Slashdot Log In
Emailaholics Reveal Their Habits
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon May 11, 2009 09:12 AM
from the wonder-which-group-i'm-in dept.
from the wonder-which-group-i'm-in dept.
KentuckyFC writes "People can be accurately classified according to their email habits, say scientists from Yahoo Research in NYC, who have been studying the way 125,000 people use email on university campuses in the US and Europe. The team found that people fall into two clearly distinct types of emailer. The first group, 'day labororers,' tend to send emails throughout the normal working day between 0900 and 1800 but not at other times. On the other hand, 'emailaholics' tend to send emails throughout the waking hours from 0900 to 0100. These groups are pretty stable: roughly 75% of users stay in the same group over a two-year period. That gives a pretty good way of classifying individuals that could be used by demographers. Interestingly, the technique can also be used to spot spambots which do not fit into either group."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I Don't Know If I Buy This (Score:3, Interesting)
My email habits change very frequently. Where do I fit in?
Re:I Don't Know If I Buy This (Score:5, Funny)
You should start by admitting you have a problem.
"I'm an emailaholic. I drink 4 bottles of emailahol every day."
Parent
Re:I Don't Know If I Buy This (Score:5, Funny)
If you were an emailaholic you'd be drinking a fifth of emailahol a day - not showing up for work, getting fired, ruining your relationships, having an email in the morning to get going, just one big fucking nightmare of a life.
Parent
Re:I Don't Know If I Buy This (Score:5, Insightful)
These groups are pretty stable: roughly 75% of users stay in the same group over a 2 year period.
My email habits change very frequently. Where do I fit in?
You fit into the other 25%.
Parent
Re:I Don't Know If I Buy This (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Overly simplistic criteria (Score:5, Insightful)
So basically anybody that uses e-mail outside of working hours is an "emailholic"? Doesn't that include pretty much every person who has a computer at home?
Re:Overly simplistic criteria (Score:5, Interesting)
there is not much info about the email accounts montiored. Im guessing the day labourors are those who use their account just for work, with a sperate for personal stuff, and the emailaholics are those with one universal address. The subgroup i pointed out could then represent the personal accounts for the day labourors
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So where does my old supervisor fit in? I'd send him a paper/book chapter/thesis at midnight and he'd send me revisions by 4 am.
Re:Overly simplistic criteria (Score:5, Funny)
According to the article that makes both of you spambots.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So? That's nothing special. Anyone with half a brain knows that machines have been posting on /. for years. Hell, I'm nothing more than an Aibo wired up to a leaf blower and an old Amiga!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe that explains that line in the data from x=0100,y=0100 to x=0800,y=0800. People who email 24 hours a day, and never sleep.
Not as Simplistic as the Article Implies (Score:4, Interesting)
So basically anybody that uses e-mail outside of working hours is an "emailholic"? Doesn't that include pretty much every person who has a computer at home?
Well, from the PDF linked on arxiv [arxiv.org]:
The cascading non-homogeneous Poisson process we present is motivated by two key observations: first, individuals send e-mail during "sessions" of relatively high activity that are separated by periods of inactivity during which no emails are sent; and second, the likelihood of commencing an active session is modulated by daily and weekly cycles. For convenience, we define the start and end of a session by the first and last e-mails sent in that session respectively. We define an individual as "active" if they are in an e-mail session, where the time between consecutive e-mails within each session is modeled as a homogeneous Poisson process with intra-session rate p_a. Correspondingly, we define an individual as "passive" if they are between e-mail sessions, where the time between sessions is modeled as a non-homogeneous Poisson process with inter-session rate p(t), which explicitly accounts for daily and weekly cycles of activity.
The paper seems to identify when you're in a session and when you're not and also extrapolates these cycles not only to days but also to times of the week.
While it's not very useful, it my be interesting to behaviorists or some field I know nothing about. It's always dangerous to grab a graph from a paper with no explanation at all of what it is showing.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
So basically anybody that uses e-mail outside of working hours is an "emailholic"? Doesn't that include pretty much every person who has a computer at home?
The paper seems to identify when you're in a session and when you're not and also extrapolates these cycles not only to days but also to times of the week.
So anyone who has an e-mail capable smartphone and therefore doesn't engage in "sessions" is an "emailholic"?
Re: (Score:2)
They are less likely to be using Yahoo for their email than the general population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dear Sir/Madam
Fire! Fire!
Help me!
Re: (Score:2)
And the clip where it's taken from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxVeMhI9Qo0 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Good god no. Why would I want to email during my free time?
Xaholics (Score:4, Funny)
Is the "aholic" suffix really any worse than "-gate" for any scandal?
Re:Xaholics (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you for bringing our attention to this Aholicgate scandal, you Gateaholic.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for bringing our attention to this Aholicgate scandal, you Gateaholic.
