Re: [SWR] E-mail etiquette

[Linda Starr]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:06 PM, DONALD G. DAVIS  wrote:

> > This all I can think of at the moment.  Perhaps others have pet =
> >e-mail peeves that they would like to bring up?  Of course none of us =
> >are guilty of any of these things!  It is always someone else that does =
> >all this.  :-)
> >
> >Steve Peerman
>
> >By far the biggest issue for me is multipart MIME-encoded e-mail, which
> is the great majority I see nowadays-
> -indeed, virtually everything on this forum is like that now.  Most people
> may not even know they are doing it; it seems to be the default for most
> modern e-mailers, and is hidden from the writer.  But I wish everyone
> would set their mail program to send the message body as plain ASCII text,
> reserving encoding for attachments.>
>
>

> >Stephen Fleming is
> one of the best writers of well-structured messages in this group.>
>

Donald, et al.,
 When I use MIME-encoded e-mail, it is usually to emphasize a point or
question.  I try not to use all caps. But, beyond using Bold face, one of
my pet peeves, is that I find that many readers do not respond to all of my
questions.  They may respond to one, but not others.  I have used color as
well as Bold, Italic and Underlining to emphasize the question I want the
reader/s to answer or take notice of.  Many readers apparently don't read
the entire message to see what is asked for.
 And Steve Fleming uses encodings and iconic devices that you might
have to take the time to eliminate when archiving messages.

Linda Starr
___
SWR mailing list
s...@caver.net
http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr
___
 This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET

[SWR] E-mail etiquette

[DONALD G. DAVIS]

> This all I can think of at the moment.  Perhaps others have pet =
>e-mail peeves that they would like to bring up?  Of course none of us =
>are guilty of any of these things!  It is always someone else that does =
>all this.  :-)
>
>Steve Peerman

  I surely do have pet peeves.  By far the biggest issue for me is
multipart MIME-encoded e-mail, which is the great majority I see nowadays-
-indeed, virtually everything on this forum is like that now.  Most people
may not even know they are doing it; it seems to be the default for most
modern e-mailers, and is hidden from the writer.  But I wish everyone
would set their mail program to send the message body as plain ASCII text,
reserving encoding for attachments.  I use a simple mail program that
doesn't create or display colors, fonts, emoticons, etc.; encoding for
that only makes most of the message show as annoying textual garbage.  I
archive most of my e-mail, so I feel obliged to manually strip as much of
that garbage as possible, to keep the archive compact and equally readable
on any platform.  I'd rather not have to waste all that time editing.

  As for e-mail content: when responding in a thread, don't just let
your mailer auto-append the entire past series that led up to your new
contribution.  That bloats the messages until they can needlessly grow
pages long.  Nobody needs all that multiple repetition.  Instead, select
and quote the relevant passage at the top, then follow it with your
response, and do that throughout your message, so the order makes sense
and constitutes a logical, compact exchange, focused on the particular
points you want to address.  That has always been proper Usenet newsgroup
etiquette, and it makes just as much sense in e-mail.  Stephen Fleming is 
one of the best writers of well-structured messages in this group.

  Another point: if you send multiple attachments, please pack them
into a .ZIP file before attaching.  It simplifies downloading and storage.

  Maybe all this makes me sound like an old fogy who doesn't want to
"upgrade" my practices.  Indeed, I don't want to.  When I started using e-
mail in 1992, I regarded it as just an easier, more versatile, compact,
digitally-searchable replacement for typing on paper.  That is what I
still want it to be.  All the fancy "bells and whistles" that programmers
have tacked onto e-mail just complicate the communications needlessly.

