Did you know that there exist magical devices that use your electrical outlets to extend your internet network?? So you don't have to wire your entire house if you want to watch Netflix on your TV!
You just plug an ethernet cable into one of these wherever your router is set up, and then another ethernet cable into another of these, anywhere in your house that you want internets!
Here is an example: Netgear XAVB5001 Powerline Network Adapter Kit
Showing posts with label modern technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label modern technology. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Facebook Etiquette: there's less than you might think
It's been a long time since we posted on Carolyn Hax, both because she is usually unimpeachable, and because her RSS feed URL changed, like, a month ago, and I didn't notice. Today's second letter on Facebook etiquette, from an oddly tech-savvy grandma, piqued our interest!
Ashley: Obv she's wrong. EXCEPT. When there's a big event that you're expecting to occur in your family, it's KIND OF your responsibility to keep track of it. That doesn't need to be on Facebook. From the letter, it seems like the sister knew about the pregnancy but not the day of birth. If she was interested, why didn't she call up and ask how things were going?
Lulu: True, the responsibility of keeping track of all interested parties and disseminating information to each one should not fall entirely on the shoulders of the person who has the interesting life, who is presumably busy.
Ashley: Hypothetical here. Let's say I have a thing coming up, an exam or something. It's a big deal for me but I don't assume it is for anyone else. I post on FB. If people want more details, they ask me. Why would I inundate the world with details if they don't care? Wouldn't that be the grilled cheese for lunch equivalent? You can't bitch about FB being too crowded with details and then demand more details!
Lulu: Wait... which one are you arguing against?
Ashley: Both of them! They're both wrong.
Lulu: Answering the LW's question directly, no, there's no rudeness in failing to check fb even if you went to the trouble of creating an account and friending someone, because people open fb accounts for different reasons. "For a lark" or "to play games" or "to check every blue moon when I'm bored" are legit, and you'd still friend people/accept friend requests, because it would be weirder not to.
I think if you want to know something about someone, you should contact them using whatever means of communication is most comfortable for you. Check their fb, call them, whatever. It's not their fault if they fail to contact you in the way you want.
It's also nobody's responsibility to keep up on your preferred method of making announcements. If you really want a specific person to know something, contact them directly; don't assume the message got to them unless you get a confirmation (response to post, email back, they say "uh-huh", whatever).
So, yes, I disagree with both of them too.
Ashley: Yay!
Lulu: This reminds me of a question I read awhile ago. Someone thought it was rude for people to post a lot, because it pushes the 'meaningful' posts off. It was like the opposite of this LW with her grilled cheese posts. Let's see if I can find it. I don't think we discussed it, which makes it more difficult.
Ashley: We didn't. I didn't read it.
Lulu: Yeah, when I search for "facebook" in my gmail I just get this:
1. You can use "Top News" instead of "Most Recent" and it will weight the posts which have comments and likes.
2. Using the pulldown under "Most Recent" you can filter to show only the most recent posts from the people in a particular friend group. So you can create a friend group consisting only of your most interesting friends.
3. To ignore specific people, you can click the 'x' which appears in on the top left corner of a news post on mouse over, and the dropdown offers an option to 'hide all by' that person. They will be added to your "hidden" list which you can also manipulate if you go to "Edit Options" under "Most Recent."
It does not need to be a problem that your friends are boring! No need to complain that people are being rude by being boring! It does not need to be a problem! As Miss Manners says, it's much harder to ignore them in person.
Ashley: I know! I'd rather have them on FB!
Lulu: What do you think about this second remark about how people are rude for not commenting? Like there's some kind of currency of comments and it's like Lendle borrowing and lending or something, where you earn the right to post a status update by commenting on other people's?
Ashley: Or like slash fic. Didn't you once say you'd only write a sequel to a story if you got to a certain number of comments?
Lulu: That was off the record. Anyway, it was to gauge interest!...
Okay, I do feel like the fanfic community is a specifc place where comments do serve as currency, to a certain extent. They are the only payment writers get. I sometimes feel like a taker for posting stories more than I read and comment on other people's work, but I've been assured by multiple readers that that's okay. There are enough people who only comment and don't post to make up for it.
So even within fanfic where "getting feedback" is a goal people are openly working for, it's still understood that certain people will 100% post and 0% comment, certain people will 100% comment and 0% post, and there is room for that.
And I never felt that that was a thing on Facebook.
Ashley: Right. I certainly don't comment on FB (maybe once a month?) and I never thought I was rude! I'll respond to other people's comments. Like if someone likes my sweater or something, I say thanks!
Lulu: I VERY RARELY comment unless someone asks a question. I never felt that there was any social pressure to comment. I think that social pressure is just in the LW's imagination.
Ashley: Agreed.
Lulu: There is also a Miss Manners from April 1 about Facebook invites, which i found in the process, but here, MM is right. Don't use Facebook invites if you need an RSVP.
In conclusion:
Facebook is good for some things and not others!
If you have preferences for what method to keep in contact with, you should use that method! To keep in contact! But don't expect others to know which method is best for you.
Post whatever you want to post! Read whatever you want to read!
GIVE US COMMENTz0RS LoLoLoL!!
Recently, I had the following conversation with my sister:Carolyn's response basically amounts to "leave me out of it," an unusual but fun choice coming from an advice columnist.
Me: “I’m taking care of my grandson until his mom and the new baby come home from the hospital.”
Sis: “WHAT? When was the baby born? Why didn’t you tell me?”
Me: “Well . . . we posted it on Facebook . . .”
Sis: “Oh, I never bother with that!”
Maybe I should have given her the news personally, but at the same time, I feel slighted that she’s not interested in me enough to read my “public” news.
It’s not the first time I’ve run into this sort of thing — I’m not young, and neither are most of my friends. Many are technologically challenged. Some don’t understand that “I had a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch” means “I don’t have exciting news, but I’m alive and well,” rather than, “I’m going to force you to read every tedious detail about my life.” I understand that.
But having gotten to the point of opening a Facebook account and becoming “friends” with me, would you say there’s any rudeness in failing to check it occasionally?
Oh my goodness.Lulu: You're supposed to keep up religiously with all your fb news feed posts? What if you have hundreds of friends? I think I'm the only person I know with a two-digit number of friends, and even I miss tons of updates if I happen not to check for a day or two.
If the outcome you want is to get along with your sister, then learn from this without prejudice and start sharing big news with her (and others) directly. If what you want is to find fault with your sister, then you’ll have to look somewhere else.
Ashley: Obv she's wrong. EXCEPT. When there's a big event that you're expecting to occur in your family, it's KIND OF your responsibility to keep track of it. That doesn't need to be on Facebook. From the letter, it seems like the sister knew about the pregnancy but not the day of birth. If she was interested, why didn't she call up and ask how things were going?
Lulu: True, the responsibility of keeping track of all interested parties and disseminating information to each one should not fall entirely on the shoulders of the person who has the interesting life, who is presumably busy.
Ashley: Hypothetical here. Let's say I have a thing coming up, an exam or something. It's a big deal for me but I don't assume it is for anyone else. I post on FB. If people want more details, they ask me. Why would I inundate the world with details if they don't care? Wouldn't that be the grilled cheese for lunch equivalent? You can't bitch about FB being too crowded with details and then demand more details!
Lulu: Wait... which one are you arguing against?
Ashley: Both of them! They're both wrong.
Lulu: Answering the LW's question directly, no, there's no rudeness in failing to check fb even if you went to the trouble of creating an account and friending someone, because people open fb accounts for different reasons. "For a lark" or "to play games" or "to check every blue moon when I'm bored" are legit, and you'd still friend people/accept friend requests, because it would be weirder not to.
I think if you want to know something about someone, you should contact them using whatever means of communication is most comfortable for you. Check their fb, call them, whatever. It's not their fault if they fail to contact you in the way you want.
It's also nobody's responsibility to keep up on your preferred method of making announcements. If you really want a specific person to know something, contact them directly; don't assume the message got to them unless you get a confirmation (response to post, email back, they say "uh-huh", whatever).
So, yes, I disagree with both of them too.
Ashley: Yay!
Lulu: This reminds me of a question I read awhile ago. Someone thought it was rude for people to post a lot, because it pushes the 'meaningful' posts off. It was like the opposite of this LW with her grilled cheese posts. Let's see if I can find it. I don't think we discussed it, which makes it more difficult.
Ashley: We didn't. I didn't read it.
Lulu: Yeah, when I search for "facebook" in my gmail I just get this:
me: I have poked you.Lulu: Oh, here we go, Miss Manners from March 25.
me: you will be notified of the poke next time you log into facebook.
me: just so there are NO SURPRISES.