Dude, you do have problems - using aholic as a prefix and a suffix.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, you do have problems - using aholic as a prefix and a suffix.
Clearly an aholicaholic.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Is the "aholic" suffix really any worse than "-gate" for any scandal?
You sound like another email abuser who is in denial about your habit. You are in stage 3 of your addiction (Ref. Addictions Anonymous, 12: The Stages of Addiction and Recovery [thecheers.org]).
Re: (Score:2)
My habit is not checking my email often enough. I tend to miss important messages like "today's class moved to room 3207".
Re: (Score:2)
I need to find a 9" wireless touch screen that will link to my computer. Just mount the touch screen in the can and life will be golden.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since you can't get sent to jail for sending normal email,
YES! (Score:2)
Is the "aholic" suffix really any worse
It's a grammargate!
But then again, I'm a lexivorous linguaholic...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, a fellow lexiconnoisseur!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, let's not get aholicaholic now.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the "aholic" suffix really any worse than "-gate" for any scandal?
Yes. I propose declaring a war on it.
Agreed. I'll get the President to appoint a Czar immediately.
"People" is such a loaded word (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was a student we still corresponded with one another using paper and ink. There was none of this fancy computerized email. It was all email by hand back then, and if you were lucky, maybe your parents would foot the bill for a quill.
But the key here is not the manner in which we wrote each other. Rather, it is simply that living in the isolated world of "university life", we had totally different writing habits than those who lived in the "real world".
Take, for instance, the frequency of our letters. While I could average a good 4 or 5 letters per evening, it was because my workload was such that it permitted much more free time than the work-a-day man could ever hope to enjoy. Between classes and quaffing pints of ale, we still had plenty of time to enjoy each others' companionship, even if only through the quill.
Now, with real work and real timelines to meet, I find that I have very little extra time to sit down to write a letter out by hand.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I was a full time college student for 14 years (and no degree. Darn my medium term attention deficit disorder!) but find that my worditoudinous output has increased, now that I have a boring job but decent computer setups. Not doing so much email, though I do manage 20 or so messages a day. Most of my output is on forum and blog sites. Would be interesting to record how many words/day I'm spewing upon a helpless world.
I am a spambot (Score:3, Funny)
The first group, "day labororers", tend to send emails throughout the normal working day between 0900 and 1800... "emailaholics" tend to send emails throughout the waking hours from 0900 to 0100....the technique can also be used to spot spambots which do not fit into either group
That means that I am a spam bot. I've always hated being labeled.
My 'habit' (Score:5, Interesting)
I sometimes find myself logging into my email purely as a reflex action. Typing 'ma' in the url bar then down arrow once to highlight mail.yahoo.com, and typing my username and password in before I even realize that I'm doing it.
I wish there was a yahoo email monitor that worked through the system tray. There's a widget, but it sits on the desktop and I hate having things permanently sitting in front of my other windows.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about Yahoo, but with Gmail and others, you can set up pop or imap in Thunderbird, Outlook, etc. I'm sure you could find widgets to work with this setup.
Re: (Score:2)
Another cluster (Score:2)
I recognize those two clusters, but there is a another big cluster in my own social network: People who only check their e-mail once a day (or less).
I myself cannot comprehend such behavior.
Idiots stand revealed (Score:2)
If you don't restrict your e-mailing to regular work hours, you're an "emailaholic"? What a steaming pile of crap!
I answer e-mail when I get around to it, and that's often outside of regular work hours (unless it's from the boss and requires an immediate response, of course). If I was somehow addicted to e-mail, the 353 unread, non-spam messages currently awaiting my attention would be getting dealt with right now. Yet here I am, futzing around on Slashdot when I should have my nose firmly against the
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't restrict your e-mailing to regular work hours, you're an "emailaholic"?
Indeed, and having a smartphone changes one's habits too. I may not look at it for hours if I have something interesting going on, but if I am just lounging around I may respond the moment I hear my iPhone ding. I'm not constantly looking it, but my mail is always within reach. Some might classify that as addiction, but I just see it as a matter of convenience and extending people the courtesy of responding quickly if I am free when their message comes in.
Snail Mail (Score:2)
Next up... (Score:3, Funny)
Myopia (Score:2)
Promising title... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but there is in the paper [arxiv.org].
Link to the paper! (Score:2)
I hate it when science stories - in any media or site, not just /. - don't like to the original paper. There's really no excuse when the paper is freely available [arxiv.org], either.
Missing category (Score:2)
They excluded people that use email almost entirely for receiving automated notifications. Replies to a Slashdot post (cue the dozen posts intended to just trigger the notification...), forum thread, calendar events, Word of the Day...
Pretty much the only emails I send are FailBlog pictures to a sibling every few weeks.
Re:Anonymous Cowards are cool! (Score:5, Insightful)
If this finds widespread use, it won't last long anyway: ;-)
The spambots will start keeping regular working hours
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)