--Donald
___
SWR mailing list
s...@caver.net
http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr
___
 This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET

Re: [SWR] E-mail etiquette

[Carl Pagano]

How true. Didn't know I was SHOUTING with capitals. just used them to get your 
attention and make a point… However, I will refrain from them in the future……As 
for the "emoticons" they're cool….Maybe Fleming can find some with a hand 
sticking out of his plane, saying cool, or even a banner behind it…..
Actually, the beer mugs say it all……
  Carl…..
On Jun 30, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Steve Peerman wrote:

> It looks like someone just figured out how to use emoticons (another pet 
> peeve.)  :-)  
> 
> Re:  FSCSP --- Got to have some diversions some time . . .
> 
> On Jun 30, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Stephen Fleming wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve Peerman  wrote:
>> 
>>  Here are some of my pet peeves regarding e-mail:
>> 
>> 1)  Not responding to an e-mail message directed to you.  The courteous 
>> thing to do when you get a message from someone directed to you is to 
>> respond in some fashion.  It might be just, "Thanks . . .".  but at least 
>> the sender knows you saw his message.   Of course, sometimes messages are 
>> sent to several recipients and your specific reply is not necessary, but it 
>> still might be the thoughtful thing to do.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> You're absolutely right. 
>> 
>> Message received.
>> 
>> It appears you had a bit of down time to work on something other than the 
>> FSCSP?
>> 
>> Thanks for the tips! 
>> 
>> Stephen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Steve Peerman
> 
>   "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you 
> didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, Sail away from 
> the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. 
> Discover."
> attributed to Mark Twain, but no record exists of his having written this.
> 
> ___
> SWR mailing list
> s...@caver.net
> http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr
> ___
> This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET

___
SWR mailing list
s...@caver.net
http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr
___
 This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET

Re: [SWR] E-mail etiquette

[Linda Starr]

Steve,
 Thanks for the tips.  Very useful for all we doers do. [?]

Stephen,
 Cute icons! [?]

Linda [?]


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve Peerman  wrote:

> All,
> I came across this website  about
> e-mail etiquette this morning and it got me to thinking about various
> annoying e-mail habits that I've seen from several folks.  (Oh I never do
> any of these things!  :)
>
> Here are some of my pet peeves regarding e-mail:
>
> 1)  Not responding to an e-mail message directed to you.  The courteous
> thing to do when you get a message from someone directed to you is to
> respond in some fashion.  It might be just, "Thanks . . .".  but at least
> the sender knows you saw his message.  Not responding to a message leaves
> the sender hanging, not knowing whether the message actually went through
> (sometimes messages do not go through), or thinking that you don't care, or
> thinking that is beneath you to acknowledge the message.  Of course,
> sometimes messages are sent to several recipients and your specific reply
> is not necessary, but it still might be the thoughtful thing to do.
>
> 2) Not reading an entire thread before responding to a message.   Most of
> us access our e-mail periodically, not continually, so we see a group of
> messages that have occurred since the last time we accessed our e-mail.
>  Sometimes there are several messages on a particular thread (topic) that
> have occurred in the interim.  You should read all these messages before
> responding.  Consider the following exchange:
>
> Caver1:  Does anyone know where Joe Caver is these days?  I need to talk
> to him.
> Caver2:  The last I heard he was living in Carlsbad.
> Caver3:  No he moved to Colorado a couple of years ago.
> Caver4:  Joe Caver moved back to Albuquerque last year.  We see each other
> every so often.  I have his e-mail address, .
> You, responding to the original message:  Oh he lives in Carlsbad as far
> as I know.
>  Not only have you not added anything useful to the conversation, you
> look like you're clueless as well.
>
> 3)  Straying from the subject of a thread.  Often a message is sent out to
> a group of folks on a particular topic, and one part of the conversation
> takes off on a tangent, somewhat irrelevant to the original subject.
>  Consider this:
> Bill, to Susie, Joan, Fred and Harry:  (Subject:  Saturday's trip):
>  Everyone up for Saturday's trip?
> Susie:  (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip): Yep, I'll be there.
> Fred:   (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip):  Count me in.
> Harry:   (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip): I'll try, hey Joan, how about
> dinner Wednesday?
> Joan:   (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip): Sounds good, how about 6 pm.
> Harry:  (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip): Can we make it 6:30 where do you
> want to go?
> Joan:  (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip):  . . . .
>
> The topic of conversation is no longer "Saturday's Trip" and is probably
> not even of interest to the other recipients.   If you're going to go off
> on a tangent, change the subject line.
>
> 4)  Including the entire thread in a reply.   Often someone sends a quite
> lengthy message including several subtopics, to which you need to respond
> to a particular item.  For example, a person might be giving a lengthy trip
> report including one statement identifying you.  ". . .  got us all excited
> when he said . . ."  You recall that it was someone else who said that and
> you want to correct that person.  It would be best to highlight that one
> sentence and reply to it, rather than including the entire report in your
> reply.  It's just a waste of memory space to include the entire message in
> this reply.
>
> 5)  USING ALL CAPS IN YOUR MESSAGE.ALL CAPS should be used very
> judiciously.  In e-mail it is regarded as yelling.  Unless you REALLY want
> to emphasize something, it is better to use *bold face*.  If you do use
> ALL CAPS, reread your message and imagine yelling those words.  That's how
> your message is coming across to the recipients.
>
> 6)  Responding to a message with multiple responses.  As best you can, say
> what you need to about a message in one response.  Think about what you
> need to say before replying and incorporate everything you want to say in
> that response.  If you think of something else that you might have wanted
> to say, perhaps it would be better to wait for the other person to respond
> first, then add the additional information.
>
> 7)  Not proofreading your message:  Despite built-in spell and grammar
> checkers, often misleading things creep into a message that the sender
> never intended.  It is a good idea to always reread what you wrote to make
> sure what you're sending is what you intended to say.
>
> 8)  Using acronyms not widely understood:  In my messages to a lot of
> people in conjunction with the FSCSP,  I use SR, TJ and MJ.  Does everyone
> know what I'm talking about?  It is rude to assume that all the recipients
> know the meaning 

