Manners for the Age of the Internet

[rolanni]

[Poll #1446887]

Comments

[reedrover]

Really, my answer would be "it depends." If the e-mail is from a friend requiring coordination/planning, or for something time-dependent, then I try to respond within an hour. If the e-mail is from my family, I try to at least send back acknowledgement within a day, if not the complete reply. If it's from someone who is not all that swift in responding to me, then a few days is not terrible.

[https://me.yahoo.com/a/mVbUuqolno8SBXYiPj8Y.sUsWTAwhRnnckM-#9f005 (from livejournal.com)]

Burton from Montreal

Think sometime this week is a bit long. Maybe within a few days. Of course that's presuming the incoming emails could be answer in a few short sentences or less.

[ckd]

I'll also have to go with "it depends", though I would really like a response to the email I sent someone last weekend...any day now! (Sigh. Isn't it amazing how high school insecurity lasts ten times as long as high school did?)

[xinef.livejournal.com]

Depends entirely on context (as stated by reedrover above). Some emails require a prompt response (within the hour or thereabouts). Some don't require any response at all.

For the rest, I try to reply within a day, but again, depends on context. Some require extra thought, or discussion with others, or research, and thus may not get a response for a few days.

[torrilin.livejournal.com]

If the email is from my mother or mother-outlaw, odds are it should be answered asap. But odds are also good that a phone call after a chat with my partner will be a more efficient response than an email.

If the email is from a friend, it may or may not require a response. Often, the right response is to read it, and then poke the friend via IM. Again, the goal is to minimize timewasting noodling. (as opposed to the kind of noodling conversations that friends have for pure amusement)

The goal should always be to get the other person the promptest possible *complete* response.

[katmoonshaker.livejournal.com]

Of course that depends on the person... if I know they have a heavier than normal load, I give them more leeway.

[batwrangler.livejournal.com]

"Sometime this week" is what I generally consider the longest appropriate response time for non-urgent emails that require a response. In practice, I generally respond as soon as I've read the original email.

[orlacarey.livejournal.com]

I'm with the it depends crew - I try to answer my emails daily but sometimes it just doesn't happen. But I am a "Local Chapter President" in the SCA and for those emails I try to maintain a "no more than 48 hours unless I'm at an event" guideline so those will get answered first if I've been away for a few days.

[alicebentley]

I answered "sometime this week" because that's more or less when I expect and answer to an email I send out. Along with a "if I don't hear back, drop another email".

In practice, as the chorus goes, it depends. Generally I answer emails as I get them. But travel can throw a week-long delay into when I see my personal email, and not being sure that they needed an answer may result in not sending one.

[house-draven.livejournal.com]

My health issues often make it impossible to answer my email in what I would generally consider a timely manner. Fortunately, my friends and family know this, and if it's something urgent, they just call.

[roseaponi.livejournal.com]

I see you don't have any "entitled" people responding yet ;).
Incoming emails, I answer within a day or two. Email I send out, I expect to get a reply within a week. Much longer and I start thinking my email's been eaten by the spam gremlin.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I go with "it depends" as well. For instance, I had today an email response from a friend apologising for not having replied to an email I sent a week ago, it wasn't a problem because what I sent was "for your information" and not time-critical. On the other hand one asking "are we still going out tomorrow?" really needs to be answered before 'tomorrow'.

For non-urgent 'chat' a week is not unreasonable.

(On the other hand I tend to either answer immediately or it doesn't get done at all. The same with LJ. And bills...)

[readinggeek451]

I said "within the week" but it really does depend. If it's time-sensitive, or I've emailed a company that indicates right on their form that they answer within 24 hours, I want/expect an answer pretty much right away. Otherwise, I calibrate based on who it is and what I know of their email habits. Personally, I try to reply within a day or so--I usually only check my email once daily, and not always at the same time, so I might not even see a given message within 24 hours, but I tend to answer pretty quickly once I do see it.

[pgranzeau.livejournal.com]

It depends. I'd like to think the operative word was "mail". I would like to think that the same thought be given a replay to e-mail as would have been given to a paper letter. If it takes a few days, sobeit. If it can be handled immediately, that would be nice, too.

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

I'm with the "it depends" crew, especially as I have a tendency to wait until I'm on IM at night and discuss the matter with friends then. For my parents or in-laws, frequently an e-mail from them gets answered by our making a phone call to them.

If an e-mail needs an e-mail answer, I try and answer that day, because otherwise I tend to forget things (whoops).

[sraun]

It depends - is the e-mail about something time-sensitive? Expecting a reply within hours is nearly always unreasonable - the exceptions are going to be personal & known. A couple of days for an RSVP is reasonable. Within the week is a reasonable expectation for a chatty e-mail.

[janni.livejournal.com]

A week ideally, though in practice I've sometimes gone a month or more, especially for non-urgent stuff.

Am trying to get into the habit of cleaning out my inbox every day, but I'm not sure I'll keep that up ...

[shana.livejournal.com]

It depends.

