Writing emails that are too long

[Dagan]

Yes, some of those status emails along with the emails where someone copies in a lot of higher ups...those are the most fun to deal with. It's because that person, no matter how important or how much more authority they are trying to throw at you from the start....it all just makes everything backfire even more. This is because 90% + of the emails that I have to deal with are always someone completely ignorant to what they should already know and shouldn't even have their job position without knowing such information. They essentially just make it look worse that they have no clue what's going on and/or they have copied important others to the chain to show them, as well.

 

[Nervous Rex]

I worked in a place where some e-mails, like a status were started by a short (a few lines) "executive summary" and then the full explanation that could be much longer.

Comparing your response to mine, you're clearly better at brevity than I am.

 

[Rodafina]

I think it can be helpful to remind yourself that for most audiences (in the workplace), the more you write, the more you are likely to be ignored. People with heavy work loads often have a very short attention span (or you may run into someone like me who has difficulty reading). The reaction for this large group of people will be to skim your words and sometimes ignore or miss what you are saying altogether.

Even though writing a lengthy email may come more naturally to you, wasting your words on an audience that won't properly read them isn't a very efficient way to communicate.

Brevity can be a fun challenge. You can get your thoughts out naturally and then edit, whittle, and carve out the most essential things focusing on being concise and efficient with your words.

 

[kriss72]

Comparing your response to mine, you're clearly better at brevity than I am.

I have re-read your answer and it is more detailed and specific and sorry, I didn't read and understand all the comments fully, so I didn't notice your had basically the same point.

 

[Nervous Rex]

I have re-read your answer and it is more detailed and specific and sorry, I didn't read and understand all the comments fully, so I didn't notice your had basically the same point.

@kriss72, I wasn't trying to call you out or anything. I just thought, "Here's a discussion about long emails, and I wrote a long reply. Then someone else wrote the same thing, but actually made it short."

If anything, I was poking fun at myself. I hope I didn't make you feel bad.

 

[kriss72]

@kriss72, I wasn't trying to call you out or anything. I just thought, "Here's a discussion about long emails, and I wrote a long reply. Then someone else wrote the same thing, but actually made it short."

If anything, I was poking fun at myself. I hope I didn't make you feel bad.

No worries but yeah, your comment it's actually on point for this thread, and I like the long answer you gave

 

[Forest Cat]

I have always had a tendency to write too much/long. But I learned to make drafts. I write something and then I take a break and look it over a little later. And usually I can remove 2/3 of it and rephrase a few things and then it looks better and shorter.

 

[Thinx]

Yes I have to edit, often, texts or emails. I can be brief but it's not my usual style. I read unedited stuff I've written sometimes and think, wha-at? Gonna stop there.

 

[DuckRabbit]

Read on Instagram:

"When you hear someone over-explaining, know one (or all) of these is true:

• They need proof/ validation & have often had their reality denied.
• They’ve been hurt in unpredictable ways & believe it was because they didn’t explain better.
• They’ve grown up being ignored."

@healing_out
@nate_postlethwt

I'm sure at least some of these are behind many people sending overly long emails. But also the reason given by @Nervous Rex: thinking others are as fascinated by the details as you are, and would find it as helpful to know about them as you do - informative and transparent - but that couldn't be further from the truth as the recipient is invariably a generaliser and just wants the gist.

 

[MROSS]

With the growing presence of 'Artificial Intelligence' (AI) - a human had asked the question if my writing style in a discussion-forum (not just email content) was produced via AI? The content in question was not lengthy, but a moderate-length read.

Has anybody been reminded that their (human) writing styles seemed similar to A.I. produced content?

 

[GypsyMoth]

Does anyone else encounter conflict or non-response from the world because of writing overly long emails?

Does anyone have any strategies for resisting or avoiding overly long emails? Or are the emails correct but the world at fault for having such a short attention-span?

Any reflections you have on the finding of 'disproportionate and unbalanced correspondence' would be welcome. FYI: "ASC" = Autistic Spectrum Conditions.

Hey @DuckRabbit, not sure if this has been covered or not, having only read some of the responses so far, but you (and others) may find it helpful. Questions that may help in better framing any email for your audience include:

1.) Consider the audience. Will this email be sent to a:
- Business Colleague?
- Friend?
- Acquaintance?

2.) Consider the purpose. Is it for:
- Information gathering. Is it asking a question?
- Information disseminating. Is it providing an answer?
- Just saying "hello".

3.) Consider the content.
- What will best convey your message? A message that is Short/overview or one that is Lengthy/detailed.
- Are you replying to a list of questions? Reply in-text to the questions with short, 1-2 sentence responses in a color other than what was in the original post, so that your replies will stand out.
- Are you asking a list of questions? Bullet-point them, so it will be easier for the email to be replied to.

My workplace rule-of-thumb was 1 topic per email & brevity saves the day, because when at work, shorter is sweeter. I.e., can you say what you need to say in 3 sentences or less? Why? People don't 'read' at work--they skim. They're busy; make their job easier by giving them what they need and only what they need.