Re: [SWR] E-mail etiquette

[Steve Peerman]

It looks like someone just figured out how to use emoticons (another pet 
peeve.)  :-)  

Re:  FSCSP --- Got to have some diversions some time . . .

On Jun 30, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Stephen Fleming wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve Peerman  wrote:
> 
>   Here are some of my pet peeves regarding e-mail:
> 
> 1)  Not responding to an e-mail message directed to you.  The courteous thing 
> to do when you get a message from someone directed to you is to respond in 
> some fashion.  It might be just, "Thanks . . .".  but at least the sender 
> knows you saw his message.   Of course, sometimes messages are sent to 
> several recipients and your specific reply is not necessary, but it still 
> might be the thoughtful thing to do.  
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right. 
> 
> Message received.
> 
> It appears you had a bit of down time to work on something other than the 
> FSCSP?
> 
> Thanks for the tips! 
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Steve Peerman

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you 
didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, Sail away from 
the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
attributed to Mark Twain, but no record exists of his having written this.

___
SWR mailing list
s...@caver.net
http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr
___
 This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET

Re: [SWR] E-mail etiquette

[Stephen Fleming]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Steve Peerman  wrote:

>
> Here are some of my pet peeves regarding e-mail:
>
> 1)  Not responding to an e-mail message directed to you.  The courteous
> thing to do when you get a message from someone directed to you is to
> respond in some fashion.  It might be just, "Thanks . . .".  but at least
> the sender knows you saw his message.   Of course, sometimes messages are
> sent to several recipients and your specific reply is not necessary, but it
> still might be the thoughtful thing to do.
>



You're absolutely right. [image: Thumbs Up Cool!]

Message received.

It appears you had a bit of down time to work on something other than the
FSCSP?

Thanks for the tips! [image: c017]

Stephen

[image: kaos-cactus06]
[image: 1rij]
___
SWR mailing list
s...@caver.net
http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr
___
 This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET

Re: [SWR] E-mail etiquette

[John Corcoran]

Thanks Steve.

 

Will have to read this after getting back from physical therapy this
afternoon.

