[Tesseract]

I had a friend just chew me out because she thinks I'm not responding to my email fast enough. She emailed me at 3 pm yesterday, and I responded at 10:30 AM today. I figure a turnaround time of 24 hours or less is perfectly acceptable and I don't understand why she's griping at me. Even when I send out business-related emails, I don't get riled up I don't hear back the same day, especially if I sent it late in the business day. She seems to think that I'm sitting at my computer all day waiting for emails to come in so I can respond, when in fact I check my email maybe 2x a day, and maybe only once.

I used to have a similar problem with my boss. He sat one office away from me, and would send urgent assignments by email instead of picking up the phone and buzzing me on the intercom. He didn't seem to understand than an email can potentially take up to a couple of hours to arrive (and one time it literally did take that long). So he would walk in 20 minutes after sending the email and say, "Did you get my email? It's urgent!" And I would say, "If it's urgent, and you want to make sure I know right away, you should probably pick up the phone."

What do you consider an appropriate amount of time to respond to an email, whether business or personal? And do you consider email an appropriate mode of communication at all when you want a response quickly?

 

[jeezycreezy]

Hey, I don't blame her. If it was me, I'd be on tenterhooks waiting for an response from you. You rock.

For personal emails, way I figure, if you need an instant response then pick up the gorram phone.

Otherwise I'll get to my emails when I get to them.

For business 24 hours is the maximum for actionable emails. And again, if people want an instant response they could pick up the phone.

Cheers!

TJ

 

[Amy SF]

Although I admit I'm thrilled when I send an email to my sister and she responds right away, honestly, it doesn't really matter to me whether they respond after 24 hours or 24 days, as long as they respond at all. There's nothing I hate more than sending out an email and wondering if the intended recipient even got it, because they never respond back. They don't have to send off a novel in response; just acknowledge that they got it!

 

[GhostUser]

Sometimes picking up a phone isn't an option.

I think the appropriate turnaround time for an email would be as soon as you get it. Why make the person wait more than they have been waiting? It's not someone's fault if they didn't check their email until <insert time length> after it was sent to them, but as soon as they get it, I think they should reply. It's just the nice thing to do. Nowadays, there's really no reason to be slow with communication, anyway.

Whenever I get emails, I respond to them promptly, because I know how I would feel if my emails were ignored. Plus, if the email is asking for information and I'm the person holding up an action, then there's an even stronger urge to reply promptly.

With all that said, I'm not going to freak out if my Grandma or my academic advisor doesn't reply to me the same day that I emailed them.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

bah, email. i've had emails that have taken a week to show up (bloody tiscali and crappy servers, lol). if anyone emails me, and its important, i suggest they attach a 'request read reciept' to it- so they know i got it, and read it, at least.

i'd say, stupid internet issues excepted, they can generally expect me to read it within a day, if its at work, and if its at home, within a day or within 3 months, depending on which email address they send it to (i have a few that i just use for junk). regarding replies, if its work, i'll reply within a day- or maybe two or 3 if i'm frazzled and its not vital, if its not work, it depends how lucky they are and how friendly i'm feeling.

the last office i worked in had microsoft office outlook installed on its computer system, and it was great for this very reason. any time someone was logged on to a computer, you could IM them (i sat right next to the printer and people would IM me to ask if their really important stuff came out of it before they walked downstairs to get it, cos the printer was tempremental, lol), every email that came in for them popped up on the corner of their screen, whether or not they had outlook express running, and it did loads of other stuff too. perhaps your boss could pay out for this system- its good for organising/schedualing meetings, and checking diary stuff out, too (to see when people are around/free/available.

as far as i'm concerned, if a boss wants to be sure you've got something, and fast, he should either phone you and actually speak to you (not leave a message and assume you heard it) or IM you and make sure he sees a reply- if he has a system like that running, or even walk down the bloody hall/stairs, and speak you in person.

same with text messages. i never assume someones got my text, just cos i sent it. i used to live in a bit of a black hole/bermuda triangle, cell phone wise, and i'd get old text emssages inviting me out on friday night, on the bloody wednesday after, when i'd driven to the next town and out of the black hole.

i sometimes think that technology has made us a bit instant gratification orientated, with regards to peoples attention and response. i think that generally, if something is really vital, that someone should take a minute and actually come and speak to you about it- most stuff really can wait though, people just want your attention now cos they want it.

