PragDave: Followup on the EMail Experiment(pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com)
pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com
PragDave: Followup on the EMail Experiment
http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/pragdave/2011/11/followup-on-the-email-experiment.html
27 comments
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.
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?
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?
Your more diplomatic attempt isn't setting expectations properly and therefore is more trouble. Don't make promises you can't keep.
He simply won't read your email. He hardly said don't communicate with him again. Email him when he is back on two weeks.
Perfect. I know what to expect and what to do by when.
He simply won't read your email. He hardly said don't communicate with him again. Email him when he is back on two weeks.
Perfect. I know what to expect and what to do by when.
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>.
Just keep my first email and have your auto responder let me know that you're not reading email until <date>.
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."
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Still, I wouldn't place such a rude "I don't care, it's deleted, mail me again when I'm back" autoresponder.
If I took this approach with my clients, they'd award me with a zero inbox count for perpeturity.
Whether that's by design or something you wrongly believe to be true, congratulations, you have allowed your e-mail to enslave you.
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?
Assuming you have more than five clients, I just don't buy this. Maybe some would but not 100%.
Also your inbox count wouldn't be zero unless you have a very unique inbox.
Also your inbox count wouldn't be zero unless you have a very unique inbox.
Yes, the 'Zero' is a bit hyperbolic. At a bare minimum I'd of course still have Russian-Brides and Nigerian Prince's to keep me company...
Forward the Russian-Bride emails to the Nigerian Princes and you're done.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
Maybe auto responders should ask the senders to re-send the e-mail if they still need to send it?
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%.
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.
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.
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.