davidn: (Jam)
davidn ([personal profile] davidn) wrote2011-02-04 07:26 pm
Entry tags:

Of Epic Questions

(22:44:38) MichaelTheFish: I was more glad than ever that I had my own washing machine then, of course.
(22:45:05) MichaelTheFish: Because you've got to get penguin saliva in to soak after about five minutes, or you're never going to get it out.
(22:45:16) DXN: Really? How interesting.
(23:10:00) DXN: Well, I'm going to bed - see you! <-- Good? Unnecessary?

What, by your own standards and made-up etiquette that we've had to invent over our lives for Internet situations, is the cut-off point of the time since the last message for which it's unnecessary, as opposed to rudely abrupt, to announce your disappearance before going offline from an instant message conversation? I've never been sure.

[identity profile] ravenworks.livejournal.com 2011-02-05 01:11 am (UTC)(link)
I would say it has more to do with the person than the length of time!

[identity profile] rakarr.livejournal.com 2011-02-05 08:32 am (UTC)(link)
23 minutes and ten seconds.

[identity profile] crassadon.livejournal.com 2011-02-05 11:01 am (UTC)(link)
I sent a message to two different people at the same time. Twenty minutes later, both of those people had signed off, and only one had said "goodbye" prior to logging off. Was the person who did not say "goodbye" impolite? No. Because that specific conversation had stopped prior to that person logging off. There's no visual indicator of that fact; it's just in the flow of the conversation. They could have continued the conversation, but there's no sense doing that purely to say goodbye. The other conversation flowed differently: I was still expecting further messages from that person, so it's sensible for them to say goodnight.

It's really dependent on each specific conversation, I think! There isn't a set time. However, I generally set a response time of ten minutes, and if nothing has been said by that time, then I assume the person has gone off to do something else, or is otherwise distracted.