If the 1 topic required explanatory points, I tried to limit the number of supporting points. A good rule of thumb is to stick to no more than three supporting points--anything more than that requires a phone call. Again, only provide a sentence or two per supporting point.


So far as the general 'hello' email goes, my only advise there is that if your friend doesn't care for long emails, give them a call. I have written many letters (snail mail, i.e., with pen on paper letters) only to decide afterwards not to send them but to call instead.

Every once in a while I still run across a letter I haven't yet deep-sixed and am grateful I didn't send it. Most people I know don't appreciate the time and care it takes to write a 6-10 page letter. They just think it's ... well, I think they just think it's a bit of overkill.

I don't write decent letters anymore. If I send anything, it's just a preprinted card and all I do is sign my name.

 

[GypsyMoth]

Has anybody been reminded that their (human) writing styles seemed similar to A.I. produced content?

Depends on:
1.) the AI in question (how it's been programmed/what it's looking for)
2.) your educational level
3.) the sophistication with which you present your message (i.e., are you purposefully simplifying your writing style for a broad audience or are you expected to write at a college level because this is a paper that you're preparing to turn in? See points 4 & 5.)
4.) your content (formal/informal)
5.) your audience (business/academic/social; general/targeted)

As an experiment, I ran a short piece of something I had written through 5 AI's. Most of the AI's agreed that much of what I had written was human in origin, but there was that one stand out that claimed my writing was 30% AI generated. So, go figure.

 

[GypsyMoth]

Good topic!
... reminded me of an underwriting manager who always emphasized "kiss-kick-kiss". To be cordial in your written opening, and then deliver the bad news, but to do so as briefly as possible. Followed up by a friendly good-bye.

We called that "the sandwich method" in Toastmasters.
Works, too.

 

[MROSS]

Depends on:
1.) the AI in question (how it's been programmed/what it's looking for)
2.) your educational level
3.) the sophistication with which you present your message (i.e., are you purposefully simplifying your writing style for a broad audience or are you expected to write at a college level because this is a paper that you're preparing to turn in? See points 4 & 5.)
4.) your content (formal/informal)
5.) your audience (business/academic/social; general/targeted)

As an experiment, I ran a short piece of something I had written through 5 AI's. Most of the AI's agreed that much of what I had written was human in origin, but there was that one stand out that claimed my writing was 30% AI generated. So, go figure.

My response to content misunderstood as AI produced was to remove content from the discusison-forum, and discontinue future contributions to the discussion-forum. I sense this discussion-forum can (at times) be judeged as snobbish.

 

[Hypnalis]

We called that "the sandwich method" in Toastmasters.
Works, too.

It works once on almost everyone. Almost always with children and some adults.

But there's a downside: using it on some people or in some contexts will get you reclassified to "NPC" and/or conversationally nuked. e.g. tricks like that is very unpopular in my business (IT) because we're good at logic and analysis - we only get tricked/manipulated once.

On the main topic:

@DuckRabbit

You have two specific problems, and something that makes you skip over an essential part of your writing:
You're not planning or tuning content. You're not editing well. The third is the "why" - those errors probably have the same cause,

The TLDR version of the fix (@GypsyMoth 's is a more substantial version of the tame thing):

1. Write what needs to be said. No more, no less. Concise but slightly imperfect is a lot better than wordy and overly detailed.
2. Read and edit your communications. Nobody writes the best letter/email/post/document they are capable of in a single draft
3. Consider what the reader wants/needs. This is harder during the "creative phase" (1), easier during editing (2)

People who receive emails that over-explain (note that "over" unambiguously means "too much") have some typical reactions:
* They note that they have to work too hard to find the real content.
* They note that the writer has demonstrated a lack of consideration for the reader
* They note that the writer didn't properly consider what they were doing
* They question the writer's capability in this often essential skill

These aren't extreme problems, but they're all negative. If it's apart of applying for employment, such an email will get ditched immediately if there are several other suitable candidates who write better emails.

:
:
That Instagram thing is a small part of a much larger picture (very much Instagram style /lol). Ignore it.
It's the result of the speaker having the "frog in the bottom of a well" problem, but self induced. They've limited their view of the world, and of the nature of the causes and effects of human interactions, to the point there they're just "NPCs".

So you can safely ignore whatever that poorly self-programed NPC had to say.
They've destroyed their own analytical ability via the "if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem.

My advice:
* Online, ignore NPCs. Don't read. Don't reply.
* IRL: disengage immediately without bothering with polite phrases. They cannot possibly contribute to your life, and while they're more likely to be boring than dangerous, with useless people even a tiny risk justifies immediate disengagement.

Think of it like being approached by a street salesmen/chuggers.
I walk around them without slowing down if I'm moving. Why say "Sorry I'm not interested"? They know that. And they may be e.g. a pickpocket.

 

[Hypnalis]

@MROSS

It sounds like you've received a comment from an "NPC human".