 

[Tesseract]

Quote:

Originally Posted by veggiejanie

I think the appropriate turnaround time for an email would be as soon as you get it. Why make the person wait more than they have been waiting? It's not someone's fault if they didn't check their email until <insert time length> after it was sent to them, but as soon as they get it, I think they should reply. It's just the nice thing to do. Nowadays, there's really no reason to be slow with communication, anyway.

No no, I think it's a given that you should respond as soon as you get it. What I'm trying to get it, is how often should a person feel obliged to check their email? I responded to my friend's email as soon as I read it. She's annoyed at me because I didn't check my email until 17 hours after she sent her message, and she thinks I need to check it more often.

A person who complains that your response took too long has no way of knowing when you checked your email and saw their message, unless they requested a receipt. If they're going to feel wronged or neglected, I figure it's usually going to be a function of the total amount of time that elapsed between when they hit Send and when they read your response.

 

[GhostUser]

Oh okay. Hmm. Well, I don't know if it's possible for people to check their email as often as others can. That's a toughy.

 

[Tesseract]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodedclawjen

the last office i worked in had microsoft office outlook installed on its computer system, and it was great for this very reason. any time someone was logged on to a computer, you could IM them (i sat right next to the printer and people would IM me to ask if their really important stuff came out of it before they walked downstairs to get it, cos the printer was tempremental, lol), every email that came in for them popped up on the corner of their screen, whether or not they had outlook express running, and it did loads of other stuff too. perhaps your boss could pay out for this system- its good for organising/schedualing meetings, and checking diary stuff out, too (to see when people are around/free/available.

This ties into a related question for me. For a while, I was using Thunderbird for email and Firefox for browsing, and I had a problem getting emails because I wasn't used to having to open a separate program and keep it open to get new message alerts. I switched to Mozilla Suite thinking I would be notified of my email more reliably, but it still doesn't alert me to new emails unless I make a point of opening the mail window. I hate Microsoft and I don't really want to switch to Outlook Express, but if it has features that will help me be more in tune with my email, maybe I should.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

i get really annoyed when i see how 'now now NOW' everything seems to be, with regards to pace of life. i know that in a busy work enviroment, many things are really time orientated, that there are financial ramifications and deadlines attached to work, but generally, i feel like its easy to run yourself ragged feeling like you need to keep up, when you should be ok to do things at a sensible pace, and not kill yourself over it. i think prioritising is great, and being prompt is great, but should i carry my laptop under my arm to the bathroom and check my email a couple extra times while i'm in the shower, incase it can't wait 30 minutes?

how many times have i dropped what i'm doing and run across the kitchen with flour on my hands to answer the phone, because i've been trained to prioritise it, because it might be really important? loads. and its been REALLY important, maybe 3 times, so far, in my life. every other call could have waited at least 2 minutes without the world ending. ya know, if its really important, and i don't answer, they'll call again in a minute. if i still don't answer, they can use yellowpages to find the number, and call the neighbour, and she can come tell me the big panic crisis related event. or if its REALLY important, they can call, and send the police to knock on my door, with the vital message.

if i'm busy, i try and veiw my phone/email like a shrieking demanding toddler shouting 'hello! pay attention to me NOW!'. they can wait, i'll speak to them/read them when i'm ready. i fail, mostly, with this strategy, but i try, lol.

 

[jeneticallymodified]

Quote:

This ties into a related question for me. For a while, I was using Thunderbird for email and Firefox for browsing, and I had a problem getting emails because I wasn't used to having to open a separate program and keep it open to get new message alerts. I switched to Mozilla Suite thinking I would be notified of my email more reliably, but it still doesn't alert me to new emails unless I make a point of opening the mail window. I hate Microsoft and I don't really want to switch to Outlook Express, but if it has features that will help me be more in tune with my email, maybe I should.

there has gotta be a way with the email thing. hmmm. i bet there is some little add-on thingy that does just what you need and sits in the corner of your screen, and links to everything, without being a pain in the @ss. we need a technological guru's input, i think. i wish i knew more about sophistimocated stuff like that. i just about manage to use 1/4 of the features of outlook express, on a good day, lol.

 

[Tesseract]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodedclawjen

there has gotta be a way with the email thing. hmmm. i bet there is some little add-on thingy that does just what you need and sits in the corner of your screen, and links to everything, without being a pain in the @ss. we need a technological guru's input, i think. i wish i knew more about sophistimocated stuff like that. i just about manage to use 1/4 of the features of outlook express, on a good day, lol.