Ashley: I HAVE POKED YOU BACK YOU JERK
me: WHAT
What do you think about Facebook “friends” who post things that no one cares about, like “I took a nap today” or “I woke up feeling grumpy today” or “I got my oil changed today”?Miss Manners responds,
Also, and even more annoying, are people who post lots of pictures and comments about themselves, their kids, their vacations, etc., but never comment on anyone else’s posts. Please share a little Facebook etiquette for everyone!
What a gift those sites are for bores. If someone came up to you at a party and said, “I got my oil changed today,” how long would it be before you had to excuse yourself because you thought you heard your mother calling you?Lulu: The thing is, this doesn't need to be an etiquette issue. Facebook HAS TOOLS FOR THIS..
The good part is that it is easier to escape bores who have not cornered you in person.
Politeness in any form of discourse requires taking into consideration what would interest the listener, which is exactly the element that is missing in bores. It is a particular danger of Internet postings that what might interest one person is not of widespread interest.
Miss Manners is willing to imagine that the oil change would be of interest to someone planning to use the car; the nap would interest someone directly concerned with that person’s health or ability to stay up late for festivities that day; and the grumpiness might serve as a warning to keep out of his or her way.
No doubt there are general announcements intended for an entire circle of friends: births, for example, or “I won the lottery.” But one has to be totally besotted with someone else to be fascinated by the mundane details of that person’s everyday life — as indeed, bores are with themselves. You may be sure that they do not bring this sort of thing up because they want to hear about your oil change.
1. You can use "Top News" instead of "Most Recent" and it will weight the posts which have comments and likes.
2. Using the pulldown under "Most Recent" you can filter to show only the most recent posts from the people in a particular friend group. So you can create a friend group consisting only of your most interesting friends.
3. To ignore specific people, you can click the 'x' which appears in on the top left corner of a news post on mouse over, and the dropdown offers an option to 'hide all by' that person. They will be added to your "hidden" list which you can also manipulate if you go to "Edit Options" under "Most Recent."
It does not need to be a problem that your friends are boring! No need to complain that people are being rude by being boring! It does not need to be a problem! As Miss Manners says, it's much harder to ignore them in person.
Ashley: I know! I'd rather have them on FB!
Lulu: What do you think about this second remark about how people are rude for not commenting? Like there's some kind of currency of comments and it's like Lendle borrowing and lending or something, where you earn the right to post a status update by commenting on other people's?
Ashley: Or like slash fic. Didn't you once say you'd only write a sequel to a story if you got to a certain number of comments?
Lulu: That was off the record. Anyway, it was to gauge interest!...
Okay, I do feel like the fanfic community is a specifc place where comments do serve as currency, to a certain extent. They are the only payment writers get. I sometimes feel like a taker for posting stories more than I read and comment on other people's work, but I've been assured by multiple readers that that's okay. There are enough people who only comment and don't post to make up for it.
So even within fanfic where "getting feedback" is a goal people are openly working for, it's still understood that certain people will 100% post and 0% comment, certain people will 100% comment and 0% post, and there is room for that.
And I never felt that that was a thing on Facebook.
Ashley: Right. I certainly don't comment on FB (maybe once a month?) and I never thought I was rude! I'll respond to other people's comments. Like if someone likes my sweater or something, I say thanks!
Lulu: I VERY RARELY comment unless someone asks a question. I never felt that there was any social pressure to comment. I think that social pressure is just in the LW's imagination.
Ashley: Agreed.
Lulu: There is also a Miss Manners from April 1 about Facebook invites, which i found in the process, but here, MM is right. Don't use Facebook invites if you need an RSVP.
In conclusion:
Facebook is good for some things and not others!
If you have preferences for what method to keep in contact with, you should use that method! To keep in contact! But don't expect others to know which method is best for you.
Post whatever you want to post! Read whatever you want to read!
GIVE US COMMENTz0RS LoLoLoL!!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Efficient advice machines!
Ashley: What do you think about today's The Vine?
Lulu: I think if you have told somebody you do not want them to contact you anymore, you do not need to write them a thank you note. She can accept the gift given through the parents and discard or keep it as she wishes, because the parents don't need to be put in the middle of this, but if she has told her sister she doesn't want a present, then it's fine for the sister's presents to go into the void UNTHANKED.
Ashley: Yeppers!
Lulu: Hee hee. Anything to add or shall we move on to dispatching Miss Manners?
Ashley: I think that covers it!
Lulu: Okay, so today's Miss Manners.
Ashley: I do agree re: not making him think he was supposed to get you something, but I don't think a card necessarily implies that, especially if you like making them. Maybe make a stack and pointedly fish out his? So he doesn't think he's too special?
Lulu: Ha ha, yeah. Search ostentatiously through a messenger bag of red envelopes. This is similar to advice Darnell gave me about the candygrams - plausible deniability! She should definitely try to keep it simple and spontaneous-seeming, and avoid going overboard. She shouldn't send it in the mail.
Ashley: Agreed. Mailed would be weird.
Lulu: Okay, so we're done here too? We're so efficient with our advice today! Bam bam bam! Let's do another! Any thoughts on ex-girlfriend pictures on Facebook? This is in Love Letters, and Meredith comes down HARD on the side of taking down the pics.
Lulu: I don't see a problem with it at all. If facebook is the place you put all your pictures from your life, then obviously you will have a lot of pictures from every relationship. I don't think you should have a picture of you with your ex as your main profile pic, since that's the one that's supposed to represent you right now, but I don't see what's wrong with having outdated photos in your photo section.
Ashley: Maybe she should defriend him. Then she won't have to worry about it.
Q. I have an older sister. The thing about her is that she was a pretty comprehensively horrible older sister to grow up with, and a while back, I decided that I was kind of done with her being a horrible older sister to be a grownup with, too. ... I offered her a deal. I wanted to get off the merry-go-round of aggravation and nastiness, so I proposed terms which boiled down to some pretty elemental behaving-like-adults stuff. ... Sister said no, she wasn't interested. I said if that was her choice, then we couldn't have a relationship any more.
It's been about a year and a half since then. In that time I have seen her in person once, at Christmas 2009, at our parents' house. (I was civil, but distant.) The part that gets awkward? She still gives me birthday and Christmas presents, transferred via our parents. This Christmas, my mother followed this up with suggesting that I should write her a thank-you note for the present I had rather awkwardly taken along with my gifts from my parents and family friends.
I feel like doing so would be wrong — because I set a boundary and it's important to me to hold it, and because it would probably suggest to her that I was caving and we could resume a relationship on her terms, which I feel would be unfair, since that isn't going to happen.
What do you think? Should I write her a note — but tell her that I'm still not going to interact with her if I have a choice? Should I ignore it, and treat the gifts as damages for past injuries, or pass them on to charities? Should I reject the gifts entirely? (In my cultural background, refusing a gift is incredibly rude, and I'm reluctant to horrify my parents like that, but…)
A. But you're still interacting with her. You still have a relationship with her, and she still controls you through it. Standing right at the boundary line and informing her, over and over, that this is the boundary and you will defend it is not ignoring her or ending the relationship. It's creating even more thankless work and frustration for yourself within it. ...
Accept that she will not learn, give yourself permission to stop giving a shit, and do whatever requires the least effort and emotional engagement going forward. It doesn't sound to me like you've explained the situation to your parents, which you might consider doing, in brief, so they understand why you behave certain ways, but if it's going to turn into even more drama and they'll still make a federal case out of you accepting the gift, well, then just accept the damn thing. Take it, write a short thank-you note, and sell it on eBay or drop it in a trash can two blocks away. ...
You don't have to forgive her, or stop thinking she's a dick, but if you genuinely don't want to deal with her? Don't. But holding a boundary this unswervingly is dealing with her. Find another way, one that lets you go back to not thinking about her as soon as possible.
Lulu: I think if you have told somebody you do not want them to contact you anymore, you do not need to write them a thank you note. She can accept the gift given through the parents and discard or keep it as she wishes, because the parents don't need to be put in the middle of this, but if she has told her sister she doesn't want a present, then it's fine for the sister's presents to go into the void UNTHANKED.
Ashley: Yeppers!
Lulu: Hee hee. Anything to add or shall we move on to dispatching Miss Manners?
Ashley: I think that covers it!
Lulu: Okay, so today's Miss Manners.
Q. I seem to be at the very beginning of what might be a romance, having gone on two fun and innocent dates. I know that you encourage a period of "friendship" before plunging in. Would it ruin the illusion of just being friends to give a handmade valentine card?
I do like to make valentine cards with lots of lace and red hearts, but maybe that would seem silly. Should I give it in person, or mail it? Mailing it would require finding out the mailing address somehow. And, what should it say?
