Notes from my terminal: A desperate cry for more IM etiquette

February 28, 2004

A desperate cry for more IM etiquette

Instant messaging can boost your productivity. While e-mail quickly becomes the most-often ignored medium in history (with all the spam, it has almost become a must to call the person you sent an e-mail on the phone in order to check that the recepient actually reads it), instant messaging is simple, fast, direct and simply there. However, I have a pet peeve about it. It's not about the less technical users (IM is so easy, they usually find out everything quickly). It's about the power users, the geeks. Those that install Linux on their own server. In my contact list, I have a growing number of what I would call IM zombies. I blame GNU screen for 24h idlers who proudly display "I really enjoy the default AIM away message of centerICQ" all the time. THIS IS NOT THE WAY IM WAS MEANT TO WORK. If I want to IM someone, I want to see if that person wants to receive my message. If the person is away, fine, I'll try it later or if I'm feeling lucky, I'll send an e-mail. But I don't want to see these lurking zombies who suddenly come back to life again (not changing their away message, of course) and talk to me out of the void, sometimes replying to a comment you sent them days ago. Stop it, please. If you're not available for IM, simply switch it off. It's really as simple as that. Spare me the frustration, Please stop killing IM the way IRC was killed by power idlers. Conversation on IRC has become almost impossible (posts to comp.lang.ruby get faster replies than questions in the #ruby-channel on IRC), even though there are more than 20 people online all the time. It just won't work this way. Flat-rate Internet has become too cheap, if you ask me. Posted by jens at February 28, 2004 11:27 PM | TrackBack

Comments

also dieses verhalten ist in der tat nicht sehr sinnvoll. es hat aber mehrere gruende: durch screen(1) funktioniert das auto-away nicht mehr richtig, was bei einem consolen programm eh schwer ist. ausserdem scheint die mehrzahl der centericq benutzer nie einen andren client benutzt zu haben denn sonst haetten sie die default message mal gesehen und geaendert (das finde ich auch besonders schlimm). ganz nebenbei, centericq ist in meinen augen ein ziemlich haesslicher hack mit vielen fehlern und zu wenig updates, man will wenn schon psi benutzen (dann aber haelt einen die kaputte icq implementierung von centericq davon ab den icq transport von jabber zu nutzen weil er nicht alle kontakte syncronisiert hat). und bei einem graphischen client entsteht das 'always online' problem wesentlich seltener. naja, und dann ist da noch das unbequeme status management in cicq. und zu guter letzt gibt auch noch leute die immer online sein wollen damit ihre viel zu grosse icq contact list nicht mitbekommt wenn sie online gehen und dann mit nachrichten ueberladen.

Posted by: jan at February 29, 2004 12:01 PM

Sorry.
But to be honest, i tried it all.
A few years back, i used IM as you describe it, it was terrible.

If you want to talk, send me a 'hello'.
if i reply i have time for you. if you want to say something important, just type it, i will read it.

I don't want to get 10 messages from my +100 contacts everytime I change my status. ("oh you want to chat?")
I don't want people think "why isn't he answering, he is online after all", i don't want to make up funny excuses.
I don't want to pet my IM software all the time, changing status, "i am cooking", "i am working", "i am with stupid".

And I certainly don't want to here people say: "You were up late yesterday".

No, I will not give away this information.
I will not use Away/NA.

Posted by: mm at March 1, 2004 07:23 PM

Okies, I presume your reproach goes to me as one of your favourite power idlers as well. I want to be anything but resentful here but quite frankly, in regard to the complaint here the critic himself is not always a paragon of IM virtue either. I hereby avow myself to get a better buddy in your list in the future though, but at the same time I must assent to mm's statement who has a point in emphasising the tricky nature of online status publication. I reckon it always depends on the type of relationship that two buddies connecting through the same protocol have, how accurately they should stick to the default status messages. Coworkers who actually have to live up to a certain reliability might want to be a bit more precise on that issue whereas mere mates should be given greater allowances.
Anyway, most IM-clients offer a function to split your buddy list into self-defined groups so just go ahead and dump us in the power idlers' corner.
I promise I will try my very best to meet your requirements.

Posted by: qurl at March 15, 2004 09:20 PM

very nice site

---------------
Giełda Samochodowa
http://www.motonet.pl

Posted by: Giełda Samochodowa at April 9, 2004 06:27 PM

Yeah. I wish that people wouldn't use Linux. With Microsoft's operating systems you must reboot your computer every now and then or the OS will crash. Then you cannot keep your IM software running 24/7, either.

Posted by: Bona at January 13, 2005 10:43 PM