(2003-10-01) Gelernter Valid Email Overload

Clay Shirky on David Gelernter's point that even non-spam EMail is overloading people. You get an email (maybe longer or more complicated than average, or from someone you don't know); you have no time to respond right now, but you mean to answer--but other emails stack up, and you answer those first--but you still plan to reply--but more emails keep arriving. . . . Meanwhile the sender is wondering: Is he ignoring me on purpose? (I'll cross him off my list and forget about it.) Did he mean to reply, but has since forgotten? (Resend my message.) Or does he still mean to reply and just hasn't gotten around to it? (Don't get mad or resend.) All three possibilities are real, and happen all the time. As volume rises, more email conversations trail off into nothing for unknown reasons, the medium is devalued further, and the problem gets worse--people set even less store by a mail message, send one out on even less provocation, volume rises, more email conversations trail off into nothing for unknown reasons, the medium is devalued even further. David recommends a protocol to follow. The time lags probably need to be subtly negotiated in every group. More importantly, they probably don't make sense as a general rule because sensitivity/priority is message-specific. Also, in a group email thread, things will have moved on without you.

In favor of his point, there is some value in signalling your intent for future action. But

• once you've read the email, you might as well send at least a terse reply, rather than a meta-only "will reply later"

• it seems like you'll just end up with a growing backlog of stuff that you committed to reply to.