Just
thinking about my email in-box makes me sad. This month alone, I
received over 6,000 emails. That doesn't include spam, notifications or
daily deals, either. With all those messages, I have no desire to
respond to even a fraction of them. I can just picture my tombstone:
Here lies Nick Bilton, who responded to thousands of emails a month. May
he rest in peace. It's not that I'm so popular. Last year, Royal
Pingdom, which monitors Internet usage, said that in 2010, 107 trillion
emails were sent. A report this year from the Radicati Group, a market
research firm, found that in 2011, there were 3.1 billion active email
accounts in the world. The report noted that, on average, corporate
employees sent and received 105 emails a day. Sure, some of those emails
are important. But 105 a day? All of this has led me to believe that
something is terribly wrong with email. What's more, I don't believe it
can be fixed. I've tried everything. Priority mail, filters, more
filters, filters within filters, away messages, third-party email tools.
None of these supposed solutions work. Last year, I decided to try to
reach In-box Zero, the Zen-like state of a consistently empty in-box. I
spent countless hours one evening replying to neglected messages. I woke
up the next morning to find that most of my replies had received
replies, and so, once again, my in-box was brimming. It all felt like
one big practical joke.
Meanwhile,
all of this email could be increasing our stress. A research report
issued this year by the University of California, Irvine, found that
people who did not look at email regularly at work were less stressed
and more productive than others. Gloria Mark, an informatics professor
who studies the effects of email and multitasking in the workplace and
is a co-author of the study, said, "One person in our email study told
us after: I let the sound of the bell and pop-ups rule my life." Mark
says one of the main problems with email is that there isn't an off
switch. "Email is an asynchronous technology, so you don't need to be on
it to receive a message," she said. "Synchronous technologies, like
instant messenger, depend on people being present."Although some people
allow their instant messenger services to save offline messages, most
cannot receive messages if they are not logged on. With email, it is
different. If you go away, emails pile up waiting for your return.
Avoiding new messages is as impossible as trying to play a game of
hide-and-seek in an empty New York City studio apartment. There is
nowhere to hide.
I
recently sent an email to a teenage cousin who responded with a text
message. I responded again through email, and this time she answered
with Facebook Messenger. She was obviously seeing the emails but kept
choosing a more concise way to reply. Our conversation moved to
Twitter's direct messages, where it was ended quickly by the
140-character limit. Later, we talked about the exchanges, and she
explained that she saw email as something for "old people." It's too
slow for her, and the messages too long. Sometimes, she said, as with a
Facebook status update, you don't even need to respond at all. Since
technology hasn't solved the problem it has created with email, it looks
as if some younger people might come up with their own answer - not to
use email at all. So I'm taking a cue from them. I'll look at my email
as it comes in. Maybe I'll respond with a text, Google Chat, Twitter or
Facebook message. But chances are, as with many messages sent via
Facebook or Twitter, I won't need to respond at all.
Source: The Economic Times