How do you feel about the impersonal aspect of the “BCC”? Personally, I think it has a detrimental impact to the connection felt by the reader. This is the internet and I don’t think e-mail is the only way a “VIP” e-mail address can be found. What do you think? Do you feel that the “BCC” can impact the connection felt by the readers of the e-mail? Should I really care about the often irrational fears of the “VIP”?

Techiquette:

Since the mission of the Techiquette is to be a “best practices” guide to online etiquette, the Techiquette would BCC the invitees, despite the fact that an email invitation in which all recipients are BCCd is a bit impersonal. Please see Rule #3 , for more information on why BCCing recipients of an email who don’t know each other is the “best practice.”

The risk of being a bit impersonal is smaller than the risk of upsetting a VIP (a very important person). If you were to CC (Carbon Copy) a VIP and, as a result,  share his email address with all of the invitees, he may hold a grudge against you and think that you don’t respect his privacy. It sometimes is the case that a person does not have his email addresses publicly listed on the internet, so your public use of his email address may be a big offense in his view.

If you really think that the VIP’s view is “irrational” and don’t care about him potentially holding a grudge against you, then by all means, send your email invitation to a CCd list of recipients, instead of BCCing them.

The Techiquette relies on a “best practices” approach to foster one’s online relationships and build one’s online network, so in this case, the Techiquette would vouch for BCCing your invitee list. Thank you for sharing your questions Mike. The Techiquette looks forward to hearing from you again soon.
Sincerely,

Techiquette

Ali:

I sometimes use the BCC when I am feeling lazy, and I always have a bit of remorse about it. The situation is always one in which i am sending the same email to, say, 10 different people – all in the same industry, but at different businesses. I simply don’t feel like copying and pasting the same email ten times. But I also want them to feel like i sat down and wrote a personal email to each one.

is this acceptable or should i just get it together and write separate emails all the time?

Techiquette:

Techiquette, I have to say I agree with the antiquated etiquette on this issue. I believe one should decline or accept an invitation based on their availability and desire to attend the function, not based on the other guests who will potentially be in attendance. To me, this would be similar to the guest asking the host what was being served at a dinner party before giving an rsvp.

Techiquette: In Rule #4, I posited that it is OK to politely inquire with the host about the identities of the invitees, except relating to:

1. weddings

2. funerals

3. all other traumatic events

AW:

You are right. It is only appropriate to politely inquire with the host about the identities of the of the other invitees, only after RSVPing.

An online correspondent trying to follow the “best practice” of techiquette would use these tips on how to find out the identities of the invitees.

How to politely find out the identities of the invitees:

1) If, and only if, you are accepting the invitation, is it appropriate to ask the host the identities of the invitees.

2) Ask the host your question “in person.” Never ask the host in an e-mail.

a) If you cannot ask the host “in person,” call them on the phone.

3) Think of a separate reason, other than your curiosity, for asking the host identity of the invitees. Never ask the host directly who the invitees are.

Below are some examples of separate reasons:

a) Dinner party- “What should I bring, for example: wine, salad, a dessert?” What are other people bringing may come up in conversation.

b) Bridal Shower/Bachelorette Party- “Is there anyone with whom I could carpool?” Who the other invitees are will likely come up in conversation.

4) If your host seems hesitant about answering your questions regarding your “separate reason,” do not continue pursuing your inquiry to find out the identities of the other invitees. Your friendship with the host is most likely more important than that.

Thank you AW for your comment. Do you agree with the Techiquette’s  list of tips on how to find out, from the host, the identities of the invitees?

Sincerely,

Techiquette

Another issue that arises from the dreaded, yet incredibly useful BCC (Blind Carbon Copy), is whether it is alright for Mr. B&I (Mr. Busy and Important) to inquire with a host or hostess, who has invited guests to a party in a BCCd e-mail, about the identities of the other guests before RSVPing to the party?

The answer to this issue is numerated to help you choose which section of the rule applies to your situation.

1. Antiquated etiquette: No, it is not alright to e-mail your hostess, Mrs. Posh*, to find out the identities of the other VIPs (Very Important People), who are attending the party.

*In case you were wondering if I were related to Mrs. Posh, yes, I am.  So growing up, I was never allowed to ask the host the identities of the other invitees and ended up going to loads of parties, at which I knew no one.

Rationale: Mrs. Posh would perceive Mr. B&I’s (Mr. Busy and Important’s) )question of who was on the guest list as rude. Asking who is on the guest list is rude because Mrs. Posh personally selected her friends to attend, and if after hearing the guest list, Mr. B&I opts not to attend the party, then Mr. B&I has just slighted Mrs. Posh by passing judgment on her friends.

I. Exception: If your hostess was born before 1960 and does not seem snobby, then by all means fire away your questions about the party. The hostess will likely tell you the identities of the other invitees and might even tell you whether or not the other invitees are swingers too.

2. The Techiquette: Yes, it is alright to inquire with the hostess, Mrs. Posh, about the identities of the other invitees after RSVPing.*

* My answer is not based on built up resentment against my relative, Mrs. Posh.

