[Chris2048]

The other person isn't necessarily waiting for the response. At the least, its a communication that you are about to ask them something, i.e. check back here in the next minute or so while I type out my question.

Also, "Hi" is a good way of finding out if a person is present, sometimes you might ask to call them instead of typing your question.

It also might be the case there are multiple people who can answer the question, so you want send out "hi" to a few of them to see who will respond right now.

[smeej]

If you might ask to call, just ask to call. "Hi! I have a question about X that would be easier to explain on a call. Do you have time to hop on a call for 5 mins?" is a better way to start the conversation by a factor of about 10,000.

You can even send this to 3 or 4 people and let anyone who doesn't respond first say you caught so-and-so first and are good to go now. Or just delete the message.

[Chris2048]

I would not send out multiple "Do you have time to hop on a call for 5 mins?" b/c then they might call me before I delete the message.

[reg_dunlop]

You don't have to answer every call you receive.

Then, you could send another completely Async communique detailing why you did not answer, which would then teach the other person to respond with a yes/no/silence/emoji, etc

[smeej]

Who on earth calls without confirming you meant right now?

But even if it happens, take the call, decline any others that come in, and explain in 5 minutes. You've still saved everybody time.

[vundercind]

Who doesn’t let the person who requested the call initiate the call?

[CipherThrowaway]

> At the least, its a communication that you are about to ask them something, i.e. check back here in the next minute or so while I type out my question.

This is part of what makes it such poor etiquette. You've created this ambiguous, open-ended distraction for the other person. You expect them to divert focus away from what they're doing so they can poll the chat channel waiting for you to get your thoughts in order.

At least include some context so they have a better idea of what you're about to ask.

[Chris2048]

> You expect them to divert focus away from what they're doing so they can poll the chat channel

They don't need to poll a channel, most chat applications will pop up a notification when a message appears.

What they can poll is the chat app icon, and to not be AFK in the next few minutes.

What would be the purpose of providing more context before actually asking a question?

[wepple]

Not a single one of these is a valid reason; they all add a distraction round-trip and getting straight to the point achieves the same outcome without the RTT

[gregoriol]

Chat is natively async: you don't need to know if people are there to ask a question, they might answer at any point in the next few minutes or hours.

If you do post just "hi" in a message, your question should come within seconds after.

[Chris2048]

true, but the same is true for email.

I use IM as more informal, (AND/)OR conversations with likely back-and-forth, that may require the other person to be present to be of use.

[gregoriol]

The risk is that by the time they get back to the chat and answer your "Hi", you might be gone and so their "Hello" answer might be useless to sync you both. Examples others provide to request a timeframe to discuss the subject would be much more efficient

[smeej]

So ask them for a time they're available to do that. Don't just ping them and hope to get lucky. Even if they have time to send you a "Hi" back, that doesn't mean they have time to talk to you, so you're going to have to ask that anyway.

[vundercind]

“Hey—have you got some time to chat about Fizz today? [Optional second sentence indicating level of urgency in your part]”

If they don’t get back immediately, you can safely assume “right now” is not a time they have. If they actually don’t know shit about Fizz and you need to bug someone else, they can communicate that when convenient without needing you at your keyboard when they do it, because at least they know WTF you want to chat about.

There is no benefit to just “hello.”

[nkrisc]

Or you can achieve exactly the same thing by just sending whatever message you were going to send anyway.

[Chris2048]

But I might not send it anyway, that's the issue.

[smeej]

You might be gathering this by everyone's responses to every single one of your comments, but you're using this tool fundamentally differently than everyone else and than it's meant to be used, and you're doing it in a way that inconveniences everyone who has to use it to interact with you.

Since it's a communication tool, you'll get better results if you use it like it was designed and like everyone else does.

[Chris2048]

I gather by the responses that there are a lot of HNers that feel strongly a certain way, but I do not confuse HN, or the participants of a pile-on, with "everyone"; nor am I fond of promoting this reddit style group-think.

I'm not asking for a poll, but reasoning (which is the explicitly stated purpose for this forum). If a thousand (apparently annoyed) HNers agreed on something but could not reason why, I wouldn't care for it. In fact, I've seen exactly this kind of cultish thinking among developers specifically, hence the existence of flamewars over notation preference.

The tone of some of these replies also suggest to me there's some projection going on, that also makes me defer to the explicit reasoning provided rather than the sentiment.

