Reply With QuoteDon’t shoot the messenger Paul; you made an incorrect assumption and you are blaming it on SMS.
I rarely communicate by text, I`ve never got into what I call the tittle tattle text culture sending pointless messages back and forth, but what really puts me off is the ambiguity and scope for misunderstandings, it's a very limited form of communication for anything important and whenever I experience mix-ups it's usually a result of misunderstood text messages.
Here's a watch-related example: Last December I serviced a 60s gold Longines that belongs to a friend's father, a straightforward job that didn`t pose any problems. Looked at my phone this afternoon and saw a text message from him telling me the winder has fallen out of his dad's watch and will I fix it. I assumed he was referring to the gold Longines so I dug out my copy of the job sheet to refresh my memory, movement is a Longines 370 which is a square movement fitted to a round case in this instance. Removing the stem requires a screw fitted to the setting lever to be loosened so there's scope for it to come undone if it isn`t tightened correctly, an easy mistake to make when refitting and removing a stem several times to fit a new crown and trim the stem length. I`m thinking this has happened and it's down to me not having tightened the thing correctly, so after mentally beating myself with a stick I phoned him to discuss it.
Turns out his text was referring to a different watch, a Rotary that his dad wears regularly, had he phoned me initially and had a conversation I`m 100% certain this would've come to light!
Don’t shoot the messenger Paul; you made an incorrect assumption and you are blaming it on SMS.
Text reply:
“No problem. Call me and we can discuss it”
Have to agree, you made the assumption. It’s quite easy to ask for clarification if you are unsureOriginally Posted by Dave+63
That said I am not a fan of text conversations as they go on forever. 25 minutes spent texting when a 5 minute conversation would do.
Wow, you're fast!
I can only cover 30 seconds of conversation in 25 minutes of texting....
Sent from my V31GT using Tapatalk
Have you been talking to my Mrs?
Or a PM, titled "What's your problem". The prelude to a text.
Just wait until someone shows you a newfangled technology called ‘emails’!
My problem with texting is that folks work on the assumption that the recipient will see the message immediately, which depends on the recipient having their mobile phone close at hand at all times. For me, that's not the case, I`m often not close to the phone because I don`t carry it around the house, it generally lives in my office on charge. If it rings there's a good chance I`ll hear it but no certainty, if someone really wants to contact me ringing the landline is the reliable method (providing I`m in the house or garden), I have a ringer device plugged in that provides a very loud ringtone. Send me a text and it could be days before I see it, waste of time. As I pointed out the scope for ambiguity is huge, it's just a crap way to communicate in my view.
e-mail's OK, usually I check e-mails daily, but the flaw with texting is the assumption that the recipient is wedded to their mobile phone.......that's not me!
In the distant past I remember going on effective communication courses at work, a few key points have always stuck with me.
I would suggest that your mobile phone use isn't typical. Text/WhatsApp works for millions of people.
The problem in your example stems from your assumption on reading a message not the timely or otherwise response.
An advantage of WhatsApp is that (unless they have amended the defaults) you can see if the recipient has read a message or not via the two blue ticks.
Another example to prove my point, this very afternoon!
Wifey's playing in a bridge tournament, expected to be home around 6. I`m still recovering from the cold from hell so happy to potter about outside and do a few jobs in the sunshine and cooking curry for tea. Mobile phone's not in my pocket, left it in the house in a safe place. Having prepared a meal for two, wifey rings on the house phone (she knows I`ll hear it) to say she'll be home in 15 mins. Also says she doesn`t want much to eat, food was provided, and did I see her message? Obviously I didn`t, so I`ve prepared a meal that she won't be eating. Won't go to waste, it'll get frozen and eaten later (probably by me) but it's a bit frustrating.
If she'd rung the house phone during a break in play I would've heard it and answered, even at the end of my 80ft garden I still hear it and answer it.
I don`t care how many folks rely on bloody texting, it's still a crap way to communicate and the limitations are obvious. There's a concept called complete communication, texting falls way short in many cases.
I don't see how this proves your point.
You're not really describing a shortcoming of texting, you're simply describing the outcome of you not checking your phone. If it's causing you issues, consider changing your approach.
Not sure on this but I think that means it's made it to their phone, not necessarily that they've seen it.
It does have limitations, but for some applications it's very convenient. Every medium of communication has a limitation of some sort. Telephoning someone has the limitation that they have to be available to talk to you in real time, unless you leave a voice mail. It also means that one or both parties have to remember what was said, whereas a text message is self-documenting.
Don’t know about WhatsApp but on Signal the ticks change colour when the message has been opened (one can read without opening if msg is short enough to fit in the announcement).
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
WhatsApp is the same.
Posting Permissions