Evan Platt wrote:
> The e-mail had a pretty vague subject ("numbers" or something), and
> the body of the message was vague, like "Here's the latest" with an
> attached Excel spreadsheet. I almost deleted it until he not only
> 'recalled' it,And if nothing else had happened for another day you probably would have just discarded it and never given it another thought, right? I mean we have all seen random junk that just isn't worth our time to look at further. > but sent a message saying to delete the original > message. The spreadsheet? It contained sales data for ALL his stores > - number of employees, $ amount of sales, # of sales, revenue, > etc. He obviously intended to send this to his boss, but sent it to > all of his sales stores. A good example of "The Streisand Effect" in operation. By trying to suppress it he called attention to it effecting the opposite of what he really desired. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect The lesson for all of us is that when information escapes that it cannot be suppressed. The act of suppressing it calls attention to it making it more prominent. If that is unwanted then the better course of action is to say nothing. > Quite funny. The "recall" didn't work. Yes. Too funny. Bob
