> Save a vibe today and send an IM instead of an email thread.
I would rather the email honestly. IMs usually have the expectation that I'm going to respond to you "soon", which is an interruption/distraction. And they don't contain enough information so I have to start going back and forth with the other person.
At least with email, most people recognize that you will respond in your own timing in the next 24-48 hours. With IM I've found that expectation out the window.
Save the distraction. Send an email.
skydhash · 2h ago
Unless it's a close collaborator (we're working on the same project daily and interacts often, as in decisions are taken together), email is a much better medium for conversation.
giancarlostoro · 30m ago
Some people absolutely do not expect a 24 hour response and will reply all in 30 minutes if you do not acknowledge it. Some of us work support development work that demands you cut all focus on your problem and start to write an email response and break away from what you were already working on.
closewith · 2h ago
Yeah, the OP is very clearly a poor communicator and wants to push the negative effects of that trait downstream.
bravetraveler · 53m ago
Want with one hand, shit in the other. See which fills first -- expectations, heh. IM can and will wait. Especially "hi".
Haven't finished reading the post yet, but I generally agree: down with ever-expanding threads. I try not to engage with them at all, preferring a briefing that explains why I'm being involved and the change in priority.
If dragged in with a simple "see below"; looks messy, best of luck. Thanks for being unprepared and showing your interest in staying that way. Helps me keep a safe distance.
somat · 1h ago
You could split the difference, there is delta chat an IM client that uses smtp as it's transport layer. https://delta.chat
scrapheap · 2h ago
Personally I prefer to be sent a full email thread over a message in chat, because
a) I can ignore it until I have time to look at it
b) You can see who else has already been involved in the conversation - seeing a fellow team member being involved can help avoid falling for situations where someone is trying to work around one of your colleagues who's already told them they can't have what they're asking for.
c) The chat message is from an individual, so you only get their interpretation of what's happening - if there's an email thread then there's going to be multiple people involved, each with their own perspective.
rwmj · 1h ago
and for a well-written email:
d) Someone spent some time forming and writing down their thoughts, which seems to be an increasingly skill these days.
EForEndeavour · 1h ago
> increasingly skill
This is increasingly ironic :)
elric · 1h ago
Is this intentional ragebait? Calling IMs "actual communication" is .... odd. Email all but guarantees more thoughtful replies than IM.
I'll agree that the example of simply tagging someone in a long quoted thread is not the way to go. The sender should have included a summary and an explanation of why the new recipient is suddenly added.
bee_rider · 1h ago
I think maybe it is ragebait, (maybe unintentional). In particular, it is phrased as an argument against email threads in general, but then we have:
> Innocently, you click into the top email. The only text is "[Your Name] see below."
IMO this is bad behavior and it is right to push back. The person forwarding the email should provide context: what’s going on and why am I being included, what’s expected of me here?
If I’m just told to “See Below,” ok, I’ll see it. I’ll interpret that at an FYI for me, no deliverables requested (of course, an FYI might include the information about the needs of somebody who’s ass I need to kiss).
—
The ragebaity thing is to have a general rant against something pretty normal, but to only have an example based on obviously bad behavior. Is that Motte-and-bailey? Not sure, but it doesn’t pass my sniff test.
pestaa · 2h ago
I'm sure this is a problem in large corporations, but on some days I'd give an arm and leg to receive an actual email instead of the random slack messages with zero context and a builtin social pressure for low latency responses.
nytesky · 1h ago
I wish people would make shared white papers for discussions. People basically collaborate on the collected notes and decisions; with modern tools you can have history and attribution easily.
Some threads become difficult to unravel.
pm215 · 1h ago
I feel like the problem here is the "see below" part, rather than the email thread part -- that is where the sender has done zero effort to contextualise or summarise the situation or explain why suddenly you are the person to pull into this, and is instead putting the burden on you to do all that work from scratch.
nkrisc · 1h ago
The same can be said about Slack threads.