An example of something that happened to me:

I was engaged in a "flame war" on a (very) high-temperature gaming forum (EVE Online), and at the time it made sense to react to every "sniper".
I got "shot at" by an obvious late-teenaged boy (plenty of those play EVE), and used my reply to make a wider point (for the whole thread) that indirectly pointed out that I wasn't impressed by what he said.

He couldn't find a way to counter attack (basic flame war technique: always write defensively), so he attacked me for my grammar /lol.

Obviously I don't make my living as a novelist, but I've written courses, a couple of technical books, many presentations, and thousands of business emails. None of it is art, but I know my grammar is ok.

On point: you probably induced the same effect. Someone who couldn't find a way to refute your point or attack you personally, and is dumb enough that they "brain-locked" themselves (a kind of mental tantrum in this case) and attacked in a way that, on second glance, is obvious nonsense .

In that case, your AI accusation was like my "illiteracy" accusation. Essentially the poster signaling their own stupidity
You can take the win (because it was a win - your attacker made themselves uncomfortable doing that).
Or you can nuke them.

I prefer to leave that kind of thing hanging, because the discomfort doesn't go away immediately: unresolved "cognitive dissonance" takes a while to wear off. If you nuke them, they get a brief period of marginally higher discomfort which is then resolved quickly.

(BTW - polite "nuking" isn't particularly difficult, though like anything else there's a "startup cost".
For example you could "pretend" to actually be an AI, briefly "analyze" their post, and "reject" it for inclusion into your AI knowledge base it because it's entirely content free.)

Polite, potentially amusing for the others in the forum, plausible deniability, and quite difficult to respond to, since the actual refutation ("I'm not an AI") is masked. But to the other poster it will feel like an ad hominem, with the added possibility of frustration that they find responding difficult.

Full disclosure: I used to enjoy that kind of thing. I lost interest and opportunity when I stopped online gaming, but it was fun at the time

 

[MROSS]

@MROSS

It sounds like you've received a comment from an "NPC human".

An example of something that happened to me:

I was engaged in a "flame war" on a (very) high-temperature gaming forum (EVE Online), and at the time it made sense to react to every "sniper".
I got "shot at" by an obvious late-teenaged boy (plenty of those play EVE), and used my reply to make a wider point (for the whole thread) that indirectly pointed out that I wasn't impressed by what he said.

He couldn't find a way to counter attack (basic flame war technique: always write defensively), so he attacked me for my grammar /lol.

Obviously I don't make my living as a novelist, but I've written courses, a couple of technical books, many presentations, and thousands of business emails. None of it is art, but I know my grammar is ok.

On point: you probably induced the same effect. Someone who couldn't find a way to refute your point or attack you personally, and is dumb enough that they "brain-locked" themselves (a kind of mental tantrum in this case) and attacked in a way that, on second glance, is obvious nonsense .

In that case, your AI accusation was like my "illiteracy" accusation. Essentially the poster signaling their own stupidity
You can take the win (because it was a win - your attacker made themselves uncomfortable doing that).
Or you can nuke them.

I prefer to leave that kind of thing hanging, because the discomfort doesn't go away immediately: unresolved "cognitive dissonance" takes a while to wear off. If you nuke them, they get a brief period of marginally higher discomfort which is then resolved quickly.

(BTW - polite "nuking" isn't particularly difficult, though like anything else there's a "startup cost".
For example you could "pretend" to actually be an AI, briefly "analyze" their post, and "reject" it for inclusion into your AI knowledge base it because it's entirely content free.)

Polite, potentially amusing for the others in the forum, plausible deniability, and quite difficult to respond to, since the actual refutation ("I'm not an AI") is masked. But to the other poster it will feel like an ad hominem, with the added possibility of frustration that they find responding difficult.

Full disclosure: I used to enjoy that kind of thing. I lost interest and opportunity when I stopped online gaming, but it was fun at the time

What is the acronym 'NPC?' Context of 'NPC?'

I had quietly "walked away" from a forum which sometimes left the impression of snobbery - hence it's not surprising that my post was mistaken for A.I. generated content.

This online forum offered 'Join' and 'Leave' options. I had also opted to click the 'Leave' button on this forum - as a part of quietly walking away.

 

[Hypnalis]

I assumed your post meant you'd been told your post was AI-like by another participant - i.e. a real person.
If it was actually the forum logic doing something like a virus scan on your post, nothing I said is relevant.

If that's the case, I'm sorry for making such a confusing post.


As for your specific question:

NPC is "gamer-speak": NPC = Non-Player Character.
An example is the "merchants" you can exchange "game gold" and items with.

They're generally "operated" by the lowest grade of in-game scripted AI.
Even the dumbest monsters are much "smarter"

It's used in pop culture in a few different ways.
Often (as in my post) to suggest to someone that they're not really holding up their side of a conversion in good faith. For example they might be working off a "playbook" rather than genuinely exchanging ideas.

IRL it can be used as a fairly efficient and reasonably reliable counter to a "thought-terminating cliche". If they don't understand the reference they have to ask, which switches the initiative. And if they do, it still puts them "on the back foot".