I try to answer within the day; if it is something that will take a lot of time/work/thought the answer might be 'will answer that question later'. But I try to get back as soon as reasonably possible.

For emails to friends, I expect to hear back as soon as reasonably possible, which is generally within a week. I expect to hear back sooner from my friend who practically lives online than from my friend who has dial up and infant twins.

If I send email to someone I don't know, I expect timely replies from business related queries and do not expect replies to unsolicited email otherwise.

For example, writing to an author I have not interacted with. If I am writing to ask if they would be available to speak at my library on (date) and if so, how much would they charge, I would expect a reply within a few days. If I am writing to tell them how much I enjoyed their book, and passing on testimony from a patron who adored it, I would not feel entitled to a reply, and I would not phrase my letter as though I expected one.

[scaleslea.livejournal.com]

I try to answer my e-mail within the day, but sometimes take longer.

I expect others to answer the e-mails I send them within a week. If I don't hear back I expect that other things in their lives have made them forget my e-mail. How soon it takes me to nag them depends on how busy my life is, and how important their response is.

Doc

[od-mind.livejournal.com]

This is how I interpreted the poll, as well. Obviously, "Are we still on for lunch?" is a different urgency from "Let me know if you ever find that book we were talking about". Not all emails require (or deserve) any reply at all, but if you're going to reply, and it isn't specifically necessary to meet some more urgent deadline, then I try to reply within a week. That's partly just so I don't forget things forever.

Then again, I'm old enough to think of an email as "an informal letter", as opposed to "a high-end text message".

[zola.livejournal.com]

Agree with all of the above posts.

Context and content matter. No response needed.

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Another vote for it depends. Plus, I think it's very important to remember that the sender's urgency or importance has less than perfect correlation with the receiver's priority -- in other words, you (sender) may feel that your mail is terribly important, but your crisis doesn't mean I'm going to feel required to deal with it. Which means that the message really needs to include some hints as to what kind of response is needed and why (with respect to the receiver, not the sender). Within that framework, email that takes a simple answer I usually try to respond within the day, just so I can forget it. Email that takes a bit of thought or study... within the week should be fine, unless there's some kind of time-critical aspect to it. And I occasionally respond to emails some time later (months, in at least a few cases). Depends.

Oh -- don't forget that email is no longer guaranteed delivery (spam filters, domain blocks, and other crud have reduced the certainty that your mail will get there) and that it certainly isn't guaranteed instantaneous -- not just the network delays, people don't always sit at their desk poised to read your deathless prose. Which combines to mean that people should not expect instant responses!

Finally, and I probably should have put it first -- make the subject line interesting and effective, structure the message for reading, and highlight the action and time desired. Just like work email. Your message is competing with the other 50 to 200 that came in yesterday (not to mention blogs, social networks, etc.). If you expect any response, it has to clear that hurdle.

Other comment

[dvdscar.livejournal.com]

Assuming you're not buried under a deadline (in which case all bets are off), and assuming it's not a for-real-and-true-emergency, and assuming you're likewise not buried under an avalanche of e-mail:

1. If it's someone you have a close relationship with, within a day or two.

2. If it's someone you have a polite relationship with, within three or four days maybe.

3. If it's someone you don't know, maybe a week or so, unless they're being impertinent, rude, crude or just generally boorish, in which case they can wait until you're darn good and ready to respond. :-)

It Depends

[jerusha.livejournal.com]

I would say generally "within a few days", unless it's a time-critical message. Generally, if I'm expecting a reply other than on that timetable (e.g. faster response, delayed response, or no response needed) I try to make that clear in the message.

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

I'm in the "it depends" camp. I don't necessarily feel compelled to respond to some messages at all. Others really should be answered right away because they involve something time-sensitive. I try to respond to messages that need a timely answer as soon as I can. Messages that are personal, but not time-sensitive I try to answer within three or four days if I'm at home. If I'm travelling, non-urgent answers may well wait until I'm home.

I think that expecting someone to receive your message and answer it right away in a non-work, non-business situation is often less than reasonable. You just don't know when they're going to get the message, let alone have time to respond. People sometimes go away and don't read e-mail at all for days or weeks, or they have computer problems. I sometimes get messages from people I don't personally know wanting me to help them with their computer problems for free. Some of them have the nerve to send me repeated messages demanding help if I don't answer within a few hours. Excuse me? You want my help without paying me? You'll get it when I feel like giving it and my paying clients and friends come first. I have no obligation to help strangers just because I'm knowledgable on some subjects. When I was in Australia earlier this year I had someone send me something like 6 messages, each one with a huge embedded graphic showing a screenshot of his computer problem and each one getting more demanding that I help him solve his problem. He eventually got an answer that was pretty much "cease and desist". I was mostly paying by the minute for relatively poor internet access on that trip and sometimes went multiple days with no access at all. Spending a long time downloading messages from a stranger just wasn't going to happen.

[pbray.livejournal.com]

Depends. Is the email from friends? Family? Someone I met once at a con two years ago? Someone I've never met who is asking me for a donation/to blurb their book/advice about finding an agent?

I triage my email by sender and subject.