If you’re including someone new into an already running conversation, take the time to write a summary for them and why you’re now involving them in the conversation, and what you expect from them. No, don’t use AI to do it, that’s more offensive than “see below”.
johnecheck · 1h ago
If you generate an AI summary and it's garbage, obviously that's wrong.
But assuming you take the time to make sure it's actually good, this seems like a fine use for an LLM.
nkrisc · 1h ago
No, I want to hear from the person pulling me in what’s actually important, not what the AI decided was important and they thought was close enough. The AI can’t read your mind, why involve another level of abstraction?
AdmiralAsshat · 56m ago
Email threads are useful for context. I much prefer having the email thread to understand what is being asked and why, rather than a lone email from someone (usually a PM or someone non-technical) that attempts to paraphrase the ask--poorly--and gives me a nonsensical request: "AA, please tune the turbo encabulator."
But it's also really helpful when someone at least summarize or reiterates the specific ask to me at the top of the email thread, rather than just CC'ing me on a reply with "+AA". That seems to be more what the author's complaint is about.
NoboruWataya · 1h ago
This situation is annoying because it means you are being dragged into, and probably have to action, a conversation that has been happening without you for days or weeks (or even months). The solution is to involve the right people in the conversation at the right time. The solution is most certainly not to just send an IM, which will lack all of the context that the email thread contains.
People who think they are too important to read the work emails their colleagues send them are generally awful to work with.
its-kostya · 1h ago
So what's the alternative? Being referred to an IM thread where there is still the long history but the discourse is full of short, impulsive messages written in haste? And you are expected to be instantly available to read the thread and respond? Email is better set up for thoughtful, async communication and finding thread by "subject".
What the article doesn't state but implies is when someone sends you an email thread, it should be a standalone message that clarifies the state of things and the ask. And if the reader needs the context of how something got there, they can refer to the thread history.
benliong78 · 2h ago
A email thread, to me, is much preferable to any IM, unless participants knows to send those IMs in a thread as well.
All the context are in there in the rawest of forms, you a run through them with your eyeballs or have your tools do the summarisation there and then. Most of the IMs I received didn't even quote the original message they were responding to, and I end up spending time jumping up and down the channel or group to get the whole context. Not to mention folks sending me link to a slack, which, depending on the mood of the almighty slack god, can or cannot be opened in the app / current slack session.
But you do you. :)
ddmf · 1h ago
I will delete a ticket if it has a full thread copied in and "see below" - I don't have time to work out what you want or need, make an effort and ask me / tell me what you need, and be ambiguous about it.
azeemba · 2h ago
I honestly love reading them. The fact that I got tagged means something went awry and it's fun seeing HOW that happened. Who misunderstood what or who is missing what context.
Then I can make bunch of people's work life easier by clarifying the state for everyone
lol good luck doing Slack Thread archeology instead then.
(I'm not experienced with Teams but since its Microsoft, it's likely worse.)
skydhash · 2h ago
IM (if not a dialogue) is best treated as a room full of people. Anything that spans more than two back and forth should better happen somewhere else.
nottorp · 1h ago
> lol good luck doing Slack Thread archeology instead then.
The OP pretends they're actually placing all info into organized documentation in ... Confluence or something. I suppose in real time as the slack thread develops, because they aren't going to find anything a week later...
> (I'm not experienced with Teams but since its Microsoft, it's likely worse.)
Slack is a paragon of usability compared to Teams.
My guess is no one in the OPs organization remembers email etiquette. In theory with proper quoting you won't need to review all messages in a thread because the most recent one already has all the info.
Tbh i use email style indenting even when replying to Slack messages.
xoac · 2h ago
i agree but nobody gives a shit about this unless you have the authority to impose this in your own company
ubermonkey · 1h ago
I hate chat tools. They're awful for archiving. I'm very apt to just ignore a chat. Send me mail.
ttoinou · 2h ago
Work is messy. If work was properly organized according to first principles and catering to each extremist taste of the individuals in the group who are looking to minimize theirs efforts, then you will take 10x the time to develop the product and you will loose your market to your messy but working together competition.
