[AlanSE]

> If I get sent any messages like those examples on the left it actually upsets me.

I spend lots of time responding to issues and informal messages like that. Processing vague reports like this is nearly a daily task for me. The examples there cut deep for me.

Writing well just isn't natural. Mentally, you're on one level of the stack, and it takes work to back it out again. My forever case-in-point about this is log messages. Log messages are, by default, written terribly because the reader is not kept in mind. The log will be encountered with little context (maybe a timestamp) in the middle of a 5 MB file. If you are inside of a nested loop, your message formatting _needs to include both loop variables_, and when those are objects, there's a very non-obvious decision about what data from them is relevant to the log.

It's the same in human communication. Conversations do have context, yes. You can and should relax the rules of context as you get the ball rolling in a 1-on-1 chat with someone, but with many people in a room, or when starting a conversation, it's so important.

[squeaky-clean]

Agreed so much about log messages. I have a personal rule about them. You know how when you fix a bug it's good practice to add a regression test alongside the bugfix, so it's harder to introduce again? My rule for logs is that if I had to debug something and the logs did not make the problem obvious, change the logs so it will be obvious next time. Even with a bugfix and regression test, there will be similar bugs it will help catch. Or at the very least help you quickly prove that a new issue you're seeing is not a regression of that past bug.