Ignoring is the worst form of relationship. The most evil enmity. Therefore: hate someone (something) - ignore him, in a special folder "SPAM" For the rest, there are short, easy auto-replies for you: "contact me later ( next week, month, year ...) ", " I will answer later (tonight tonight (tomorrow, ...), next D.R., after leaving school (kindergarten, institute ...), when I get married / get divorced, when I retire) ", " this is irrelevant for me now ", " in the ass ", " If you do not stop, I will have to contact the police "
24 hours is the standard time frame for business etiquette. If social networks are used for work, then you need to respond within 24 hours, or faster. If you have at least some physical ability to reply to a message on a weekend, then you also need to reply on a weekend. As a last resort, apologize for the delay and respond on Monday.
If we are talking about communicating with the most powerful friends, communication with whom is not work, but leisure, then the problem of timing does not arise. As a last resort, they have other channels of communication with you, they better understand you, your life schedule, and even that you may simply not be in the mood to communicate.
I also perceive this as disrespect for myself if my interlocutor reads messages and does not respond to them and then a week later writes that I'm sorry I had no time to answer I had things to do, I think to myself if my interlocutor has no time to answer then why he messages reads, if there is no time to answer then I would not read them or mark them as unread then when I would do all the things I would read them and answer or write to me once and then I would answer when all the things are done, the same applies to girls if there is no time to answer read messages or mark as unread or write that I have no time to do everything I will answer.
In my opinion, everyone should understand that other people with whom, for one reason or another, have to contact, cannot contact only you. The person to whom you are writing may have other things, other dialogues, which, for some reason, are more important at this particular moment than your message. There is nothing wrong or wrong with that. Therefore, no one is obliged to respond to messages immediately. There are, of course, exceptions. Sometimes there are messages for which you need to give up everything. But these are only exceptions.
Also, I would like to answer the first part of this question. Social media etiquette.
It seems to me that etiquette should be transferred from real communication to virtual communication. It all depends on who you are communicating with.
In general, no one is obliged to answer anything. There is no etiquette here unless it is business or official correspondence. And the difference between "Didn't read" and "Read and did not answer" is often symbolic, because most people regularly look at incoming messages - out of curiosity and just in case. And they choose whose to read, and whose - to leave it still hanging. So if a person does not read my message for about 15 minutes, but hangs online, then I already understand that I'm not a priority for him. But I am not offended by this and do not label the person as "Impolite", I take it as a fact and decide what to do with this fact. It is more convenient to decide when you have a rough idea of the reason why a person does not read or does not answer. The reasons may be the following:
If we only know each other online, but for a long time, it means that the person is tired of communicating or the person in my previous messages was unpleasant. "Tired" is also not insulting, long-term communication on the Web without real tires is very often tiresome. If I really need a person, I can, just in case, analyze the recent correspondence: what was the mood in it, whether it was too heavy or indifferent, whether I hurt you with anything. But in such situations, I often score on a person, because it is very difficult to fix what went wrong in online communication without real money.
If we know each other in real life, then we also need to find out in real. If the meeting itself is not expected, you can call - already by intonation I will understand a lot. You can stage a "random" meeting in a common company or where a person often goes. And to look at the expression on a person's face, at his intonation, you can inadvertently mention: "And I wrote you VK about this" - usually the person explains why he did not answer. But you have to believe not the words, but the tone in which the person communicates.
But all this - only if I really need a person, valuable and interesting. If not, it's always easier to score.
If there was a specific question in my message and its person with varying degrees he ignores accuracy, which means he is inconvenient for him. Here, too, there is no reason for offense, it's just a fact - this question is inconvenient for this person. Ignore inpolling is impolite, but I just put myself in its place: the question is hard to digest, you don’t know what to answer, whether to tell an inconvenient truth, for example, or what decision to make. And the answer seems to be "must", because etiquette, politeness and all the business. What would you do? If you would try to ignore it, yes, this is the first reaction :) And that's okay.
If I need an answer urgently, and a person is uncomfortable at the very thought of answering, then I can push: write "Mmm?" or "Zadolbal to ignore" with evil emoticons :) By this I show that I have noticed the ignore and it was not possible to get out completely. Usually a person is embarrassed and something, but answers. However, it will not work to get from a person the answer that is needed in this way - if he is already ignoring it, then something has broken somewhere in communication, and it is necessary to establish trust and warm contact, and not knock on a closed door.
In any case, I will try to resolve the issue on my own, without the participation of a person - since he has withdrawn himself. So sometimes ignore gives a very cool moral right to decide something without a person: "Well, I asked you, but you didn't answer" :)
By the way, half-acquaintances on the Internet sometimes wrote to me: "I will answer a little later" - and ... I never received an answer ... Because if a person does not have a desire to respond now, it is unlikely to arise at all.
A person ignores in order to fill his own worth - consciously or unconsciously. This rarely happens, but there is such a motivation for ignoring. A person wants to show that he is in demand, he has something to do and he is not at all waiting for your message, like manna from heaven ... In fact, everything is just the opposite, otherwise the desire to prove the opposite would not arise.
The message got lost in the stream of others. It happens when my addressee is in great demand, but usually out of the corner of his eye he still notices my message. It's just that I'm not interesting and important enough for him to stop his eyes on my message, that is, see point 1.