The general message I would like to convey is, at the very least, "I would very much like to keep dating you!"
A. Leaving aside the notion of "plunging in," which Miss Manners would prefer not to think about, she may well have suggested the friendship approach to romance. Not that she really expected anyone to listen.
So instead of courtship strategy, she will discuss your question in terms of the strategy of etiquette. As this has to do with the effect on the recipient, it may amount to the same approach.
The object should be to delight him, rather than to embarrass him. You know him better than Miss Manners does, although not much better, since you don't know where he lives. If you believe that a valentine from you will set his heart racing, go ahead. However, she believes that even if a romance is budding between you, it is all too likely to inspire the unromantic thought, "Uh-oh. Was I supposed to send you one?"
Ashley: I do agree re: not making him think he was supposed to get you something, but I don't think a card necessarily implies that, especially if you like making them. Maybe make a stack and pointedly fish out his? So he doesn't think he's too special?
Lulu: Ha ha, yeah. Search ostentatiously through a messenger bag of red envelopes. This is similar to advice Darnell gave me about the candygrams - plausible deniability! She should definitely try to keep it simple and spontaneous-seeming, and avoid going overboard. She shouldn't send it in the mail.
Ashley: Agreed. Mailed would be weird.
Lulu: Okay, so we're done here too? We're so efficient with our advice today! Bam bam bam! Let's do another! Any thoughts on ex-girlfriend pictures on Facebook? This is in Love Letters, and Meredith comes down HARD on the side of taking down the pics.
Q. [My sister's] boyfriend and the guy I've been dating for a month are both reluctant to remove their cuddly, kissy, coupley Facebook pictures with ex-girlfriends. Both men rationalize that they are trying to maintain casual friendships with these exes, and do not want to take the hurtful action of removing or untagging the pictures.
My sister and I lean toward thinking that this is a bunch of malarkey. My sister fears that her boyfriend still cherishes feelings for his ex. I don't feel similarly threatened by my guy's ex-lady, but I just feel awkward that his profile contains dozens of public photos of him with her! ... I can't relate to my guy's reasoning since I'm not friends with any of my exes, but personally I always take down coupley pictures once a relationship has ended. (I've also noticed that many of my guy friends keep pictures of their ex-girlfriends on their profiles. Is this related to gender?)
Help! What do you think we should tell our guys? Is there a standard of etiquette around this issue?
A: If the picture is on his profile, he should take it down. If it's tagged on someone else's, he's allowed to de-tag himself. Your feelings should be more important than his ex's. And if he's worried about offending anyone, he should slim down his entire gallery of photos so that he's just keeping the bare minimum.
Really, I've never understood the whole I’m-putting-everything-on-Facebook thing. I know I'm an old lady in my 30s, but it's about respect and privacy, two things that never go out of style.
You're right. He's wrong. And your sister is right, too. You can't start dating new people and expect them to smile at your Facebook profile if it's basically a scrapbook of your dating history.
Tell you guy he should take down the pics -- so he doesn't seem like a jerk. And if he doesn't agree, forward him your friend's text. He’s obviously worried what people think of him. He should know how this looks.
And maybe tell him that he doesn't have to replace those pictures with 100 photos of you. Make some memories in real life. Not everything has to be part of the display.
Lulu: I don't see a problem with it at all. If facebook is the place you put all your pictures from your life, then obviously you will have a lot of pictures from every relationship. I don't think you should have a picture of you with your ex as your main profile pic, since that's the one that's supposed to represent you right now, but I don't see what's wrong with having outdated photos in your photo section.
Ashley: Maybe she should defriend him. Then she won't have to worry about it.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Inconsequential Friday: Email Sign-offs!
Lulu: Ask Amy had a question about teen sex, but what I'm MORE interested in is the last question which is about work email sign-offs!
Ashley: Yep. I hate sign-offs. I just go: "-Ashley"
Lulu: Yeah, so do I. I put "-Ashley" too. Just in case.
Ashley: What does this person want instead? "Love"?
Lulu: Would they be okay with "Sincerely"? Because there is a meaningless one. Not only is it used past the point where you think about what the word means, but what it does mean is, what, "The above is true"? There's nothing more suspect than calling attention to your own sincerity. Like when people say "To be honest..."
Ashley: Yeah. So, dude, my kindle...
Lulu: And then there's cheers. Don't get me started.
Ashley: I didn't.
Lulu: Exclusively used, as far as I can tell, by bosses, professors, and other people who would NOT appreciate it if you walked out in the middle of the day to go to the pub. FALSE ADVERTISING.
So, friends, how should you sign off an email? We did not come to a conclusion! Let us know your thoughts!
Until then, we remain,
Your faithful servants,
Lulu and Ashley
Q. About two years ago I started getting e-mails from professional colleagues that were signed off with the word "Best."Lulu: No, you're being irrational. No sign-off means anything after enough repetition.
Am I the only one who finds this grating and pompous? Or am I just being old-fashioned when I insist that the sender sign off with a phrase that actually means something?
Ashley: Yep. I hate sign-offs. I just go: "-Ashley"
Lulu: Yeah, so do I. I put "-Ashley" too. Just in case.
Ashley: What does this person want instead? "Love"?
Lulu: Would they be okay with "Sincerely"? Because there is a meaningless one. Not only is it used past the point where you think about what the word means, but what it does mean is, what, "The above is true"? There's nothing more suspect than calling attention to your own sincerity. Like when people say "To be honest..."
Ashley: Yeah. So, dude, my kindle...
Lulu: And then there's cheers. Don't get me started.
Ashley: I didn't.
Lulu: Exclusively used, as far as I can tell, by bosses, professors, and other people who would NOT appreciate it if you walked out in the middle of the day to go to the pub. FALSE ADVERTISING.
So, friends, how should you sign off an email? We did not come to a conclusion! Let us know your thoughts!
Until then, we remain,
Your faithful servants,
Lulu and Ashley
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Unsolicited Advice On: Online Dating
Online dating has been the topic of several columns recently (well, sort of recently: we are so behind!)
Coincidentally, November 16 saw the misrepresentative-photo-from-online-profile problem in both Amy Alkon and Dr Lovemonkey. The questions, respectively:
Even though I often shake my fist at Amy Alkon's dating advice because it often boils down to "do not ask a guy out if you are a woman because blah blah blah cavemen blah blah thrill of the chase" (tell me, if me-Tarzan-you-Jane dawn-of-man savannah impulses are so powerful, how come I only like willowy, effeminate, beautiful, poor, weak, sickly men?), I've been continually agreeing with her stance on online dating. In a December 29 column, someone wrote in:
Do: Include one or more clear, recent photos in your profile (or send them with the first message, if you're using a personal ad/message board style site like Craigslist). By "clear" I mean that your face should be plainly visible--no weird close-ups of your eye or artsy black and white shots showing only your lips--and by "recent" I mean "taken within the last year." More recently if you have recently drastically changed your hair or become covered in pustules.
While it's clearly not in your best interest to post an unflattering picture, it's also not in your best interest to try to rope people in with a non-representative photo. Ideally, this person will actually meet you. Not only will they feel lied to, but they will lack the necessary tools to recognize you in a crowd.
Do: Include some basic content in your profile--your main interests, hobbies, and pastimes are good ones. "I will fill this in later" or "if you want to know about me, just ask" do not make good profiles.
Don't: Write a novel. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony: this post is long.) OKCupid, in particular, rewards you for a long profile, but really, people don't have the attention span to read through a list of every movie you've ever seen or a ten-paragraph essay on how complicated you are. It's hard to sum yourself up in a few sentences, but you really don't have to: you just have to provide an icebreaker.
Don't: List what you don't want in a potential mate ("no mind games, no judgmental bitches, no fatties"). It makes you seem negative. (YES YES I AM STILL AWARE OF THE IRONY.)
Do: Send out first messages. Don't be shy! The system doesn't work if you're shy. Like the profile, the first message doesn't have to be long, but it should give them something to respond to. "You seem cool" is fine to say, but by itself it's insufficient to start a conversation. (I feel the same way about "woos" or "winks" or whatever. I never respond to them, because I don't know how) Comment on something they mentioned in their profile; ask a question.
Don't: Look at the person's profile and comment on everything everything everything that is there.
Don't: Respond if you know you're not interested. I can see the argument against this--it's only polite to respond rather than ignoring somebody, and I will contradict myself later by advising you not to cut off contact without warning or explanation after a few messages. But it seems to be standard practice simply not to respond to first messages if you know you have no interest in following up, such that to do otherwise would just get the person's hopes up.
Do: Respond if you're not sure if you're interested or not. Only time will tell!