Rationale: We live in an era of instant gratification, via knowledge strewn over the internet. Unfortunately, Mrs. Posh is going to have to open up to a more progressive view of etiquette. If we can “Google” the weather on the night of the party to help us decide whether or not we can wear our suede stilettos, then we also want to  know who is going to be at the party that we are attending.

More importantly, Mrs. Posh should be happy that we even read her e-mail invitation; these days, most modern people use E-vites or Facebook to invite guests to large parties.

In sum, the best practice is to politely inquire with the hostess about the guest list, after RSVPing and subject to the exceptions below.

I. Exception: There are actually quite a few exceptions to this progressive rule of online etiquette. Here are a few of them:

1. weddings

2. funerals

3. all other traumatic events

II. Exception: This is where you come into the picture. Do you agree with Techiquette that, subject to exceptions it is alright to inquire with the host about the identities of the invitees?

On a side note, thank you to the online correspondents who posted your comments to Rule #3. I will be posting responses to some of those correspondents’ questions over the next few days.

Sincerely,

Techiquette

If you haven’t figured it out already, I am a big fan of acronyms, especially when it comes to online correspondence. For example, up to very recently, I had always preferred to use the CC (Carbon Copy) and had never been particularly partial to the BCC (Blind Carbon Copy).

Over the past few months though, online correspondence has been increasingly leaning towards giving the BCC a more prestigious role in the personal e-mail message. As a result, I’ve given into the temptation and recently converted to becoming a full-fledged BCCer when e-mailing people, who don’t already know each others e-mail addresses. The theory behind giving the BCC more “play” is that the VIP (Very Important Person), being one of the recipients of an e-mail message, does not have his e-mail address shared with the other recipients of the e-mail message because his e-mail address is hidden in the BCC.

After just berating the VIP in the prior paragraph, I can alternatively empathize with the VIP. Simply stated, the VIP doesn’t want his e-mail address shared because he is nervous that sharing his e-mail address with more people will result with him receiving more e-mail messages and consequently increase his vulnerability to Internet threats, such as viruses and spyware.

Based on this online security concern of the VIP, when sending an e-mail message to recipients , who do not yet know each others e-mail addresses, the “best practice” is to BCC all of the recipients of an e-mail message.

Becoming a full-fledged BCCer is quite a drastic measure though! Do you agree with this black and white rule? Or do you have a different opinion? Please share with the Techiquette your method of  handling e-mailing large groups of people who don’t know each others e-mail addresses.

Sincerely,

Techiquette

Techiquette:

I think the topics covered so far (and the ones noted for future posts) are excellent. I think your “Rule #2″ is bang on!!!

If it’s a group of people with a shared interest in all responses to a topic, great. Otherwise, hit reply all and ensure you remove recipients that don’t ‘need to know’ or care what you might have to say.

It is a huge pet-peeve when I get caught up in receiving what I would consider “junk mail,” especially when I can’t get off the distribution list until the thread stops or unless I “reply-all” and request to be removed.

That said… is it appropriate to “reply-all” and request to be removed? And how to do you do that without sounding as irritated as you feel at that moment in time?

B

B:

First, thank you very much for your question regarding the appropriate way to request to be removed from a reply all list. Due to the hoards of e-mail that we receive each day, this question is pertinent to all.

Next, the answer to your question, is “no,” the appropriate way for getting removed from a reply all list is not by “replying-all” and requesting “all” to remove you. Instead, the “best practice” for getting removed from a “reply-all” list is for you or a hypothetical you: “Ms. B&I” (Ms. Busy and Important), to respond to the “originator,” the one who wrote the first e-mail to all of the “reply-all” recipients, and ask the originator to be removed from the “reply-all” list.

This solution solves the problem of not wanting to be the “party pooper,” the person who ruins the “party;” the “party” being the “reply-all” chain of e-mails.

“Ms. B&I,” will notice one fallacy in this solution: people, besides who the originator, the only person who knows that “Ms. B&I” does not want to be on the “reply-all” list,  will no doubt add “Ms. B&I” back onto the “reply-all” list when they see that she is missing from the list.

Between you and Techiquette, those people, who add people back on a reply all list, have a little too much time on their hands. That said, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, for “Ms. B&I,” she must personally write each person, who adds her back on the list, and ask to him or her to remove her from the list.

Ms. B&I” shows tactfulness and respect for the reply all list by replying individually to each person, who adds “Ms. B&I” back on the list. Replying individually to each person protects “Ms. B&I” from appearing pretentious or too “busy and important” to be a part of the “reply-all” e-mail list.

Let’s just be brutally honest though: “Ms. B&I” is too “busy and important” to be a part of the reply all list.

Thanks for your question B!

Sincerely,

Techiquette

The “Reply-All” option in an e-mail message is a sociable sorority sister’s best friend and a private person’s pet-peeve. Even though, I would normally vouch for the fact that I am more of a private person than a sociable sorority sister, I’ve chosen to “reply-all” for eight years to a list of recipients that includes nine of my closest friends from high school since we graduated in 2000 and departed for college. The reason that I remain on the “reply-all” list is because I realize that I am a lucky person to be blessed with nine lovely ladies as friends.