I am against attempts to equate Internet communication with real life. Yes, to ignore in real life, while remaining polite, is more difficult than on the Web. But this is the specificity of the Internet - there is more freedom of communication. You can ignore it, you can take time to think. Online communicationshould be different from offline, otherwise it loses important functions: comfort for introverts, selectivity of communication. In general, I would suggest to social networks to introduce an emoticon into circulation, which would mean "Ignore" or "I do not want to answer" or "Instead of an answer." This is clearer and more honest than ignoring, and a tortured answer.
Etiquette often has common sense roots. As for netiquette, there is no clear regulation, but there is an unspoken existence of it.
If you are online, this does not mean that you have to read a message, a social network is a multifunctional environment, and you are online may be just because of the use of functions not related to communication. In particular, in "Vkontakte" it is possible to completely disable the ability to write to you in the LAN. But still, if you regularly go online, and let's say the second day you haven't even read the message, then here it is individually, of course, but it may start to get the impression that you don't even want to listen to the person. And the longer you sit online and don't read a message, the more likely that feeling will arise. On the third day I would have had this feeling. Because I have nothing to start from in a positive direction. If I am not informed in any way about the style and timing of the response in communication, or if there is no "sign" anywhere that a person has a rush, I have to draw the most unpleasant conclusions that a person can beat you.
I have a friend who may not read the messages right away, may react in a day. She described it to me, I am aware that it is the same with everyone, and even if she does not read my messages for the third day, I will not be offended, I know what is the matter, I was informed.
I have an announcement on my page that there are some reforms at my disposal, and I ask you to take into account that I can fail with answers, even not immediately respond if I have already read it.
But if you have already read the message, but did not respond, then yes, it looks like ignoring. Without warning why - it looks ugly.
"Ahahahah" of any kind can bring me more to white heat.
When you say something funny to a person, and he answers you in a message " ahahahaha "- that's WHAT IT IS? Sarcasm? What is it? Rzhach? It doesn't look like just a laugh ...
That is, a person does not write "Thank you, I laughed heartily" or "Funny :)", no, instead he writes "ahaha" !!!
Personally, it annoys me, I'm at a loss in which direction to turn the dialogue. I’m now being ridiculed, or the person was laughing wildly with a simple joke, or ... what else could be?
Moreover, it's funny, if you send something sad, the person will send in response “sad” or “this sad ", or" hunt for crying ", etc., but no one will send an imitation of crying" yyyyyy ..... "or" waaaaaa ..... ".
Some incomprehensible a double standard.
Reminds one of John Dorian's girls from the "Clinic", only there she is, on the contrary, in person, instead of just laughing, she said "it's so funny", and when he offended her, then she didn't began to say "it's so sad", and immediately began to cry.
Stop doing this, please, people.
On the temporarily (hopefully) frozen site look at me there was a heading "digital etiquette", where the editors just answered such questions. Most often, these rights are dictated only by common sense, but some awkwardness can be avoided.
Correspondence in social networks has long become an analogue of SMS or something. Well, or ICQ, at worst. And, in principle, it is somehow accepted to reply to messages.
You hang online, read messages, and it is logical to assume that you need to reply to messages.
It's even called "dialogues" ... And dialogues involve two-way communication. And ignoring the interlocutor in correspondence is the same as stupidly keeping silent to questions and conversations in an oral dialogue.
In addition, correspondence in social networks has long become a tool for business communication. It is faster than by mail, and safer than just by phone (telephone conversations are not saved, and then it is almost impossible to prove any kind of an agreement, and therefore correspondence is our everything).
If this form of communication firmly entered into life, then communication through social networks should, I think, be regulated somehow.
Read - answer.
If you can't answer now - tell your interlocutor what you will answer later.
Something like this.
In the user agreements of social networks (yes, there are people who read them) it is written: "The social network is not a way of emergency communication." That is, there is no written etiquette rule. If something is really urgent, then the person will call, and will not write to the social network, and the rest, non-urgent questions, can wait.
In order not to bother on such issues, so that people do not wait in vain, so that they don't follow me :) - in Skype, the status is always “invisible” or “yellow”, in other “chats” I hide the status, or set “I'm somewhere nearby, but I don't promise to answer instantly.”
And I'm fine if they don't answer me right away, even when it is clear that the message has been read. Anything can happen. Sometimes you need to think, but a person does not have the opportunity, sometimes it is simply not clear now what to answer, sometimes a person read on the go, and you need to go somewhere to answer. I understand that if the interlocutor flashes a notification of a new message, he will most likely read it as soon as he sees it - you never know, something urgent, and it might be curious. But there may be no time to answer right away. I try to answer it myself as soon as I read the message - not because otherwise I consider it impolite, but because then I can forget.
I personally adhere and campaign for the principle of "read - answer". The bottom line is simple - if I'm online, this does not mean that I have to run headlong to read all the correspondence that came. As long as it hangs unread and my interlocutor sees it, I do not break etiquette and I will answer when it is convenient for me. But as soon as I open a message, I am already obliged to answer it, because the interlocutor saw that I had read the message, which means I have some reasonable and small amount of time to reply. If I wrote a message that clearly requires an answer (and not the notorious "ok"), and the interlocutor has read it and does not answer it for more than half an hour or an hour, I take it as disrespect. If you can't reply to a message at the moment, just don't open it. Or mark it unread, if the system allows it, and come back to it later. This is very often a sin of women - they read a message, and sometimes answer it already after a week. "Oh, I'm sorry, I saw it right away then, but there was no time to answer." To the question "why did you read it at all, if you didn't have time to answer, you would read it later?" these people usually don't have an answer.