> you're using this tool fundamentally differently than everyone else and than it's meant to be used, and you're doing it in a way that inconveniences everyone who has to use it to interact with you

I disagree, but if you've already made up your mind, there's no opportunity for discourse here.

[smeej]

People are replying to you explaining why your reasons don't support your arguments, and explaining what the real reasons for using it differently are.

There's no opportunity for discourse, but it's apparently because your idea of "reason" is also different from everybody else's.

[Chris2048]

> explaining why your reasons don't support your arguments, and explaining what the real reasons

Their opinion differs to mine, and I also disagree with some of the counter-arguments.

Describing their responses as "real" versus mine is evidence that you've made up your mind, and are no longer objective about the topic.

> your idea of "reason" is also different from everybody else's

reasoning can be flawed or incorrect, but you are implying mine isn't reasoning at all. Care to back that claim up?

[CipherThrowaway]

That's even worse. You're sending out rounds of "Hi's" to multiple people, distracting them to prepare them for a question you might not even ask?

Candidly, you sound like an incredibly selfish communicator.

[Chris2048]

let's say you go up to a group of people working on desks.

You ask "Is anyone free to help me with <X>?".

Is this a "selfish communication"?

What about messages posted in a group chat?

[CipherThrowaway]

It definitely can be. The presence of uncontrolled interruptions is a common complaint in open offices. Individual employees tend to manage this issue with noise cancelling headphones. I've also seen eng managers create dedicated periods of focus time or designate a focus room for this reason.

But it doesn't matter either way, because in-person is a different medium to text with a different dynamic. If you'd read the article, you'd see this is directly called out:

> You're trying to be polite by not jumping right into the request, like you would do in person or on the phone. But Chat is neither of those things.

A group message is still chat, but it is a different dynamic to sending out individual messages. Can you honestly say - in good faith - that you don't see the differences between directly and personally addressing someone, versus addressing a group? Try to put yourself in other people's place and imagine how these things might be different.

I also agree with the sibling comment that walking up to a bunch of people working and saying "Hello" with no context then waiting around for a response would be poor etiquette. If you can see that people aren't working - that they are taking a break or already idly chatting - then I would say it's fine. But these are the types of rich context clues that you get from in-person communication that you usually don't get from chat.

Your reply from elsewhere:

> They don't need to poll a channel, most chat applications will pop up a notification when a message appears.

It was you that said the purpose of "hi" was to have them check back. If the notification were sufficient on its own, then you wouldn't need to say "hi" at all. They'll receive a notification once you ask your question either way. The selfishness is in the asymmetry of the interaction. The standalone "hi" is the lowest effort and highest ambiguity way of interrupting someone and asking for their attention.

> What would be the purpose of providing more context before actually asking a question?

So that people have some idea of how important your question is going to be, how long it might take to answer, whether it is relevant to the work they're currently doing and so on. Maybe you see a "hi" in chat and it doesn't matter to you either way. If that's the case, you are probably a minority among technical workers.

[smeej]

No, that is a reasonable way to ask for help.

What would be "selfish communication" would be to walk up to a group of people working at desks and just say, "Hello," and stand there awkwardly waiting for them to acknowledge you.

Same thing with a group chat. Asking, "Is anyone free to help me with X?" is a reasonable way to ask for help. Sending a whole group of people, "Hello," is a waste of everyone's time.

[Chris2048]

This was a question for CipherThrowaway specifically.

[nkrisc]

Why would you message everyone “hello” if you’re not going to send the message?

“Hello”

“Yes?”

“Nevermind.”

What?

[Chris2048]

What is the implied delay between "Hello" and "Yes?"?

[smeej]

Does it matter? Whether it's instantaneous or happens over the course of hours, that type of communication contributes nothing to anything.

[Chris2048]

Yes, but there is already a thread between you and me specifically on that topic so there's no need to answer other comments.

[reg_dunlop]

As others have said, don't ask to ask. And don't make me have to divide my attention, checking to see or waiting for something you may or may not eventually ask.

Oh by the way, I have a follow up question....

[addicted]

That is such a ridiculously inconsiderate approach.

Why can’t you just say “hey, are you available for a call now?” Instead?

[Chris2048]

"Hi, are you free?" seems just as good to me, and mostly equivalent (without reference to a call).

[smeej]

Maybe we need to approach this a different way to get through to you.

What is the advantage of asking, "Hi, are you free?" over asking, "Hi, are you free to talk for X number of minutes about Y?" Can you think of a single advantage?