Ask HN: Is a system for single character responses to emails a bad idea?
2 points| pjbrow | 10 years ago
-----
2
The text above represents a response below. I apologise if this seems rude - I'm taking this approach to make sure I get back to everyone quickly (http://patbrown.org/pointmail.html).
1 - I’ll get back to you within 1 day.
2 - I’ll get back to you within 2 days.
[Higher numbers mean the same as above…]
t - thanks, I’ll look into it but I’m not sure how long it'll take.
n - No / No thank you - I appreciate your message though.
y - Yes / Yes please, that would be great.
s - Sorry, I’ve read your email, but it’s highly unlikely that I’ll be able to fit this in.
-----
The drawback of this approach is that it comes across as douchey to a high percentage of people. Is the approach irredeemably weird / off-putting? Any ideas on how to dial down the douche factor while maintaining the benefits?
If it’s viable:
- Would two character responses for finer grained meaning work better? For instance, “c1” could mean “It’ll be complete in 1 day” and “w1” would mean “Will get back to you on the below within one day”; and
- What other codes / messages do you think would be important to include?
detaro|10 years ago
Using something that replaces the letter with the matching text snippet?
pjbrow|10 years ago
brudgers|10 years ago
From an information theory perspective, the lack of redundancy may be problematic, particularly if email is a noisy channel. Because hitting send writes to "permanent storage", typos "are forever"...and correcting them adds noise.
For example, I accidentally send "1w" when I meant "w1" versus "Will get bcak to you in one day."