The last time that all ten of us convened was during Thanksgiving of 2008, which happened to coincide with my birthday. For this special occasion, I bought one J.CREW gold rimmed sea-green colored bracelet to give to all of us.

Now, at this point, you must be wondering how one bracelet can be shared among ten people? The notion behind giving one bracelet to share among ten people was based on the book and film, “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.” The idea behind the “traveling pants” is that a temporary caretaker of the shared pair of pants would pass the pants onto another caretaker only after something “positively life-changing” happened to her, such as getting engaged, being accepted into graduate school, or buying a house. In other words, the one bracelet, to which I was giving to all nine of my friends, carried “good karma,” which would be useful during critical circumstances during each of our lives.

Additionally, when giving the bracelet to all of us, I made up a rule. Bet you can’t guess I like rules at this point?! Anyways, the rule was: at the time that the temporary caretaker relinquishes the bracelet, she must send a report, via an e-mail message, in the usual “reply-all” fashion, to the rest of us about the “positively life-changing” thing that had happened to her.

If you are still reading about this rule, I owe you thanks, as you probably have no interest in following a “traveling bracelet,” but to make the story worthwhile, let’s sum it up in one sentence. At the time that the first person with the bracelet (Let’s call her Tatiana) wrote her report about the “positively life-changing experience” via an e-mail, Tatiana selected a recipient list that did not include just her nine friends. Instead of selecting just us, Tatiana selected a recipient list that included, in addition to us, many attendees of the funeral of one of our friend’s father. The e-mail included the friend’s boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, as well as many other individuals, and the message body included sensitive information about our own lives: whether “X” had got into business school and whether “Y” had found a husband.

Despite Tatiana’s mix-up with the intended recipient list, we are still friends with her, and the bracelet is still “traveling,” That said, Techiquette still thinks that the best practice (BP) is rule #2.

Do you agree, or do you follow your own rule when it comes to “reply-all?”

Sincerely,

Techiquette

P.S. Thank you for the e-mail messages about your ideas for the “rules of online correspondence.” The most popular ideas have include the Blind Carbon Copy (Bcc) option, signatures, e-vites, and breaking up with boyfriends or girlfriends over an e-mail or gchat. Please continue to e-mail your questions about online etiquette to: Techiquette@gmail.com.

For the next few posts, I will be disclosing the series of rules to which I adhere in my own online correspondence.

Each post will include a new rule. I do not expect everyone to agree with these rules or to follow them religiously. For example, I have even failed to meet Rule #1 on occasion. If you have questions about any of the rules, ask away! Also, I am a strong supporter of the saying: “to each, his (or her) own.” If you follow a different rule from which you think others could benefit, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Techiquette

Rule #1: Respond* to all e-mail messages within 24 hours.**

*First, remember, an immediate response requires solely a short e-mail message.  The person, who e-mailed you does not need his (or her) itemized list of questions all answered right away. An example of an immediate response could be:

“Mr. Important: I am awfully busy doing “blank”, but I will answer your questions as soon as I am able. Sincerely, Techiquette.”

** Secondly, if you know in advance that you will be unable to respond to e-mail messages for a span of time that is longer than 24 hours, draft an “out-of-the-office” automated reply message so that the people who e-mail you immediately understand why you cannot respond to their inquires within an appropriate amount of time.

Personally, Rule #1 has proved quite effective. Once while on holiday in the Bahamas, I received a phone call from a prospective employer who had received my automated reply message after e-mailing me. My automated reply message included a phone number where I could be reached in the Bahamas and the length of time, during which I would be unable to respond to e-mail messages. After the prospective employer received the automated reply message, he rang me using the phone number listed in the message to ask if I could meet with him as soon as possible about a job opportunity.

Disclaimer: Please do not state exactly what you are doing or where you are going in the automated reply message. For example, I did not state in my message that I was on holiday, staying on a private island in the Bahamas and drinking pina coladas for breakfast. Instead, I wrote that I had no e-mail access for a specified period of time and that I would respond to all inquiries as soon as possible when I returned on “such and such” date.

Stay tuned for Rule #2…

I am a twenty-seven year old Washingtonian who enjoys tackling issues dealing with online correspondence.

Over the years, friends have solicited advice from me on social etiquette, i.e. when to write a ” thank-you” or how quickly to respond to a guy who has asked them out. Antiquated responses to those questions would have been to go read Emily Post’s “Etiquette Guide.” The question is: what are modern people like us supposed to do?

We want answers  based on our dependence on technology, especially since we’re more than likely going to send the “thank-you” as an e-mail, and respond to being asked out, via a message from an on-line dating website. The Techiquette is a tool that “plugged-in” correspondents can use to get 21st century answers to their etiquette questions dealing with the Internet, e-mail, and texting.

Please e-mail your online etiquette questions to: TheTechiquette  (at)  gmail  (dot)  com. In particular, The Techiquette is interested in your opinion on online etiquette topics, including, but not limited to, online networking websites, facebook, twitter, linkedin, online invitations, and stylistic concerns.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Techiquette