Don't: Overanalyze the person's first message. It can be hard to know what to say. Cut them some slack.
Do: Look at the person's profile, and find something there to comment on or respond to in addition to responding to their ice breaker comments or questions.
Do: Sign off messages with your real first name. It's silly to have to think of somebody you're becoming fond of as "xMEGATRONx412".
Don't: Message obsessively, ie. instant messaging or more than two letters per day, in advance of meeting. I agree with Alkon that the goal of online dating should be to meet somebody, not to form a whole relationship through messages. There are so very many ways for things to go off the rails when you meet them (what if you have nothing to talk about in person? what if they look nothing like their photograph, and you are shallow? what if they have the exact mannerisms of your evil ex?) Similarly, don't make plans for the future, other than meeting for coffee.
Do: Arrange a meet-up as soon as possible, for the reasons outline above. When is as soon as possible? Obviously it's silly to propose meeting up in your FIRST message, before you even know if they will respond to you. I can see proposing a meet-up in your response if you are the recipient of the first message, but that feels premature too, and to immediately follow up your own first-contact message with a request to meet feels pushy, too.
Therefore I posit that the sweet spot is when a total of 4-7 messages have been exchanged, or, in other words, when you have received two messages from the other person (whether you started the correspondence or not). One message could be seen as randomness or politeness, but two messages, to me, indicates a certain baseline level of interest.
Do: Explicitly decline a meet-up invitation if you are not interested in meeting up. Unless they've asked you to coffee in their first message like a weirdo, by the time you are asked for a meeting, you're at a point where I think it's impolite and cold to simply not respond. It's not necessary to go into details--"Sorry, I'm not looking to meet up in person, but thanks for the offer" is sufficient.
(Telling them the real reason also has its pros and cons. Letting them know, "I'm put off by your bad grammar" or "I found your racist manifesto on Google" may help them change their ways for a future potential date. But it also gives them room to argue. You're by no means obligated to respond to an argument, but it's probably simpler to just follow the usual Miss Manners advice for turning down an invite (example: vague, but firm.)
Do: When in doubt, agree to the meetup! Isn't that what you're there for?
Dan Savage has a list of tips about meeting people from the Internet (example) and while he usually focuses on meeting for no-strings-attached sex, his advice is good for all kinds of meetings:
Do: Meet for the first time in a public place, such as a coffee shop or bar.
Don't: Meet for the first time for the activity itself (sex, erotic foot massage, starting a relationship...) You shouldn't consider the first meeting a first date. It is just a first meeting. No matter how good the messages were, you really won't know, until you meet them, if you will want to date them or not.
Do: Have somewhere to be afterward. That way, if things go badly, you have an out, and if things go well, you are not tempted to pressure the other person / bow to pressure to make it an actual date.
Do: Let a friend know where you will be and who you will be with.
Do: Counterintuitively, I'm going to advise you to give the other person your real contact information (full name, phone number). It looks and feels skeevy to be given false information. I'd think twice about meeting someone who refused to reveal their real name. Plus, it's just a bad idea to try to meet someone you've never met without having some reliable, instant way to contact them if, say, you're running late or can't find them.
Don't: Initiate further contact if you're not interested. This is another case I think where quietly disappearing is okay; in best case scenario, the other person also quietly disappears and you're golden. However,
Do: Respond if they initiate further contact. At this point, the person is asking you on a date unless otherwise specified, so respond accordingly. You don't have to give them a whole break-up speech like you've already had a relationship, but you should specifically turn them down if you don't want to go, using the standard methods ("No thanks," "I'm reeeeeally busy," "I just want to be friends", etc.)
Do: Initiate further contact if you're not sure whether you're interested or not. The other person could be in the same boat, and if so, it's better to give it a shot than give up too soon. I AM BAD AT THIS.
If you do go out again, congratulations! You are now on a date with an actual person, and it no longer matters how you met.
And that's it! That's all I know.
Coincidentally, November 16 saw the misrepresentative-photo-from-online-profile problem in both Amy Alkon and Dr Lovemonkey. The questions, respectively:
I've been on about 20 dates with girls I met online, and 15 of them were much heavier than they were in their photos. I'm getting a little tired of this. Is there some acceptable way to ask a woman how much she weighs before you meet up?and
I have recently tried online dating... my last few dates have all lied about themselves in some way that was not revealed until we met... I understand that everyone ages and people often gain weight, but we're talking fairly dramatic differences here (like Cheers-era Kirstie Alley vs. late-model Kirstie Alley). That people physically change is understandable and I have flaws and am not that rigid about how people look. It is the blatant misrepresentations (a lot like lying) that I have trouble accepting. Am I a jerk because I feel this way?Lovemonkey agrees ("Someone who would send out 15-year-old pictures of someone 25 pounds thinner leads one to think, what else would he/she misrepresent to get the date?"), but doesn't offer specific advice. Alkon says to keep trying, in spite of the misrepresenters: "Just think of them as a price you have to pay for the easy access -- a sort of high technology fee. In the future, assume everyone's lying and be pleasantly surprised when someone isn't. To keep your emotional costs down, try to get women to meet you as soon as possible for a quick drink instead of carrying on at length by phone and e-mail."
Even though I often shake my fist at Amy Alkon's dating advice because it often boils down to "do not ask a guy out if you are a woman because blah blah blah cavemen blah blah thrill of the chase" (tell me, if me-Tarzan-you-Jane dawn-of-man savannah impulses are so powerful, how come I only like willowy, effeminate, beautiful, poor, weak, sickly men?), I've been continually agreeing with her stance on online dating. In a December 29 column, someone wrote in:
I've had some good experiences with online dating, but I just can't get over this feeling that it just isn't natural or sexy.Amy responded,
...with Internet dating, instead of waiting for that chance meeting, you have increase-your-chances meetings. With a few keystrokes, you can connect with countless people you probably never would've met, and select for the right religious beliefs, smoking habits, and/or weird sex habits instead of spending hours trying to tease the answers out of some guy in a bar.I have been internet dating on and off for a few years now. (Er, this is Lulu, by the way. Ashley has a "real life" boyfriend who is a "knight" and has an "IQ of 209". Whatever.) While I'm possibly a terrible person to give advice on it because it's never gotten me a relationship of more than a few weeks, I would argue that that is simply because I am terrible at dating. The Internet part--from profile to first meeting--I would say I'm pretty decent at. So without further ado, here is my unsolicited advice for online dating!
Where people go wrong is in turning what should actually be called "online meeting" into online dating. The same woman who'd go home with a near stranger she met in a bar will spend weeks e-mailing a guy to assess how good his grammar is before she'll feel safe enough to meet him. She'll tell herself she's vetting the guy, but what she's probably doing is getting attached -- not to the actual guy, but her idea of the guy, and maybe how smart and funny she is when she's talking to him. Investing all this time and emotion makes it somewhat devastating when she finally meets the guy and finds that he looks wrong, talks wrong, dresses wrong, and smells like rotting liver.
So, sure, there are pitfalls in online dating, but it can be a great tool if you use it wisely.
The Profile
Do: Include one or more clear, recent photos in your profile (or send them with the first message, if you're using a personal ad/message board style site like Craigslist). By "clear" I mean that your face should be plainly visible--no weird close-ups of your eye or artsy black and white shots showing only your lips--and by "recent" I mean "taken within the last year." More recently if you have recently drastically changed your hair or become covered in pustules.
While it's clearly not in your best interest to post an unflattering picture, it's also not in your best interest to try to rope people in with a non-representative photo. Ideally, this person will actually meet you. Not only will they feel lied to, but they will lack the necessary tools to recognize you in a crowd.
Do: Include some basic content in your profile--your main interests, hobbies, and pastimes are good ones. "I will fill this in later" or "if you want to know about me, just ask" do not make good profiles.
Don't: Write a novel. (Yes, I'm aware of the irony: this post is long.) OKCupid, in particular, rewards you for a long profile, but really, people don't have the attention span to read through a list of every movie you've ever seen or a ten-paragraph essay on how complicated you are. It's hard to sum yourself up in a few sentences, but you really don't have to: you just have to provide an icebreaker.
Don't: List what you don't want in a potential mate ("no mind games, no judgmental bitches, no fatties"). It makes you seem negative. (YES YES I AM STILL AWARE OF THE IRONY.)
Sending a First Message
Do: Send out first messages. Don't be shy! The system doesn't work if you're shy. Like the profile, the first message doesn't have to be long, but it should give them something to respond to. "You seem cool" is fine to say, but by itself it's insufficient to start a conversation. (I feel the same way about "woos" or "winks" or whatever. I never respond to them, because I don't know how) Comment on something they mentioned in their profile; ask a question.
Don't: Look at the person's profile and comment on everything everything everything that is there.