 

Regards,

 

John

___
SWR mailing list
s...@caver.net
http://lists.caver.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swr
___
 This list is provided free as a courtesy of CAVERNET

[SWR] E-mail etiquette

[Steve Peerman]

All,
I came across this website  about 
e-mail etiquette this morning and it got me to thinking about various annoying 
e-mail habits that I've seen from several folks.  (Oh I never do any of these 
things!  :)

Here are some of my pet peeves regarding e-mail:

1)  Not responding to an e-mail message directed to you.  The courteous thing 
to do when you get a message from someone directed to you is to respond in some 
fashion.  It might be just, "Thanks . . .".  but at least the sender knows you 
saw his message.  Not responding to a message leaves the sender hanging, not 
knowing whether the message actually went through (sometimes messages do not go 
through), or thinking that you don't care, or thinking that is beneath you to 
acknowledge the message.  Of course, sometimes messages are sent to several 
recipients and your specific reply is not necessary, but it still might be the 
thoughtful thing to do.  

2) Not reading an entire thread before responding to a message.   Most of us 
access our e-mail periodically, not continually, so we see a group of messages 
that have occurred since the last time we accessed our e-mail.  Sometimes there 
are several messages on a particular thread (topic) that have occurred in the 
interim.  You should read all these messages before responding.  Consider the 
following exchange:

Caver1:  Does anyone know where Joe Caver is these days?  I need to 
talk to him.
Caver2:  The last I heard he was living in Carlsbad.
Caver3:  No he moved to Colorado a couple of years ago.
Caver4:  Joe Caver moved back to Albuquerque last year.  We see each 
other every so often.  I have his e-mail address, .
You, responding to the original message:  Oh he lives in Carlsbad as 
far as I know.

Not only have you not added anything useful to the conversation, you 
look like you're clueless as well.

3)  Straying from the subject of a thread.  Often a message is sent out to a 
group of folks on a particular topic, and one part of the conversation takes 
off on a tangent, somewhat irrelevant to the original subject.  Consider this:
Bill, to Susie, Joan, Fred and Harry:  (Subject:  Saturday's trip):  
Everyone up for Saturday's trip?
Susie:  (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip): Yep, I'll be there.
Fred:   (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip):  Count me in.
Harry:   (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip): I'll try, hey Joan, how about 
dinner Wednesday?
Joan:   (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip): Sounds good, how about 6 pm.
Harry:  (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip): Can we make it 6:30 where do 
you want to go?
Joan:  (Subject: Re: Saturday's Trip):  . . . .

The topic of conversation is no longer "Saturday's Trip" and is 
probably not even of interest to the other recipients.   If you're going to go 
off on a tangent, change the subject line.

4)  Including the entire thread in a reply.   Often someone sends a quite 
lengthy message including several subtopics, to which you need to respond to a 
particular item.  For example, a person might be giving a lengthy trip report 
including one statement identifying you.  ". . .  got us all excited when he 
said . . ."  You recall that it was someone else who said that and you want to 
correct that person.  It would be best to highlight that one sentence and reply 
to it, rather than including the entire report in your reply.  It's just a 
waste of memory space to include the entire message in this reply.

5)  USING ALL CAPS IN YOUR MESSAGE.ALL CAPS should be used very 
judiciously.  In e-mail it is regarded as yelling.  Unless you REALLY want to 
emphasize something, it is better to use bold face.  If you do use ALL CAPS, 
reread your message and imagine yelling those words.  That's how your message 
is coming across to the recipients. 

6)  Responding to a message with multiple responses.  As best you can, say what 
you need to about a message in one response.  Think about what you need to say 
before replying and incorporate everything you want to say in that response.  
If you think of something else that you might have wanted to say, perhaps it 
would be better to wait for the other person to respond first, then add the 
additional information.

7)  Not proofreading your message:  Despite built-in spell and grammar 
checkers, often misleading things creep into a message that the sender never 
intended.  It is a good idea to always reread what you wrote to make sure what 
you're sending is what you intended to say.

8)  Using acronyms not widely understood:  In my messages to a lot of people in 
conjunction with the FSCSP,  I use SR, TJ and MJ.  Does everyone know what I'm 
talking about?  It is rude to assume that all the recipients know the meaning 
of acronyms.  It would be better for me to have said, "In my messages to a lot 
of people in conjunction with the Fort Stanton Cave Study Project, I