[dfboyd]

I'm the original author of this content. I wrote it on the internal wiki at Google in 2007. Someone copied it and posted it at nohello.(something) after I left Google. It's made the front page of HN multiple times.

The discussions always split between the people who just want to get on with the conversation and the people who can't bring themselves to do that because they consider it unforgivably rude. The second group never seem to take the hint that the first interruption is an imposition in itself.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

There’s more than two groups. Some people are just being friendly, behavior which is hard to exhibit when you primarily (or only) interact with someone over chat. Yes, some people are just being nervous around potentially breaching etiquette in an ironic way that happens to be a different breach of etiquette (for some, at least) but I just respond with “hi” strictly because I am interested in getting on with the conversation.

It would be rude to simply link this site (not blaming you) in response to a “hello” coming from a remote co-worker, or even a co-worker across the office who just didn’t want to walk over. They are just being friendly!

I am one who would prefer to just get on with the conversation but I also realize that’s not how everyone is and that’s okay; I should play nice with others if I want others to play nice with me and a simple “hey” in response is such an easy way to play nice.

[yuriks]

The context I usually saw this used in is that people would put the link on their online status or profile bio, as a signal and to inform anyone looking to contact them that it's ok and encouraged to just go straight to asking their business. I've never heard of someone sending it to explicitly "chide" someone for violating that etiquette.

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> It would be rude to simply link this site (not blaming you) in response to a “hello”

That's why I set it as my status message.

[Isamu]

Ha, I’m another person that says “hey” in response, nice to know I’m not the only one with a preference for brief interruptions.

[dosnem]

Sometimes you do it because if you just ask the question you get ignored but if you say hello and get a response ppl are less likely to ignore the second question. Thats the bigger reason than any rudeness reason i would think.

[matsemann]

The opposite is true as well. If someone pings me hello, I might not answer immediately because I don't know if what follows will be a big or small thing, but after having replied I feel obligated to continue answering. So my decision is to not answer until I'm less busy.

If they however ask a question no hello style, I can quickly gauge if I can answer it immediately, or I should wait until a better time for me.

So the no hello might get an immediate response, the hello will wait until I can handle whatever.

[jrs235]

And if they ask the question and I determine I don't have the bandwidth to switch or immediately answer I can kindly reply such information. They're more likely to get a reply faster by skipping the hanging and dangling hello. "If it's important, they'll leave a message."

[CGMthrowaway]

This. The selfish point (there are other points too) of "hi" is to confirm you have their attention and to remove plausible deniability of "oops I missed your message."

[cxr]

Weird subthread.

> The selfish point (there are other points too) of "hi" is to confirm you have their attention

No one is unsure of the selfish/self-serving motivation behind the lone "hello". The singleminded self-centeredness at the expense of others is the _entire_ basis of the criticism.

This response is like encountering in a thread about lunch theft in the workplace, "Some people take food that isn't theirs because they didn't bring anything for lunch, and they see food that someone else brought sitting there in the fridge." The power of this response to be able to explain something not already understood is nil—and so is its exculpatory power.

> to remove plausible deniability of "oops I missed your message."

I'll dispute this. The overwhelming purpose is so the sender can confirm they have the receiver's attention so the sender knows whether to bother themselves with typing out the rest of their inquiry. They're happy to trade the negative consequences on others for a minor convenience to themselves.

[fc417fc802]

This is such a ridiculously cynical interpretation. I'm sure there at least a few people out there who behave as you describe but that is not normal. Greeting people before launching into a topic is a social norm. Even if you make a reasonable case that it is outdated in the context of instant messaging that doesn't change the reality of it.

Someone doing something that you consider outdated or inefficient does not imply that he is malicious.

[cxr]

> This is such a ridiculously cynical interpretation.

no u

> Someone doing something that you consider outdated or inefficient does not imply that he is malicious.

The absence of malice does not erase the harmful effects.

[fc417fc802]

You specifically attributed malice and I'm responding to that.

As to these supposed harmful effects. If you find the most basic of social pleasantries to be such an unmanageable burden then I'm likely better off not associating with you. Do you get angry at people who greet you as you walk by on the street? Navigating that interaction similarly demands some small part of your attention after all, however brief it might be.

[CGMthrowaway]

It's the confirmation of attention (the response to "hello") that removes the deniability of "I missed your message." In case that wasn't clear.

[cxr]

> The power of this response to be able to explain something not already understood is nil

[jrs235]

I agree with yuy. If it's not important enough to write out their inquiry, is it even necessary to inquire?

