah blah blah. This
can span several paragraphs if I want. I don't worry about because I know Bob
got the point up there -^

------
RexRollman
I like this site, and its goal, but I would never cite it in my signature like
some people do. That strikes me as preachy.

------
JoeAltmaier
While cogent, complete emails are desirable, in my experience people never
respond to anything in an email past the 1st paragraph. So the rest of the
comments/inquiriers have to be repeated, resulting in long pointless email
threads.

Please Respond To The Entire Email is my entreaty.

------
antidaily
I guess _three_ didn't take of? <http://three.sentenc.es/>

~~~
joshuacc
Nor two: <http://two.sentenc.es/>

~~~
Groxx
How about the utter failure that was <http://one.sentenc.es/> ? Doomed by
failed pluralization :'(

------
estrabd
What about six-minute.sentenc.es/?

------
corysama
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time." --Pascal

------
mcav
In other words, don't be superfluous.

~~~
jasonlotito
Be concise.

~~~
jemfinch
Omit needless words.

~~~
pingswept
.

