Reducing the information content of a message, effectively concealing the information that you already plan to send after “Hi”, isn’t being polite to people with this personality, it’s frustrating.
What about the annoyance factor? "Hey why are these strangers contacting me and asking me to send you messages to contact them?! Do I look like your personal secretary??"
"Ignoring is an answer." - Except for when it isn't. Which is more often than not.
Was the message missed? Or possibly they were busy at the time and forgot to respond later?
If the few people I keep in contact with didn't try multiple times to reach me - I'd never talk to anyone. I'm hard to reach because the few methods of contact I have, I largely ignore.
I have a phone in my pocket that, without looking at it, I am willing to bet has 3+ missed calls and at least 4 people waiting over a week for a response to a text message and a sister who probably thinks I am dead because the last time I replied to one of her messages was over a year ago.
The fact that people like me exist runs entirely contrary to your claim and is why an explicit response should be socially necessary. If someone interested in dating me didn't try repeatedly, even if I was "ignoring them", they'd never get anywhere. Because chances are I saw their message, cleared the notification, and forgot to respond.
> If someone comes up to me and talks to me, I may not even respond immediately.
Maybe I’m too old fashioned, but there’s world of difference between ignoring someone contacting you through an async communication channel like SMS and them literally standing next to you and speaking to your face.
An important aspect of this kind of workflow — one that is kinda glossed over in the convo here — is that the relationship one have with a contact is fluid. If the convo with a contact is cool, and you're both having fun, you're probably gonna bump to more frequent exchanges, while if the contact never seems to engage, you're probably going to bump them down or even remove them from the workflow. There is no point in annoying people.
Clearly, this acquaintance of yours is not taking your lack of response into account. Or, they're just trying to get closer to you and you might be reading their message as inpersonal when it is actually genuine. Anyway, I can't see myself sending multiple messages per month to someone who never answers back.
That's fine. I'm not sure why that means they shouldn't be more clear. The GH comment was a preference. The problem here is that the message Signal sent sounds generic and can easily be interpreted as brushing the person off. They clearly interpreted it that way.
I would ignore a message like that as well. I would expect someone to state their purpose in a message before proposing some kind of call or in-person meeting. I don't think general "reconnecting" is a meaningful purpose.
I can’t even begin to imagine how would you approach someone in order to badmouth a random stranger and not have it reflect badly on you (aka you’d be badmouthing yourself more than anyone else).
Given a sample size of 1, that particular person was probably too busy or is not answering your messages for another reason (the situation would be different if your entire network suddenly turned away, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here).
No, that's an aberration perpetrated by software. The same problem has manifested in interviewing. Maybe you're thinking of "nobody owes you sex" instead?
If you greet a person in real life or over a call and they intentionally ignore you, they are being rude. Obviously, if you're being rude first, that's different. They can say "hey" back, or "sorry, I'm not interested" or "kind of busy right now, can we pick this up later?" There are plenty of options.
I understand that the way these apps are set up, responding like this isn't a winning strategy. Despite what the Internet would have you believe, there is a minimum social bar when there's a human on the other end of a comm channel.
Presumably a hybrid of #1, #2, #3 is most effective - there are audiences that will respond best to each. I assume the targeting data is out there.
Personally, though, I find the handwritten aspect of the letter, and the from a human being part of the text messages, to be the awkward parts. I've never met the folks texting me, yet they know my name and want to convince me of things. Its advertising, it feels pushy. Being channeled through a real human (even if they truly align with the message) doesn't change that. I might agree with the message, but I still don't want it to barge into my day like that.
reply