[jabroni_salad]

I would be okay with this if the conversation actually demanded a realtime response. But I can't know that until I see the actual first message, and they usually don't.

[simonw]

I've always been fascinated to learn more about cultural differences around this topic.

I've seen arguments in the past that different nationalities may have different norms around this kind of thing, in particular over whether it's polite to launch straight into a request for help without confirming the other person is available and receptive first.

There may be a power dynamics thing here too - if somebody is seen as being more "senior" there may be additional perceived constraints on how a conversation should be conducted.

Since you've been involved in conversations about this for more than 15 years now have you seen any credible evidence of cultural differences that come into play here?

[cxr]

The relevant phrases to search and which were frequently encountered online circa 2010 are "high-context" and "low-context cultures".

[emreb]

I think it is more of a if you are not there right now, and won't be able to respond, I am not going to write it all to wait for an answer later. I think most people want to make sure someone is there to respond before committing to a conversation.

[avemg]

But I find THAT attitude to be quite rude. You are prioritizing your preferences when it's me that you're reaching out to for help. Nobody's saying you have to write a complete and detailed problem description in your first message, but give me something to know what i'm getting into.

BAD: Hey, you there?

GOOD: Hey, you there? I'm trying to do X but I'm running into some issues and I wanted to get your advice.

Once I've responded and you know you have my attention, then you commit to filling me in on the gory details.

[yusina]

That "GOOD" is only marginally better than just "hi". It still doesn't include the actual point, so after me replying "yes I'm here" you are not much wiser and I'm not still on the hook of having to wait for you to type the actual thing.

[newdee]

Surely it’s more efficient (for both parties) to type and be able to read the whole thing and then respond meaningfully?

E.g. If you’ve just say “hi”, two hours later I get to my DMs and say “hey what’s up?” and you end up not following up with the “actual” message straight away, let’s say another hour later, this all took way longer than necessary.

The no-hello approach just makes sense when dealing with asynchronous messaging platforms such as Slack. IMO, not following the no-hello approach is bad etiquette and there’s a ton of people out there who still don’t really get that.

[jrs235]

Hi. I have a question but if you're not immediately available to discuss it then I won't go into it and move on for now. Are you available and interruptible for a few minutes?

[currency]

People either bring email etiquette (Hi, how are you, I need...") or phone etiquette (Hi, how are you?" ...) to chat.

Email etiquette has always seemed natural to me, but a lot of people read chat as a synchronous medium, so.

It's just another place where I need to have multiple modes on hand for different people.

[macspoofing]

There's another reason for 'hello' ... it's a way to make sure you have the other person's attention before launching into a topic or question.

[JimDabell]

That’s exactly what’s rude about it. Don’t make sure you have their attention. Just send the actual message.

If it’s urgent enough that the actual message isn’t enough, “Hello” isn’t going to cut it either.

[macspoofing]

I didn't make a value judgment on the practice, but it is a reason why you may get a "hello" message.

[cogman10]

Funnily, I've mostly gotten it at 3am. I've literally had 24h time lapse from the initial hello to actual question.

I've also had cases where I've immediately responded "hi" only to get the question about 1h later.

[CGMthrowaway]

That's only rude sometimes. We don't typically talk to other people in real life without confirming their attention (e.g. via eye contact) first.

[OkayPhysicist]

That's because we're communicating synchronously in person. If you say something when I'm not listening to you, I will probably start listening midway through your statement, and miss potentially vital info. In a slack message, I can just read it again.

[CGMthrowaway]

IDK about you but I get chats from 30+ different people and I usually miss at least one person's message a day as it falls off the "front page" so to speak

[int_19h]

I don't see how "hello?" helps with that. If anything, it makes things worse if everybody does that, because now half of those chats from 30+ different people are that, drowning out the useful messages.

[JimDabell]

None of this discussion is about in-person conversations.

[macspoofing]

>That’s exactly what’s rude about it.

By the way, I also hate the "hello"-only message. I am, however, guilty of writing "Hey. Do you have a second to chat" - typically in cases where either through chat or video conference I want to go through something that is more involved, and I also want some confirmation of understanding and acknowledgement.

[vel0city]

If the notification bubble just says "hello" it's on the bottom of the stack of my priorities. If it's "hey, this alert came up..." then it's actually going to flag my attention.

If you want my attention give me a reason to give it.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

That’s a poor reason; I just say “hi” back and tab out until there is another message. They capture my attention with details.

[kevindamm]

If the conversation needs that, many think that indicates it should be an email, or a meeting, not a chat.

[dosnem]

No way that makes sense. Email is for external conversations. Meetings are hour long.