NYTimes had an article today on email etiquette, which I always thought I was alone in: unanswered emails. The thing is with the internet is that despite its established reliability, there is always that concern that an email did not arrive due to misspelled address, rerouting to spam, or simple evaporation along the way.
I would prefer if my emails are not ignored for too long - I recently had an somewhat embarrassing experience where I emailed a former classmate, and when I did not receive a response I asked another classmate if the address was still in use. I then received a response from the original intended party that the address was correct. But in the meantime I look stupid as I was obviously being ignored, or she could not take the ten seconds to send me an email.
There should be accepted minimum of response time.
10 comments:
I suppose it's too late for me to respond to your e-mail of two years ago, is it?
The article writes about an email sent in 2011 in response to one sent in 2006. :)
So you're saying there's still hope for me to correct the errors of my ways.
omg! totally forgot! I'm putting you on now!! Thanks for reminding me and thnks for adding me!
xo
Sharon
www.fashion-isha.com
Ppl taking a really long time to respond to text messages irks me even more than ignoring emails.
I agree that email should be responded to in a timely fashion, but I have also seen the opposite problem, where I have received email or text messages and been expected to respond practically instantaneously as if I was always at the beck and call of the person emailing.
JJ: I'm not saying instantaneously. I would say within a few days is being reasonable.
Sporadic: There is always hope, if Star Wars teaches us anything.
I was just talking about this with a friend of mine last night. I think some of us are simply better at responding through text, facebook, email.. while for some others it takes more time. She however, thinks they are simply lazy and gets offended.
Yeeeeaaah . . . I agree with her.
Post a Comment