IM Conversations
Posted on December 1, 2008
5 Comments
What’s your take on Instant messaging (IM)? Is it Synchronous or Asynchronous?
Synchronous: You treat an IM session like a face-to-face conversation. Take turns and get a response before continuing. Interactive.
Asynchronous: You treat an IM session like an email exchange. Share your thoughts, respond as you can or have time. Or not at all.
Me? I reckon I am in the async camp. I might mix in a bit of sync, but I’m OK if you don’t respond immediately. I always thought most people were the same, but lately I’ve noticed a lot of IM conversations starting with a “Hi” or “How are you?” and then nothing else until a reply is sent. So now I’m curious — am I truly in the minority on the async thing?
I personally will start an IM convo cutting straight to the chase. Greetings and salutations can come later if necessary, but I’ll start the thing with the reason that I’m contacting you. Why waste time?
Comments?
Tags: im
Possibly Related Posts
Comments
5 Responses to “IM Conversations”
Leave a Reply
Please read the "Comments" section on the Disclaimer page. Don't use SEO terms instead of a name. That drives me nuts.
Oh, and contrary to what you might have read on some SEO forum, this is not a "Do Follow" blog.
I do think that GChOS will be a niche...
I would rather be Async, but I feel like I am rude if I start an IM conversation and I don’t maintain it as if it were face to face. The Async would fit me better as often i am in the middle of other stuff when I would like to ask someone a question.
I guess I’m in the minority with you then. I usually have 4-5 conversations going on at once as well as any work that might be open and trying to get in my way. I’ve also felt certain people getting annoyed when I don’t respond immediately but I treat IM like a rapid fire in/out box. Sometimes your there to get messages and or links and converse, other time, I just shoot stuff to people knowing they aren’t there for later viewing. I’m not sure how the habit developed, but I certainly find it preferable to being chained to one window and expected to answer everything right away.
I use e-mail for e-mail and IM for… instant messaging.
If I wanted to wait until later I’d e-mail it. If I wanted an answer right away I’d call or IM. If it can wait I e-mail or snail mail.
IM… it’s right there in the name… Instant. What? You think IM for you stands for Intermittent messaging?
I think the greeting in the beginning of the IM is akin to ringing the phone. If I greet and you don’t acknowledge, I assume you’re in the middle of something. If I greet and you acknowledge it’s like you answering the phone; you’re willing to talk to me. I assume if you’re unwilling to talk you will ignore the greeting.
But that’s just me.
Actually, Rich, it’s not just you
I tend to follow the same thought process…IM is for sync and email for async.
As for the greetings thing…I usually do a ping-like thing (my usual “you alive?” thing) instead of an actual greeting…if others greet me, I greet them back, otherwise, I don’t much care
I am the same way. When I message someone, I get right to it. There are a couple people that will message me saying hi and then won’t say anything else at all. It’s like people calling constantly and not leaving a message with a reason why I should contact them back.
I also don’t always respond or even expect responses from others immediately. Most people who know me know that I work and have two little kids to take care of at the same time, but some still expect me to be sitting there actively talking to them. (Then I stopped opening the messenger)