Darnell: This is something I have to curb in my own writing of messages. I am easily excited, and tend to defy your don't write a novel rule. I also switch very easily from "writing a hello" to "writing for my own amusement."Don't: Pin all your hopes and dreams on the person responding. You may not receive a response, and that is okay. There are many face-saving reasons why this might be--perhaps the person is extremely popular and can't possibly respond to everything without a personal secretary; perhaps they are no longer interested in online dating because they have an exclusive girlfriend or boyfriend or they've become a monk, but they forgot to update their profile; perhaps they are secretly only interested in a specific physical type, e.g. morbidly obese with tiny tweety bird ankles; perhaps they died. Hopefully.
Lulu: Same here, really. But it can be confusing to be on the other end, because you start to assume that the fact that they wrote so much to you means they really like you. But they might just like themself!
Receiving a First Message
Don't: Respond if you know you're not interested. I can see the argument against this--it's only polite to respond rather than ignoring somebody, and I will contradict myself later by advising you not to cut off contact without warning or explanation after a few messages. But it seems to be standard practice simply not to respond to first messages if you know you have no interest in following up, such that to do otherwise would just get the person's hopes up.
Do: Respond if you're not sure if you're interested or not. Only time will tell!
Don't: Overanalyze the person's first message. It can be hard to know what to say. Cut them some slack.
Do: Look at the person's profile, and find something there to comment on or respond to in addition to responding to their ice breaker comments or questions.
Messaging
Do: Sign off messages with your real first name. It's silly to have to think of somebody you're becoming fond of as "xMEGATRONx412".
Don't: Message obsessively, ie. instant messaging or more than two letters per day, in advance of meeting. I agree with Alkon that the goal of online dating should be to meet somebody, not to form a whole relationship through messages. There are so very many ways for things to go off the rails when you meet them (what if you have nothing to talk about in person? what if they look nothing like their photograph, and you are shallow? what if they have the exact mannerisms of your evil ex?) Similarly, don't make plans for the future, other than meeting for coffee.
Do: Arrange a meet-up as soon as possible, for the reasons outline above. When is as soon as possible? Obviously it's silly to propose meeting up in your FIRST message, before you even know if they will respond to you. I can see proposing a meet-up in your response if you are the recipient of the first message, but that feels premature too, and to immediately follow up your own first-contact message with a request to meet feels pushy, too.
Therefore I posit that the sweet spot is when a total of 4-7 messages have been exchanged, or, in other words, when you have received two messages from the other person (whether you started the correspondence or not). One message could be seen as randomness or politeness, but two messages, to me, indicates a certain baseline level of interest.
Do: Explicitly decline a meet-up invitation if you are not interested in meeting up. Unless they've asked you to coffee in their first message like a weirdo, by the time you are asked for a meeting, you're at a point where I think it's impolite and cold to simply not respond. It's not necessary to go into details--"Sorry, I'm not looking to meet up in person, but thanks for the offer" is sufficient.
(Telling them the real reason also has its pros and cons. Letting them know, "I'm put off by your bad grammar" or "I found your racist manifesto on Google" may help them change their ways for a future potential date. But it also gives them room to argue. You're by no means obligated to respond to an argument, but it's probably simpler to just follow the usual Miss Manners advice for turning down an invite (example: vague, but firm.)
Do: When in doubt, agree to the meetup! Isn't that what you're there for?
Darnell: Along the same lines as not assuming you'll want to date them because you found their messages intriguing: even if you didn't find their messages intriguing, maybe they really shine in person!
Basically, if you have nothing better to do, meet them anyways. Worst case scenario they murder you. Realistic worst case scenario, you get to tell your friends a funny story about your terrible date later at the bar. You become the toast of the town due to your humorous anecdotes and take over for Fallon in the late night spot when he is fired due to low ratings that are not Jay Leno's fault.
...This is starting to read like the end of a choose your own adventure book. "If you go on the bad date, flip to page 51."
Lulu: Online dating--dating in general--is kind of like that! You find yourself back on page 5 a lot. Easy come, easy go.
Darnell: And you just cannot figure out how to get to Page 15 where you become a spaceman.
Lulu: Right! You saw that part...
Darnell: Because you cheated. But then you felt bad about cheating.
Lulu: That's exactly what dating is like.
Meeting Up
Dan Savage has a list of tips about meeting people from the Internet (example) and while he usually focuses on meeting for no-strings-attached sex, his advice is good for all kinds of meetings:
Do: Meet for the first time in a public place, such as a coffee shop or bar.
Don't: Meet for the first time for the activity itself (sex, erotic foot massage, starting a relationship...) You shouldn't consider the first meeting a first date. It is just a first meeting. No matter how good the messages were, you really won't know, until you meet them, if you will want to date them or not.
Do: Have somewhere to be afterward. That way, if things go badly, you have an out, and if things go well, you are not tempted to pressure the other person / bow to pressure to make it an actual date.
Do: Let a friend know where you will be and who you will be with.
Do: Counterintuitively, I'm going to advise you to give the other person your real contact information (full name, phone number). It looks and feels skeevy to be given false information. I'd think twice about meeting someone who refused to reveal their real name. Plus, it's just a bad idea to try to meet someone you've never met without having some reliable, instant way to contact them if, say, you're running late or can't find them.
After the Meetup
Don't: Initiate further contact if you're not interested. This is another case I think where quietly disappearing is okay; in best case scenario, the other person also quietly disappears and you're golden. However,
Do: Respond if they initiate further contact. At this point, the person is asking you on a date unless otherwise specified, so respond accordingly. You don't have to give them a whole break-up speech like you've already had a relationship, but you should specifically turn them down if you don't want to go, using the standard methods ("No thanks," "I'm reeeeeally busy," "I just want to be friends", etc.)
Do: Initiate further contact if you're not sure whether you're interested or not. The other person could be in the same boat, and if so, it's better to give it a shot than give up too soon. I AM BAD AT THIS.
If you do go out again, congratulations! You are now on a date with an actual person, and it no longer matters how you met.
And that's it! That's all I know.
Monday, November 29, 2010
My important ipod
Ashley and I were together over Thanksgiving, which is bad news for the column, since there is no reason to chat online when you are in person! (We are far too lazy to do another podcast.) However, we did talk about columns.
Saturday's Dear Abby concerned a girl whose mother lost her ipod.
Lulu: We (and Abby) can agree with the LW until we are blue in the face, but it won't bring back the iPod, or necessarily convince her mother to get her a new one. She will probably have to buy a new one herself. But her music and content may be saved. I assume from her name-dropping that it's an official Apple iPod, in which case I believe her account is based on email address, and not necessarily tied to her device. She should log into the Apple website and see what she can salvage. If nothing else, she can look up the number for customer support and ask them if her content can be transferred to a new device. In the future, she should remember to back up her content.
Ashley: If she buys a new iPod now, what's to stop this from happening again?
Lulu: It will keep happening again.
Ashley: The mother may know she is wrong, but still be unable to back down from her original position. She may agree to a compromise: the daughter buys a new iPod now, but in the future, the iPod is off limits for punishment. The mother can take away something else.
Lulu: Generally, anything a child bought with her own money should be off limits for deprivation punishments. It just doesn't make sense; the child's own purchases are not the parent's property to take away!
Ashley: Well, the parent probably gave her the money in the first place, for example through an allowance. But if that's the case, stopping future allowances would be a better punishment than taking away past allowances (or the objects bought with them). If we consider an allowance as a reward for good behavior, then bad behavior should result in no more rewards, not the removal of past awards. She already earned the past rewards!
Lulu: If nothing else, for the cost of a new low-end iPod shuffle, she could get at least two no-name generic mp3 players. She'll have to redownload and/or rerip her music to start with, but if she stores it in several places (multiple mp3 players, a computer, maybe some $5 flash drives...), she's unlikely to lose it all ever again. And when her mom takes away her mp3 player, she can just dig out her backup(s).
So, good luck, iPod girl. Nobody can make your mom be reasonable, but at least you have some arguments and compromises you can try. And techie workarounds. Techie workarounds to parental punishments is kind of our speciality.
Saturday's Dear Abby concerned a girl whose mother lost her ipod.
DEAR ABBY: I'm 13, and about six months ago my mom confiscated my iPod because I misbehaved. When it was time to get my iPod back, my mom couldn't find it. We have been searching everywhere in the house for it - but it's gone.Unsurprisingly, because we are often on the side of kids and because we are always on the side of logic, we believe that the mother should honor the terms of the original punishment, which was the temporary loss of her mp3 player. When the mother chose to take custody of it, she assumed the responsibility of remembering where it was. This was a situation where we weren't sure which way Abby was going to go, but she agreed:
My iPod is very important to me because almost every cent I earned went into buying the music and applications. The amount of money I spent is greater than the cost of the iPod itself. I asked my mother to buy me a new one to replace the one she lost, but she said it was my fault that it was taken away, and she could not keep track of where it was.
