
Stop sending emails for real time requests - stollercyrus
http://www.cyrusstoller.com/2014/01/08/stop-sending-emails-for-real-time-requests/
======
jhgg
I'm actually quite the opposite. I usually have my phone off or silenced when
I'm in the middle of working. That being said, I'll take a break every half an
hour or so to check up on my e-mail inbox and address the urgent messages.

I also absolutely despise when people text me with "call me asap", "hi", "yo",
"hey", or any other meaningless variant. It's vague and I have no idea if what
they need is actually important or something that I can address later, without
needing to interrupt my workflow. Rather, if you must text me, I much prefer
some context and information about issue in the message, i.e: "call me asap, i
have a question about ______/i need _______." Really, I prefer an e-mail of a
few or more sentences describing what you need.

Above all, I try to avoid the following interaction via text messages:

> Hey

< Sup?

> Nm, do you have a sec?

< Yeah, what do you need?

> I need blah blah blah blah.

Why can't people just do:

> Hey, when you have a sec, I need blah blah blah blah...

This is texting, not TCP.

~~~
stollercyrus
I agree with your point re: pseudo TCP.

I don't like that I feel the need to compulsively check my email. It always
takes me longer to respond than it should.

~~~
hnriot
I don't get the part about needing to check your email as in anyway difficult?
My iPhone with the gmail app has a very pleasant tone when I get an email in
my priority inbox. I don't have to check anything or be compulsive on any way.

~~~
stollercyrus
You must be better at multitasking than me. Those types of interruptions take
me out of the zone.

------
Encosia
By far, the most important thing is to understand your recipient's preference,
not the technical merits of a particular medium/protocol.

I'm active in several tennis leagues locally. Between arranging team practice,
scheduling flex matches, putting together pick-up practice matches, etc, I
spend a lot of time communicating with a diverse group of folks about last
minute planning updates. Though I generally prefer email for most things since
it immediately pushes to my phone just the same as a text or IM, it's been
interesting to discover the wide range of preferences that other people have.

Some people are 100% email, period, and will respond to emails from red
lights, just a few minutes away from meeting you in person.

A surprising number of people in their 30s and 40s do not have Facebook
accounts (not out of privacy concerns, but general disinterest), completely
ruling out Facebook messages/IMs.

Some people do prefer text messages, but I haven't found that SMS guarantees
any particular immediacy. Some people actually reply to their emails hours
quicker than their texts.

A few people I've dealt with share a single email account with their spouse
and/or only check email once or twice a day (which blows my mind on both
counts...). I'm talking about people young and active enough to play
competitive tennis too, not your grandparents. In one of those cases, I can
get in touch with the guy in real-time almost every time by using iMessage.

A few people insist on Skype, Google Hangouts, WhatApp, or some other
proprietary network. Guess what? If I want to get in touch with them ASAP, I
suck it up and use their preferred network.

Maybe the weirdest one is there are a few people I can most reliably get in
touch with via Twitter DMs, even though I have their phone number.

Point being, selecting an optimal set of communication protocols almost always
fails when that set of rules comes in contact with the real world. If you
really want to get in touch with people immediately and consistently, you have
to tailor your approach to the person.

~~~
greenyoda
" _Some people do prefer text messages, but I haven 't found that SMS
guarantees any particular immediacy._"

Forget immediacy, SMS doesn't even have reliable delivery. According to
Wikipedia:

" _SMS messages are generally treated as lower-priority traffic than voice,
and various studies have shown that around 1% to 5% of messages are lost
entirely, even during normal operation conditions, and others may not be
delivered until long after their relevance has passed. The use of SMS as an
emergency notification service in particular has been starkly criticized._
"[1]

Compare to e-mail, which will make repeated attempts to deliver your message
and notify you if your message couldn't be delivered.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Unreliability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS#Unreliability)

~~~
stollercyrus
If it's urgent, wouldn't it make sense to just call?

~~~
Encosia
There's a difference between something urgent and something that's merely time
sensitive, I think.

In my example of scheduling tennis practice, updates need to be timely, but
they aren't urgent enough to warrant spending time on the phone with everyone
involved. Firing off a few asynchronous messages actually means the last few
people I would have called get the information quicker than if I had called
each person individually.

Voice calls are great for a lot of things, but are slow, tedious, and
unnecessarily single-threaded when it comes to plenty of time sensitive
communication needs.

------
ishener
The reason people use email for everything, including urgent matters, is
because email is the only thing of the 4 channels mentioned in the article
that we usually type on a full size keyboard. It's much more convenient when
working than calling/texting/IM(when the phone is needed)

the proper solution is prioritizing email, and making your email client/device
notify you according to the priority level

~~~
bcraven
I completely agree with this- emails are cross-platform and available on the
vast majority of connected devices, no phone required.

The IM option of this theory also fails to mention that the number of
different IM options all fail to talk to each other, or even an overarching
client (like Pidgin or imo). Remembering which of my contacts use Snapchat vs
Whatsapp vs Facebook vs Hangouts seems utterly incompatible with the idea of
the internet connecting people.