Mr. Tess is a bit of a tech guru, and he looked up a plug-in for Firefox and Thunderbird that he thought would do what I needed, but on closer examination it wouldn't really have worked the way I needed it to. I can't remember exactly what it did, though.

 

[Skylark]

If something is urgent, people know to call me. I read through all of my "new" email before I respond to any of it so I know which ones need a response and which ones don't.

I may wait a day or so to get back to people on non-critical issues. I get press releases emailed and and faxed to me, usually two or three in a day. I may not have time to deal with something non-critical the moment it comes up, but I'll give it my attention later.

It varies from day to day how often I check my email. If I'm out doing interviews and covering events, then I may be out of the office most of the day. When I'm on my computer, the email program alerts me when I receive a new email. The delay from the time the sender sent it is about ten minutes. With my personal mail on Yahoo, I rarely have more than a minute's delay.

Over the weekend, I don't check my work email. If something is so important it can't wait till Monday, they should call the copy desk and ask whoever's on duty to call my cell phone.

 

[JLRodgers]

For me, with any e-mails received:

- send a read receipt if prompted

- If a reply's needed, reply as soon as it's received

If it's an e-mail with data to be altered and put online:

- 24-72 hours after e-mail's receipt it'll be visible online

- if it's an emergency, as soon as it's received

Basically, I check all 30 e-mail accounts up to 10x a day (basically when I login, before I logout, and a few times in between).

With some of my friends, I might get 1 reply every 3 months to 2-3 of my messages. I don't think anything of it: she's really busy, has dial-up I think, but basically hates being online.

 

[Tesseract]

Wow, 300 email checks a day. Hmm. Hope you didn't have much else to do.

:

 

[karenlovessnow]

I don't think it's up to one person to tell another person how often they should check their email. I have my work e-mail set up so that I hear a mild tone when I get an incoming message. I will respond to work related issues immediately. As far as personal messages go, I usually check at least twice a day, before and after work. Occasionally I will take a day or two to respond to someone especially if they are just writing to say hello. If they are requesting information than I will write back right away. Some people use their email more than others. If I have an urgent matter that needs attention I will not rely on email unless I follow up with a phone call if I don't hear back from the person.

 

[Joe]

I've spent a fair amount of time researching rules of "netiquette" and I have yet to find any rule that deals with any sort of obligation to check or read one's e-mails at any given frequency, nor any rule that deals with sending a non-committal response to an e-mail ("Just a note to let you know that I received your e-mail of {date,time} and will be responding to it shortly"),

nor any rule that specifies a time period for anyone to respond to an e-mail.

If there are such rules, please give me a citation or URL for them, since I'd really like to read them.

I am not a slave, and no one can make me their slave by sending me an e-mail.

I think if a person who sends an e-mail wants a response by a specific time,

they should request that in the e-mail itself: "Please respond by noon on Wednesday," or whatever. It should be up to the recipient to respond by phone or e-mail or whatever means is appropriate.

 

[Tesseract]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

I am not a slave, and no one can make me their slave by sending me an e-mail.

I know certain bosses who can. That was the deal at the law firm I worked at. You were expected to keep your email client open all day, and the boss would send about 10 emails a day with immediate instructions and assignments. And if you needed information or something from him, emailing him was often the only way to get a remotely timely response. I thought that was bad until I saw what life was like for the top 10% law school graduates working at the prestigious big firms. Some of the larger law firms issue their associates Blackberries for the sole purpose of keeping them on an email leash literally 24 hours a day.

 

[Joe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tesseract

I know certain bosses who can. That was the deal at the law firm I worked at. You were expected to keep your email client open all day, and the boss would send about 10 emails a day with immediate instructions and assignments. And if you needed information or something from him, emailing him was often the only way to get a remotely timely response. I thought that was bad until I saw what life was like for the top 10% law school graduates working at the prestigious big firms. Some of the larger law firms issue their associates Blackberries for the sole purpose of keeping them on an email leash literally 24 hours a day.

Ok, but that is a work situation. Your original post was about a "friend" e-mailing you. As I said before, I know of no rules requiring you to answer, much less within a specific period of time. If there are such rules and they are written down, please enlighten me with a URL.

 

[remilard]

Quote:

What do you consider an appropriate amount of time to respond to an email, whether business or personal? And do you consider email an appropriate mode of communication at all when you want a response quickly?

Personal: a week maybe, faster if circumstances dictate (eg the email is to set dinner plans or something)

Work: There is always an expectation and for communication with superiors they set the expectation.

 

[troub]

wow. i respond to emails with a turnaround of like a week or two.

hmm