I think it is unfair that my mom lost something I spent so much on. Who is responsible for buying a new one?
Good parents model responsible behavior for their children; that's how children learn. You misbehaved and you were punished for it. If the agreement was that you would get your iPod back, and your mother lost it, then she should replace it - including the money you invested in loading it. She should be ashamed of herself for trying to weasel out of it.I will paraphrase our further advice.
Lulu: We (and Abby) can agree with the LW until we are blue in the face, but it won't bring back the iPod, or necessarily convince her mother to get her a new one. She will probably have to buy a new one herself. But her music and content may be saved. I assume from her name-dropping that it's an official Apple iPod, in which case I believe her account is based on email address, and not necessarily tied to her device. She should log into the Apple website and see what she can salvage. If nothing else, she can look up the number for customer support and ask them if her content can be transferred to a new device. In the future, she should remember to back up her content.
Ashley: If she buys a new iPod now, what's to stop this from happening again?
Lulu: It will keep happening again.
Ashley: The mother may know she is wrong, but still be unable to back down from her original position. She may agree to a compromise: the daughter buys a new iPod now, but in the future, the iPod is off limits for punishment. The mother can take away something else.
Lulu: Generally, anything a child bought with her own money should be off limits for deprivation punishments. It just doesn't make sense; the child's own purchases are not the parent's property to take away!
Ashley: Well, the parent probably gave her the money in the first place, for example through an allowance. But if that's the case, stopping future allowances would be a better punishment than taking away past allowances (or the objects bought with them). If we consider an allowance as a reward for good behavior, then bad behavior should result in no more rewards, not the removal of past awards. She already earned the past rewards!
Lulu: If nothing else, for the cost of a new low-end iPod shuffle, she could get at least two no-name generic mp3 players. She'll have to redownload and/or rerip her music to start with, but if she stores it in several places (multiple mp3 players, a computer, maybe some $5 flash drives...), she's unlikely to lose it all ever again. And when her mom takes away her mp3 player, she can just dig out her backup(s).
So, good luck, iPod girl. Nobody can make your mom be reasonable, but at least you have some arguments and compromises you can try. And techie workarounds. Techie workarounds to parental punishments is kind of our speciality.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Password protection
Ashley: Did you read Carolyn's chat from Friday? There's an interesting comment that she agrees with:
Ashley: Precisely!
Lulu: Some things are just private. Personal emails/chats with friends, for example... (Unless you publish them on your blog.)
Ashley: Galahad knows I write [erotic fiction], but I don't want him reading [truly sick and wrong story Lulu is constantly goading Ashley to finish]. It's for his own good!
Lulu: I don't think I would be tempted to read my partner's email, if I had that access--and in fact the times when I've auto-logged-in I've just logged out again--but I can imagine someone for whom it would be a temptation, and it doesn't necessarily mean they are a bad person. Just curious, or impulsive, or a lover of hilarious pranks. Sometimes it's kinder to help a person keep themself out of trouble.
Ashley: Yeah. I know the idea is nice of trusting your partner not to look, but there's just basic protections you take that are not a reflection on the partner. It's just you not being retarded.
Lulu: Although... I know we have discussed passwords before... and I am pretty sure you could just log into my email any time you wanted.
Ashley: Yeah, same here.
Only reasons to hack email: You have been kidnapped and the police need leads.Lulu: I don't think it's a dealbreaker if your partner password protects things from you!
You have expressed that you are likely to commit suicide and he is trying to find you.
You are a strung out crack/meth/heroin user and maybe something found in your email will help convince you to go to rehab.
Other than that - deal breaker.
Flip side - if you are in a long term & committed relationship and your partner has things password protected even from you (for no good reason) I also see that as a dealbreaker. I don't check my husbands email, but I could if I wanted to - he knows this so I have no need to and never have.
Carolyn Hax: Looks good to me, thanks.
Ashley: Precisely!
Lulu: Some things are just private. Personal emails/chats with friends, for example... (Unless you publish them on your blog.)
Ashley: Galahad knows I write [erotic fiction], but I don't want him reading [truly sick and wrong story Lulu is constantly goading Ashley to finish]. It's for his own good!
Lulu: I don't think I would be tempted to read my partner's email, if I had that access--and in fact the times when I've auto-logged-in I've just logged out again--but I can imagine someone for whom it would be a temptation, and it doesn't necessarily mean they are a bad person. Just curious, or impulsive, or a lover of hilarious pranks. Sometimes it's kinder to help a person keep themself out of trouble.
Ashley: Yeah. I know the idea is nice of trusting your partner not to look, but there's just basic protections you take that are not a reflection on the partner. It's just you not being retarded.
Lulu: Although... I know we have discussed passwords before... and I am pretty sure you could just log into my email any time you wanted.
Ashley: Yeah, same here.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wait, hold on a sec, Cupid
I had so many thoughts about a call to the latest Savage Love podcast that I did a hasty partial transcription for you, just so you can read it.
Caller said:
Ashley: I don't think it makes her a crazy person to assume that, certainly.
Lulu: Even if the caller's profile said she was only looking for friends and activity partners or whatever. Nobody reads anyone's entire profile. Maybe she got to "6 things I could never live without: Cuban food, my family, ninjas, ninja stars, classic NES games" and just had to message her.
Ashley: You have experience in this area?
Lulu: Not at all. You know, even if it was an interest-based friendship like they were PM'ing each other on the official Friends of the Daily Jumble Chat Room, it's not necessarily insanity. I mean, the girl knew the caller was gay, and she seemed to be affectionate; maybe Quickdraw Dategirl assumed she would be the one putting on the brakes, if anyone one. Maybe it didn't occur to her that the caller wasn't interested.
Ashley: You have experience in this area.
Lulu: For sure. Look, it's weird meeting people from the internet. There's no official protocol. Many people have exclusively dating-based experiences. Even those who don't might start to feel like it's a date just because of the nervousness and pressure of this weird one-on-one meeting that you usually don't encounter in a casual friend type scenario. The expectations for how datey a particular meet-up is going to be vary wildly.
Ashley: And lesbians are weird.
Lulu: Right, I mean both the internet meetup thing and the lesbians thing create levels of ambiguity because the unspoken social rules are not as well established as for straight meet-through-friends-or-at-the-grocery-store type dating. So like yeah as a hopeful internet dater, you should not assume you are in a relationship with people without a clear green light from the other person... but I get how the signals could get crossed.
Ultimately, our advice is pretty similar to Dan's--make the situation clear, if you haven't already--gently, even apologetically, but firmly and unambiguously.
And yes, if you meet someone you'd like to date from the internet, the onus is on you to be clear about your intentions (and not to assume the other person is on the same page). However, if someone you meet from the internet appears to be flirting, or if you're not sure, it couldn't hurt to bring up the topic. It doesn't have to be a The Talk, especially if you're not sure what they're thinking. Here are some terrible examples!
"I've met some really great people through my profile. I'm glad I put 'friends only'; it really takes the pressure off meeting up to know it's not going anywhere romantic." [NB: only if you met through a "friends only" profile.]
"I was skeptical about meeting people from online, but we've become such good friends... I still can't imagine dating someone I didn't meet in person first, though." [NB: only if you do not have an active dating site profile.]
"So I've been seeing this awesome girl..." [NB: This may be too mean.]
"I really love being single." [NB: This may also be too mean, and may backfire if the listener perceives it as a coded way of saying "I really love casual sex."]
Or a variation of this one, which worked on Lulu: "It's so important to meet people in person. You can email and email and never know if it's a friends vibe or a dating vibe. Then, you see the person, and you pretty much both know instantly if you're going to end up making out that night."
Or even: "You're such a good friend." [NB: Definitely too mean!]