I would rather the email honestly. IMs usually have the expectation that I'm going to respond to you "soon", which is an interruption/distraction. And they don't contain enough information so I have to start going back and forth with the other person.
At least with email, most people recognize that you will respond in your own timing in the next 24-48 hours. With IM I've found that expectation out the window.
Save the distraction. Send an email.
Haven't finished reading the post yet, but I generally agree: down with ever-expanding threads. I try not to engage with them at all, preferring a briefing that explains why I'm being involved and the change in priority.
If dragged in with a simple "see below"; looks messy, best of luck. Thanks for being unprepared and showing your interest in staying that way. Helps me keep a safe distance.
a) I can ignore it until I have time to look at it
b) You can see who else has already been involved in the conversation - seeing a fellow team member being involved can help avoid falling for situations where someone is trying to work around one of your colleagues who's already told them they can't have what they're asking for.
c) The chat message is from an individual, so you only get their interpretation of what's happening - if there's an email thread then there's going to be multiple people involved, each with their own perspective.
d) Someone spent some time forming and writing down their thoughts, which seems to be an increasingly skill these days.
This is increasingly ironic :)
I'll agree that the example of simply tagging someone in a long quoted thread is not the way to go. The sender should have included a summary and an explanation of why the new recipient is suddenly added.
> Innocently, you click into the top email. The only text is "[Your Name] see below."
IMO this is bad behavior and it is right to push back. The person forwarding the email should provide context: what’s going on and why am I being included, what’s expected of me here?
If I’m just told to “See Below,” ok, I’ll see it. I’ll interpret that at an FYI for me, no deliverables requested (of course, an FYI might include the information about the needs of somebody who’s ass I need to kiss).
—
The ragebaity thing is to have a general rant against something pretty normal, but to only have an example based on obviously bad behavior. Is that Motte-and-bailey? Not sure, but it doesn’t pass my sniff test.
Some threads become difficult to unravel.
If you’re including someone new into an already running conversation, take the time to write a summary for them and why you’re now involving them in the conversation, and what you expect from them. No, don’t use AI to do it, that’s more offensive than “see below”.
But assuming you take the time to make sure it's actually good, this seems like a fine use for an LLM.
But it's also really helpful when someone at least summarize or reiterates the specific ask to me at the top of the email thread, rather than just CC'ing me on a reply with "+AA". That seems to be more what the author's complaint is about.
People who think they are too important to read the work emails their colleagues send them are generally awful to work with.
What the article doesn't state but implies is when someone sends you an email thread, it should be a standalone message that clarifies the state of things and the ask. And if the reader needs the context of how something got there, they can refer to the thread history.
All the context are in there in the rawest of forms, you a run through them with your eyeballs or have your tools do the summarisation there and then. Most of the IMs I received didn't even quote the original message they were responding to, and I end up spending time jumping up and down the channel or group to get the whole context. Not to mention folks sending me link to a slack, which, depending on the mood of the almighty slack god, can or cannot be opened in the app / current slack session.
But you do you. :)
Then I can make bunch of people's work life easier by clarifying the state for everyone
lol good luck doing Slack Thread archeology instead then.
(I'm not experienced with Teams but since its Microsoft, it's likely worse.)
The OP pretends they're actually placing all info into organized documentation in ... Confluence or something. I suppose in real time as the slack thread develops, because they aren't going to find anything a week later...
> (I'm not experienced with Teams but since its Microsoft, it's likely worse.)
Slack is a paragon of usability compared to Teams.
My guess is no one in the OPs organization remembers email etiquette. In theory with proper quoting you won't need to review all messages in a thread because the most recent one already has all the info.
Tbh i use email style indenting even when replying to Slack messages.