Talk:1915: Nightmare Email Feature

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

I feel like the comic is more about the addressee of the mail seeing how much time the sender spent on the mail. In the comic, I feel like the sender is asking about having another date with someone and try to be casual about it, which would be contradicted by the time he actually spent on it.

In the same way, the title indicates that the mail spent 3 days in the drafts while the sender writes "I just saw your message". It would be very awkward if the recipient of the mail could see that it is a lie. 162.158.88.224 14:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct. I misinterpreted the comic. Fvalves (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

He's always commenting on how you're responsible for how you're interpreted and now he's having difficulty managing his responsibility for how he's interpreted.162.158.69.50 16:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This is MY nightmare email feature. I spend 10 minutes per line.

The paradox is that it takes a long time for Randall to craft a socially acceptable email, but it is socially unacceptable to spend a long time crafting emails. If the email's composition time becomes part of the email itself, then it is impossible for Randall to send a socially acceptable email. He is carefully choosing the right words, rhythm, and sentence structure in his emails, because he is expected to sound relaxed, natural, and off-the-cuff. 108.162.216.130 21:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing within the comic to definitively indicate that the receiver is seeing the time spent composing the message; That is an assumption, whether correct or not. Personally, I think the whole comic works both ways: I would be mortified to have a ticking clock counting my time spent writing a message. ... (I've spent four hours composing one SMS text.) I think the explanation should bear some indication of its speculative nature as to which party sees the timer. 162.158.75.226 07:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but that's inconsistent both with previous takes on the subject and with the title text. Also, there's that rectangle with three dots depicted inside that functions in Gmail to show/hide automatically hidden signature/footer and previous messages in the thread and is not shown in composing the mail, only in received/sent mails. To me, that's a definitive indication the "feature" is present in the sent mail, not in a draft. 141.101.96.218 09:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, just tested it and realized the triple-dot-button is present in composition window as well... Never mind :) I still think it's improbable the comic is about showing the info just to the sender, my argument about consistency with previous take and with the title text still stands. 141.101.96.218 09:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Imho the text "before sending" indicates it's attached after sending the message. While editing the sender could be typing an template or something alike. Something not meant to be sent immediately after finishing. Vince 141.101.105.162 14:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I actually find it rather definitively established that this can only be the receiver's version of the email, there's no speculation really. Taking the sender as Randall, if it's only Randall seeing this, it's not a nightmare, it doesn't qualify. Those of us who do this, spend inordinate amounts of time trying to appear casual when it doesn't come naturally, are well aware we do so. This feature could even be useful, as a way to try to tone down this behaviour, measure if we're getting better or worse. It's only the recipient seeing this evidence, that this message wasn't as casual as it appears, that makes this a NIGHTMARE feature. Now it's revealing Randall's secret, spoiling his pretense. I just see this as an email version of the Messaging version Typing Notifications comic from a few weeks earlier, which likewise tattles to Randall's correspondent about his agonizing over what to say and how. NiceGuy1 (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Time spent editing this wiki page: ... Fabian42 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the beauty of explain xkcd. Like the commenter at 162.158.75.226 above, I hadn't realised that this would be something the receiver would see. Yes that would be a nightmare. Jkshapiro (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This is me, except with commit messages.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools

It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal?