Skip to main content

email - Are greetings and salutations redundant in an e-mail?


Do I really need to write my email this way?



Hi John,


[My Message here]


Regards, Jane



The email header already includes the to and from. The recipient should not be confused by who the email is directed at (himself) and who it's coming from if the greeting and salutation are missing.


Some people might say the greeting and salutation are there for politeness. Is this really true? Will you be offended if they're left out? As a website user interface designer, I was always taught by the great usability experts (Steve Krug, Jacob Nielson) that writing more than you need is disrespectful of a website user's time. To me, leaving out the greeting and salutation makes the email easier to read.



Answer



Some sensitivity to age and formality is needed to answer this question. A formal note does not change in structure because it's being sent via email. There's nothing special or magical about email that gives one permission to be forward, rude, or insulting.


When writing to older persons, persons in authority, superiors, et al, I recommend a salutation and a complimentary close. These are not "wastes of time" by any means - they serve very specific functions if you are skilled in their use. Both the opening and the close allow you to frame your relationship with the recipient. For example:



Melissa:


Hi Melissa:


Dear Melissa:



These all have a different feel and express a different kind of tone. Paired with the proper close, you have no need for silly emoticons and winkies and such.


However, younger people will find these things to be quite strange and confusing. In sending email to anyone 25 and younger, I'd recommend being extremely curt and you might even be pushing the envelope by using punctuation.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more