~~~
MasterScrat
Yes plus a lot of these networks fail pretty hard... with Gtalk/Hangouts for
example it's not rare to miss notifications because you got them on the laptop
but not on your phone, or the opposite.

Also Whatsapp stupidly doesn't provide a web or desktop interface.

Skype on mobile devices uses way more power than it should.

In the end I hate Facebook for a number of reasons but it's the only reliable
solution I have found so far: fast, reliable, (nearly) everyone is there.

~~~
Perseids
> In the end I hate Facebook for a number of reasons but it's the only
> reliable solution I have found so far: fast, reliable, (nearly) everyone is
> there.

Doesn't this even more so apply to email? I don't know a single person who has
a facebook account but not an email address. And even for those there is a
build-in email bridge:
[https://www.facebook.com/help/224049364288051](https://www.facebook.com/help/224049364288051)

------
lazyjones
Texting and using IM is bad advice. It's such bad habits that cause us to feel
anxious because we need to be reachable via N different channels all the time.

Better advice: use the phone if it's urgent and you need to talk to someone
immediately, otherwise use e-mail to allow the recipient to process your
request asynchronously. It's not your fault if they have issues with e-mail in
general.

~~~
hnriot
How is the phone any different to txt in this regard? Both use the same
channel and txt has the advantage that it's less invasive.

Txt/bbm/iMessage etc are all much better options than calling someone. For me
and most of my friends the phone is the last resort, I hate talking on the
phone.

~~~
lazyjones
> _How is the phone any different to txt in this regard?_

The phone is immediate, you can talk to someone _now_ if they are available at
all. Texting is asynchronous and people cannot tell from the notification
sound whether it's urgent or not and may choose to ignore messages for a
while.

> _For me and most of my friends the phone is the last resort, I hate talking
> on the phone._

I guess you must be texting too much. Old people like me, while hating the
phone too, despise texting with its cumbersome, slow input and frequently
unimportant use cases. If people would stick to text for important stuff only,
it might be more useful. But they don't, so it isn't. The same goes for IM,
it's just a distraction channel.

------
jaggederest
Makes no difference to me, honestly. Calls, texts, IM, and of course email all
go to my inbox, and all are equally accessible.

I _never_ answer voice calls unless they're pre-scheduled (and even then I
much prefer to call than be called). The transcribed message goes in my email.
99% of the time, the ringer on my phone is off, unless there's a specific
reason to have it on. Often my phone is off.

Texts go both to my phone directly, IM, and as an email.

------
jpswade
I much prefer people to spend the time constructing a clear request in an
email than an ad hoc phone call, especially those that are out of the blue.

If you call me, you'd better follow up with an email.

If you email me and it's urgent, you'd better follow up with a phone call.

That's all there is to it.

------
halfpipe
I prefer to use email for most communications as it makes it a whole lot
easier to pull up past conversations. If I'd had communication in the form of
calls, texts, IM's (probably on multiple clients) as well as email, it'd
probably be more difficult to pull up any information that I may need later
on.

Using email alone allows me to search for specific conversations, and not have
the trouble of losing or having great difficulty finding conversations.

I do occasionally use Skype and IRC, but I know which people I communicate
with on these platforms, and keep on top of documenting anything I may later
need to refer to.

I agree that if you need something urgently, then a call can be great.
However, for general communication, I see no issue with using email.

I think it'd be a more interesting topic to discuss how to efficiently use
subject headings, as I've often had important emails slip under the radar, and
less important emails demand some form of urgency that isn't existent.

~~~
stollercyrus
I agree that general communication is a different animal all together. I'm
talking about when you need someone to do something.

------
rdl
I wish there were a way for recipients to define a message routing and format
conversion protocol, incentivized by money.

e.g., you can call me at night for $5k. You can call me during "phone hour"
for $100. You an call at other times for $250. If your call turns out to be
worth my time, I don't bill you; if it was a waste of my time (spam,
pointless, etc.), I'll charge up to 100% of that amount.

Senders would get to see a menu of costs for various technologies, and would
get to see how I handle them (various guarantees). They may vary based on
sender, topic, etc. e.g. I'd be willing to take YC applicant advice emails
during a few weeks of the year for 10% of normal price, with a guaranteed
response within 12h. I'd charge a lot less for email than for phone, etc.

Part of this would be some kind of ecash system, and the other part would be
format conversion; being able to turn phone calls into text messages, read
back to the user to verify.

~~~
xyzzy123
If such a service were available, scammers would start baiting people to
contact them. The victims would then be billed the full amount.

Actually, this already happens with premium rate SMS.

~~~
rdl
Yes, they would. This is an easier problem to solve than spam.

------
ljoshua
It's important to realize that everyone has a different social contract for
how quickly they expect responses across different channels. The better advice
is to actually have open, honest conversations with those you work with most
frequently and those with whom communication is important to define and
understand how people are going to perceive those different channels and
contracts.

