At 12:29 PM 8/12/2002 -0700, Mona Wong-Barnum wrote: > I vote that we do NOT filter out emails with the below > keywords. Let's >not throw out the baby with the bath water! > > > While we are doing this, why don't we put a filter on subject and exclude > > the following key words: > > > > URGENT > > > > REQUIRE > > > > DESPERATE > > > > HELP!!!!!!
To be fair, I do wish people would be more descriptive in their subject headers. This is better for the askers anyway. If I see a subject like "Help with a problem!", I'll feel no need to read it in detail, as chances are I won't be able to help. I don't have to time to delve into every single message with a vague subject. Putting "URGENT" is another annoyance. It conveys the notion that the asker didn't plan time wisely. If you truly got blindsided by a last-second request by management to solve a problem, you can explain in the body of the message. If your job is at stake, then your management needs to get its priorities straightened out, and until then you're probably better off somewhere else. Finally, while I'm on the subject of pet peeves, I also wish people with multiple questions would post each one separately. One advantage is that it keeps you from simply putting "a few questions" as a subject; see the first paragraph. Secondly, someone needing help with only one of your questions will only need to scan for that question, rather than sifting through the thirty-odd responses answering other questions. With that said, I'm relatively flexible on this principle. Two questions in the same message, both with short desc in the subject, seems perfectly reasonable, for instance. End soapbox. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