Caller said:
Hi, Dan. I'm a twenty-something lesbian and I have an odd situation... I recently made this friend, we were Internet friends, we became real-life friends, it's not something I normally do. We hung out maybe ten times, maybe half of those just one-on-one, and I found out that she thinks we're dating. There's no reason for her to think we're dating... We haven't kissed. I think we hugged once, and it was an A-frame, pelvises away, platonic hug, and I think once I put my hand on her knee. That's literally all the physical contact we've had, and I didn't think we were dating! We never called what we were doing dates, and we weren't really flirting. I've hung out with her with other friends, and they think it's absolutely insane that she thinks we were dating. [Caller continues describing how the girl presents as straight, how she found out about her misconceptions about the dating originated when the girl's friends referred to her on the phone as "her other half," and other specifics, until call fades out]Dan's response, also poorly transcribed and edited for brevity:
Maybe she would have told her herself that she thought you believed that you two dating if she had been able to get a word in edgewise... The problem's very simple. All you have to do is tell her that you are not dating and you don't know how she got that impression and you don't mean to hurt her, and if you did anything to mislead her or make her think you were dating you apologize, but, "just to, like, clear the air and settle the matter, you and I are not an item." The end! Very simple. ...There's no way to avoid hurting the delusional fantacist. She needs to get hurt, in this instance, to get over it, meaning misappropriating friends and relabeling them as girlfriends and presenting them that way to other people.Lulu: So here's my thing about this one. How did these people meet online? It matters! Was it though a message board, online game, or fandom, for example, where it's about some common interest, or was it through a "meet people" website like OKC or CL? If they met on OKC and the girl assumed they were dating when they kept hanging out, that doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Ashley: I don't think it makes her a crazy person to assume that, certainly.
Lulu: Even if the caller's profile said she was only looking for friends and activity partners or whatever. Nobody reads anyone's entire profile. Maybe she got to "6 things I could never live without: Cuban food, my family, ninjas, ninja stars, classic NES games" and just had to message her.
Ashley: You have experience in this area?
Lulu: Not at all. You know, even if it was an interest-based friendship like they were PM'ing each other on the official Friends of the Daily Jumble Chat Room, it's not necessarily insanity. I mean, the girl knew the caller was gay, and she seemed to be affectionate; maybe Quickdraw Dategirl assumed she would be the one putting on the brakes, if anyone one. Maybe it didn't occur to her that the caller wasn't interested.
Ashley: You have experience in this area.
Lulu: For sure. Look, it's weird meeting people from the internet. There's no official protocol. Many people have exclusively dating-based experiences. Even those who don't might start to feel like it's a date just because of the nervousness and pressure of this weird one-on-one meeting that you usually don't encounter in a casual friend type scenario. The expectations for how datey a particular meet-up is going to be vary wildly.
Ashley: And lesbians are weird.
Lulu: Right, I mean both the internet meetup thing and the lesbians thing create levels of ambiguity because the unspoken social rules are not as well established as for straight meet-through-friends-or-at-the-grocery-store type dating. So like yeah as a hopeful internet dater, you should not assume you are in a relationship with people without a clear green light from the other person... but I get how the signals could get crossed.
Ultimately, our advice is pretty similar to Dan's--make the situation clear, if you haven't already--gently, even apologetically, but firmly and unambiguously.
And yes, if you meet someone you'd like to date from the internet, the onus is on you to be clear about your intentions (and not to assume the other person is on the same page). However, if someone you meet from the internet appears to be flirting, or if you're not sure, it couldn't hurt to bring up the topic. It doesn't have to be a The Talk, especially if you're not sure what they're thinking. Here are some terrible examples!
"I've met some really great people through my profile. I'm glad I put 'friends only'; it really takes the pressure off meeting up to know it's not going anywhere romantic." [NB: only if you met through a "friends only" profile.]
"I was skeptical about meeting people from online, but we've become such good friends... I still can't imagine dating someone I didn't meet in person first, though." [NB: only if you do not have an active dating site profile.]
"So I've been seeing this awesome girl..." [NB: This may be too mean.]
"I really love being single." [NB: This may also be too mean, and may backfire if the listener perceives it as a coded way of saying "I really love casual sex."]
Or a variation of this one, which worked on Lulu: "It's so important to meet people in person. You can email and email and never know if it's a friends vibe or a dating vibe. Then, you see the person, and you pretty much both know instantly if you're going to end up making out that night."
Or even: "You're such a good friend." [NB: Definitely too mean!]
Friday, September 24, 2010
The official acceptable text response window
Today's Dear Abby concludes with a simple quick question:
Darnell: Infinite?
Lulu: Well, yeah, that's true! "Acceptable" is the weird word there, since it seems like this is a question from the original text-message-conversation initiator. I don't think they get to say what's acceptable for the other person.
Darnell: Like, at what point you should start screaming at your friend because they haven't responded to your text?
Lulu: But I still feel like there is a distinct time frame to be figured out here. Let's imagine this is somebody who had received a text, and wanted to know if it was too late to respond to it.
Darnell: Texts are weird - I have an example of this from last night.
Lulu: You have a text from last night?
Darnell: Hah, I guess I do! My friend sent me a text, but I didn't have my phone on me at the time. When I finally saw it, it was when I was going to bed, so I didn't feel like responding. Then by this morning it was too late, so I will never respond to that text.
Lulu: Exactly. At a certain point, it becomes much more unlikely that you'll respond, because you feel like you missed the window.
Darnell: If somebody doesn't respond to your question within four hours you are allowed to call them, how about that?
Lulu: Yeah. That's what the person wants, I think; just to know when it's okay to bug them again. Or when to give up.
Darnell: If you cultivate a habit of fake-angry-demands you can do it almost immediately. "Hey, Lulu!" beat, beat, beat, "FINE!"
Lulu: Yeah, I mean, only you can determine what you deem acceptable or unacceptable. And the four-hour rule we just made up is not a bludgeon to beat people with. It's not "unacceptable" to fail to respond within four hours--as Abby points out, the person may have a busier life than you, or even if they don't, you can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are busy with something for any given four-hour period. Or just don't feel like responding yet. That's not a capital crime. But most people who text do check their phones daily, so if you want a window for your own peace of mind, I think you can assume that if you don't get a response within 12 hours or so, the conversation is over.
Darnell: And if you ask a question three times via text and they never respond you are either doing something wrong or need new friends.
What is an acceptable time frame to receive a response to a question you send via phone texting?And gets a simple quick response:
Although we live in a world where most of us seek instant gratification, the answer depends upon how busy the person you are texting is.While I admire brevity (clearly I am incapable of it), I also like responses which give arbitrary solid answers. I posed the reader's question to Darnell.
Darnell: Infinite?
Lulu: Well, yeah, that's true! "Acceptable" is the weird word there, since it seems like this is a question from the original text-message-conversation initiator. I don't think they get to say what's acceptable for the other person.
Darnell: Like, at what point you should start screaming at your friend because they haven't responded to your text?
Lulu: But I still feel like there is a distinct time frame to be figured out here. Let's imagine this is somebody who had received a text, and wanted to know if it was too late to respond to it.
Darnell: Texts are weird - I have an example of this from last night.
Lulu: You have a text from last night?
Darnell: Hah, I guess I do! My friend sent me a text, but I didn't have my phone on me at the time. When I finally saw it, it was when I was going to bed, so I didn't feel like responding. Then by this morning it was too late, so I will never respond to that text.
Lulu: Exactly. At a certain point, it becomes much more unlikely that you'll respond, because you feel like you missed the window.
Darnell: If somebody doesn't respond to your question within four hours you are allowed to call them, how about that?
Lulu: Yeah. That's what the person wants, I think; just to know when it's okay to bug them again. Or when to give up.
Darnell: If you cultivate a habit of fake-angry-demands you can do it almost immediately. "Hey, Lulu!" beat, beat, beat, "FINE!"
Lulu: Yeah, I mean, only you can determine what you deem acceptable or unacceptable. And the four-hour rule we just made up is not a bludgeon to beat people with. It's not "unacceptable" to fail to respond within four hours--as Abby points out, the person may have a busier life than you, or even if they don't, you can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are busy with something for any given four-hour period. Or just don't feel like responding yet. That's not a capital crime. But most people who text do check their phones daily, so if you want a window for your own peace of mind, I think you can assume that if you don't get a response within 12 hours or so, the conversation is over.
Darnell: And if you ask a question three times via text and they never respond you are either doing something wrong or need new friends.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Netiquette: How to speak to your online friends and your GPS
Today's Miss Manners has two letters of interest: the first is from a person interested in IMing etiquette; the second is from a person who uses a GPS instead of people's directions.
The IMing letter-writer asks:
Lulu: Miss Manners definitely has a valid point that people who are on IM are also doing other things and you shouldn't take it personally when they don't initiate a conversation or don't always respond. However, I have also thought about the question of who has the responsibility to say "hi", the person signing on or the person already online, and I have an answer: clearly, it is the person signing on.
Ashley: Of course! When you sign on, you're looking at the other people online. But you don't keep looking for the entire length of time that you're signed on!
Lulu: And you don't necessarily get notifications about who is signing off and on. Even if you did, you might be in the middle of something, and not notice it, or notice it but not necessarily want to initiate a conversation.
Ashley: You certainly don't have to initiate a conversation with everyone who's online, or as soon as they sign on.