Setting up social contracts for different communication expectations doesn't
have to result in everyone having the same guidelines, but does let you know
that Alice is okay with texts while Bob really prefers emails to be allow
8hrs+ for replies.

------
smileysteve
For work, I'd much rather receive an email than a text.

We have smartphones, I can get your email just as easily as I get your text.

Texts are for personally urgent things that don't merit the complexity of a
phone call (it fits in 160 characters)

And the Phone call priority is incorrect if you consider voicemail (which it
seems that nobody does any more). If I'm in a meeting, a call is actually much
lower priority to me than a text. I only escalate a phone call during a
meeting if I get the call many times, or if a text indicates the urgency.

~~~
stollercyrus
It seems like you have a different convention that works for you. I think the
most important thing is that you have one that the people who are asking you
to do things are aware of.

------
DjangoReinhardt
All my realtime 'pings' (phone/text/im) inevitably start with some form of the
question: "Hi, how busy are you?" IMHO, this is a sneaky way to get the person
to be honest about their immediate availability. By acknowledging straightaway
that they might be busy, I give them a polite 'out', of sorts.

If I urgently need something done, my openings are usually of the form,
"Listen, I have a(n urgent) favor to ask. How busy are you?" Almost always
works for me regardless of the communication medium used.

Email, by its very nature, is supposed to be asynchronous. I wouldn't rely on
email to convey anything more than delayed request/response conversation.

~~~
hnriot
If you start a message that way you're likely to irk your recipient. It's very
rude to start out with "listen".

And there's nothing about the nature of email that is asynchronous, gmail has
blurred the lines between email and chat. An email reaches me just as quickly
as iMessage et al

My guidelines are use iMessage/bbm/txt for conversational inquiries where
there is a need for back and forth type interaction and email for everything
else. There's no difference in their delivery time with gmail.

My daughter thinks of email as just for school stuff. Everything else is over
other mediums, mainly iMessage (mainly due to the magic like "..." Indication)
or Instagram. Time has changed things. Email is now as instant as instant
messaging and IM is now as media rich as email, supporting photos and video
etc. the lines between these have blurred mainly due to the smartphone. Once
your messaging channel was coupled to the delivery vector, but now my MacBook
Pro can receive iMessages and my phone can receive emails. I don't want a
unified messaging interface because I can use different ones for different
people and don't feel anxious about any of this. If I want to avoid the world
for a while I have a mute button.

~~~
DjangoReinhardt
The contacts on my realtime communication media are all close people - the
kind that won't hesitate to ignore my interruption if they are really truly
busy. Also, I use the Hindi word "Sunn..." which means the same as (but is not
as intrusive-sounding as) "Listen" but it doesn't translate very well in
English.

For me, email is more of a documenting system rather than conversation. Also,
in my mind, I still consider email to be a medium for formal exchange inspite
of the fact that smartphones have made them almost instantaneous, as you very
well put it.

Still, to each their own, I guess. Thanks for the insight! :)

------
th0br0
You actually forgot that many people still send physical letters -> 1 week or
more?

~~~
stollercyrus
Good point ... I probably should add fax as well :P

~~~
culturestate
I do quite a bit of work in Japan, and you would not believe the amount of
time I spend faxing documents back and forth. I once had a service provider —
who I know personally — hang up and refuse to speak to me on the phone until I
had faxed in a form designating myself as a contact.

------
justinmarsan
IM and Phone call feel the exact same to me, except IM enables you to show
your availability status to the people you're connected to.

< 30 minutes : IM if I'm available, if else call

2 hours : IM if away/busy, if else text

...

If someone appears as available and online and takes a day to answer my
question, I'm not sure how I'd take it but it would piss me off.

On a sidenote, I think email is best suited for "when you're done with
whatever you're doing' kind of timeframes due to the "mark as unread" which
would prevent me from forgetting to reply if I decide to read what I received,
realized I can't/don't want to answer right now.

~~~
stollercyrus
I see what you're saying. Unfortunately, I'm not good about making sure my
away status is up to date. I'll often go a whole day, saying I'm away, even
though I'm available.

------
ramoq
It's important to note that email is often the only contact info you'll have
for a person. In fact I would highly prefer not to share my other social
contact points(cell # etc). Email wins big in this regard. Really big.

------
collyw
I get requests through every medium described here, as well as coming into the
office to ask me. Email is nice in that you can have a relatively long
description that will be searchable later on. It can have formatting and
attachments (you don't get the same level of formatting IM, and afterwards it
isn't as easy to search).

Also its kind of nice to not respond immediately when I am in "in the zone".

------
alist1
An important consideration, for me, is having an easily searchable record of
conversations. Because of this, for work-related issues, I definitely prefer
email or gchat, which affords almost the same search-ability. What I hate most
are medium-switches when conversation threads are spread across emails,
gchats, and texts.

~~~
stollercyrus
I agree having a searchable record is useful. I try to send a follow up email
to confirm what was said during phone calls.