Lulu: Signing onto IM is not like going to a party, where you are rude if you don't say hi to everyone who is there.
Ashley: If I always got a ton of hellos with no content forthcoming, I would be very confused.
Lulu: Now, Miss Manners does also say that she finds IM objectionable, and that part I don't agree with. First of all, it's weird to find a certain piece of technology objectionable. Everything is optional! If you don't like to use it, don't use it.
Ashley: It's weird to apply certain rules to certain technologies; etiquette evolves with new technology, and it's okay to have different IMing etiquette than phone/in person/whatever.
Lulu: I do think there is definite IM etiquette and it's disconcerting when people violate it. I guess there are not a lot of means of communication where it's okay to just ignore the other person, which is maybe why she finds it weird?
Ashley: Yeah, IMing is a cross between talking and leaving a message, so it's got elements of both. You can talk if it turns out the person is around, but you don't get offended if it turns out you're just leaving a message.
Lulu: That's exactly it. It's not like dropping by unannounced and expecting the other person to drop everything and talk, not if you understand the rules. The rule is, they don't have to drop everything, or even be there! If anything, I guess it's like leaving your card with the butler?
Ashley: People who "hide" are more the leave-a-message types; others always reply but never initiate conversations; and others start conversations. All of them are using the leave a message ability to a certain (different) degree.
Lulu: Just because someone never initiates a conversation with you doesn't mean they don't want to talk or wouldn't, if you started a conversation. It just means they never have a conversation starter... or they are always online and doing other things and not paying attention to who comes and goes. Just be chill, I guess, is the general rule.
So our advice for the LW is: treat IMing like a voicemail message (i.e. speak if you have something to say, don't be offended if you don't get an immediate response), and then you can be pleasantly surprised if people respond immediately or start up a conversation with you on their own.
The GPS letter is in the same post:
Ashley: Yeees. I do talk to the gps: "Are you sure?"; "Ooh thank you!"; "You said right ahead not right right now! wauuuugh!"
Lulu: "WHY; WHY ARE YOU MAKING US TAKE LOCAL ROADS."
Ashley: It's weird because it talks. I like "recalculating" whenever you do something different. It's so judgmental. Especially because the recalculation is usually to do a u-turn.
Lulu: It's totally judgmental. I'm going to start doing that, when people do something I don't like.
Ashley: So you could say, "We should go to the store and then to your house." And when the other person disagrees and starts going home, and you say, "Turn right here. Turn right here. Turn right HERE."
Lulu: "Hey, know what we should do next? Turn right here."
Ashley: "Turn this ship around!"
Lulu: Ship?
Ashley: I dunno. I like boats. Is that enough for the column? I want to get some sushi.
Lulu: Recalculating.
In conclusion, some people don't know their IMing etiquette, but we certainly don't know our GPS etiquette.
The IMing letter-writer asks:
Dear Miss Manners:Miss Manners replies:
When one signs onto any form of instant messaging and notices via one's contact list that someone else is already online, who has the ultimate responsibility to take notice? The person signing on or the person already there?
I take daily comfort from noticing that my brother must be alive and reasonably well as he is online, but he has never, ever, initiated a chat with me by something as simple as "Hi, sis, how are you?" I get stubborn and decide to wait, and after months, I will break down and initiate a chat with him. He almost always responds and we chat for a bit, exchange pics, news, etc. Then, months later, I break down and do it again.
Am I unreasonable to want him to evince an interest in me?
Also, what about friends who never reply when I initiate a chat? "Hi, how are you?" Nothing. And, then, there is the friend who almost always "hides" that she is online. If I send an offline message, she usually signs in and we chat.
Try picturing these people at their computers.
They're working, aren't they?
Well, that's what they claim. As you and Miss Manners suspect, some of them are playing games, some of them are shopping, and some of them are opening their little hearts to strangers.
But at any rate, they are all busy at something, and you are dropping in unannounced, so to speak.
True, the existence of this system invites one to do this, which is why Miss Manners finds it objectionable. Why can't you just take a chance that your friends will answer your offline messages when they are free? Or get in touch with them by other means?
In any case, Miss Manners does think it unreasonable to consider that failing to be ready to drop everything and chat at any time is an indication of callousness.
Lulu: Miss Manners definitely has a valid point that people who are on IM are also doing other things and you shouldn't take it personally when they don't initiate a conversation or don't always respond. However, I have also thought about the question of who has the responsibility to say "hi", the person signing on or the person already online, and I have an answer: clearly, it is the person signing on.
Ashley: Of course! When you sign on, you're looking at the other people online. But you don't keep looking for the entire length of time that you're signed on!
Lulu: And you don't necessarily get notifications about who is signing off and on. Even if you did, you might be in the middle of something, and not notice it, or notice it but not necessarily want to initiate a conversation.
Ashley: You certainly don't have to initiate a conversation with everyone who's online, or as soon as they sign on.
Lulu: Signing onto IM is not like going to a party, where you are rude if you don't say hi to everyone who is there.
Ashley: If I always got a ton of hellos with no content forthcoming, I would be very confused.
Lulu: Now, Miss Manners does also say that she finds IM objectionable, and that part I don't agree with. First of all, it's weird to find a certain piece of technology objectionable. Everything is optional! If you don't like to use it, don't use it.
Ashley: It's weird to apply certain rules to certain technologies; etiquette evolves with new technology, and it's okay to have different IMing etiquette than phone/in person/whatever.
Lulu: I do think there is definite IM etiquette and it's disconcerting when people violate it. I guess there are not a lot of means of communication where it's okay to just ignore the other person, which is maybe why she finds it weird?
Ashley: Yeah, IMing is a cross between talking and leaving a message, so it's got elements of both. You can talk if it turns out the person is around, but you don't get offended if it turns out you're just leaving a message.
Lulu: That's exactly it. It's not like dropping by unannounced and expecting the other person to drop everything and talk, not if you understand the rules. The rule is, they don't have to drop everything, or even be there! If anything, I guess it's like leaving your card with the butler?
Ashley: People who "hide" are more the leave-a-message types; others always reply but never initiate conversations; and others start conversations. All of them are using the leave a message ability to a certain (different) degree.
Lulu: Just because someone never initiates a conversation with you doesn't mean they don't want to talk or wouldn't, if you started a conversation. It just means they never have a conversation starter... or they are always online and doing other things and not paying attention to who comes and goes. Just be chill, I guess, is the general rule.
So our advice for the LW is: treat IMing like a voicemail message (i.e. speak if you have something to say, don't be offended if you don't get an immediate response), and then you can be pleasantly surprised if people respond immediately or start up a conversation with you on their own.
The GPS letter is in the same post:
...Now it has happened on several occasions, and with different passengers, that while the final destination may be unfamiliar, during some portion of the route, such as getting out of the city or passing through a nearby community, the passenger has argued with the GPS navigator by calling it stupid, asking me why I bought it in the first place, or telling me to throw it out the window.Miss Manners responds:
One person actually sulked for an hour because I took the GPS directions instead of his. Another person told me he would rather get lost than rely on a silly box with a simulated voice.
If I am a passenger in someone else's car, I don't give directions unless I am asked. I feel that most drivers have their favorite ways to travel, and it is not up to me to question their decisions. I would like to know how to respond to people who develop adversarial relationships with my GPS navigator.
No etiquette query has yet come to Miss Manners from the GPS lady herself, but with the number of people who love or hate her, it's probably only a matter of time. All that cursing and courting she must endure, while only trying to do her job, must be hard to bear.Lulu: I like that. That's adorable.
As captain of the vehicle, it is your duty to defend her. Miss Manners suggests a gentle: "Please don't be too rough on her. She's had a difficult day. We'll humor her and let her have her way."
Ashley: Yeees. I do talk to the gps: "Are you sure?"; "Ooh thank you!"; "You said right ahead not right right now! wauuuugh!"
Lulu: "WHY; WHY ARE YOU MAKING US TAKE LOCAL ROADS."
Ashley: It's weird because it talks. I like "recalculating" whenever you do something different. It's so judgmental. Especially because the recalculation is usually to do a u-turn.
Lulu: It's totally judgmental. I'm going to start doing that, when people do something I don't like.
Ashley: So you could say, "We should go to the store and then to your house." And when the other person disagrees and starts going home, and you say, "Turn right here. Turn right here. Turn right HERE."
Lulu: "Hey, know what we should do next? Turn right here."
Ashley: "Turn this ship around!"
Lulu: Ship?
Ashley: I dunno. I like boats. Is that enough for the column? I want to get some sushi.
Lulu: Recalculating.
In conclusion, some people don't know their IMing etiquette, but we certainly don't know our GPS etiquette.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)