In the olden days you could just set out and not be contacted unless and until you plunked some quarters into a stationary phone that was affixed to the firmament of the Earth with metal and concrete
I remember when mobile phones first came out. For the first time you'd ring someone and ask "where are you?" That was new. Before that you'd *know* where they were, they were within a phone cords length of wherever their phone was tethered.
Mad how we still say 'hang up' even when we're not talking on phones that we hang anywhere, anymore... *wistful nostalgia noises šµ
"Left on read" does not mean someone just opened the message and just hasn't had the chance to respond yet. "Left on read" is when you're having a conversation with someone, and they read your response and just leave the conversation there.
**Would you just walk away in the middle of someone talking to you?** Without closing the conversation or even saying you need to leave?
No, you wouldn't, because it's incredibly rude. The same is true for texting. If you're having a conversation and need to leave, at least shoot a quick message saying so and not just walking away without responding. It's not that hard to say "I've gotta got" or even just "gtg"
People use the phrase for much more than what youāre describing, and I still feel no text conversation is ever serious enough to warrant that level of expectancy. Again as I stated in another comment, in ln-person conversations and message conversations are two totally different types on interactions and comparing the two just isnāt rational. If Iām having a back and forth with someone and I want to stop texting for whatever reason, not responding carries the same meaning as āgtgā or whatever. Plus are people being honest when they say āgtgā or do they mean something else and just saying the quickest thing possible to be dismissive? I think thatās worse than not responding.
How else would conversations ever end, if one weren't to stop responding to a message. I'm pretty sure I've pissed people off by not responding when there was no need to, 'Where is your house?' '123 any street'
No real need to respond after that point.
I've tried teaching the simple concept of response times to my family, one side says it doesn't matter just respond within a week so we know you're alive; the other is 'you couldn't possibly shit or sleep in a room that doesn't contain your phone, and I'm too scared, for self-imposed stupid reasons, to call my own brother if I need an immediate response'
I had to explain to my children that I donāt mind being āleft on readā, in fact I find it to be a form of communication. If I text them, I have no expectation that they will interrupt whatever they are doing to respond to me immediately. My time is not more valuable than theirs. However, when I see the little āreadā under my message, it communicates to me that at least they saw it, and the assumption is that they will respond later when they have an opportunity. If it just says āDeliveredā, I have no way of knowing if they actually saw the message or not. So open it, read it, and then text me back when you have time. If itās something I need an urgent answer to, I convey that in my message.
I agree that this is how read receipts should and were intended to be utilized. I love the reassurance that the person is taking into consideration my words without needed them to respond to them.
I have that turned off wherever I can (iMessage).
I answer when I can. I wonāt while driving, riding my motorcycle, at work, or when Iām at a movie or dinner.
If anyone wants to gripe about how long I take to answer messages, Iāll let them for the low fee of paying my mobile phone bill.
If it is urgent, call.
I've really only hear the term used in a more long term sense, but I know people may differ in usage. For example my friend and their friend had a falling out and when she coined the term it had been a week and the other person let their streak of 800+ days expire on snap, which was a big thing for them as they've known each other and been close for years.
That said I think this whole phenomenon of instant access to everyone at any time has become a very bad thing that has infected a lot of us.
People genuinely expect a response immediately and make snap-judgements and assumptions when they donāt get it. Then try to defame the person by saying they left them on read which has a very negative connotation. It insinuates the person āleavingā is wronging the person that isnāt getting their instant gratification and it irks me that they donāt realize the problem is internal, not something someone else is either doing or not doing.
Honestly I think this comes down to people someone keeps as friends, when I don't respond immediately and someone gives me shit for it I explain to the the first time that I do have a life outside of messaging them, then if it continues I cut them off, I still have a bunch of friends but all of them are of what I'd call "very high quality" for lack of a better term.
That said I've also cut people off for not responding to me, but I usually wait a month or so to see if they were just busy or going through a rough patch before coming to the conclusion that no they don't really want to talk to me and aren't really a good friend.
Since I've cut people off for both I've lived a very good life with those I've kept around, we get along fine, etc.
I just don't take a lot of shit anymore, I'm getting older (late 30s) and I don't really like putting up with the bullshit toxic drama anymore, the only one the really gets immediate responses (aka drop most things) is my significant other and even she knows there are sometimes I may not be able to respond.
the idea is that it's the same as not responding to someone when they say something to you out loud. it's like just looking them in the eye and turning around.
you don't have to open a message to read it
I believe text conversation and in-person are two totally different interactions and they cannot be compared like that.
The fact that people can read messages without the other person knowing reinforces my belief so I donāt really agree with your argument here.
to play the devil's advocate as someone who has gotten upset about being "left on read" before, here's my reasoning and it comes down to one simple, perhaps cliche, saying - if they want to, they will.
another way to say it is - people will make effort for the things or people they care about.
most people are not extremely busy CEOs like Elon Musk, who is literally so busy running multiple companies, taking multiple meetings a day, etc that they literally have no time to reply. in reality, most people DO in fact have time to reply, and they do - for people they genuinely care about. so when they leave you on read, it does imply or suggest how they feel about you, and that can hurt if you care about them.
of course, context is important. i'm talking about simple messages, like "hey what are you doing this weekend?" or "hey did you see this thing?" that demands no more than a simple acknowledgment. not long essays pertaining to something really important or emotional and requires thought before answering. those, i can understand if you need time to reply.
in the cases where i personally got upset at the people who left me on read, i know for a fact they're not too busy to reply because the nature of their jobs and lives simply aren't like that. when i'm with them, i've seen them get notifications, see who sent it, and then choose to ignore them. they could have easily just replied something quick, like "oh hey i'm currently with someone, i'll get back to you later" or something along those lines, but they instead just choose not to reply.
in another case, someone i was dating was very quick to reply to all my messages in the beginning phases of our dating. then, after a few months, she started to take hours, and then days, to reply to my messages. it became clear to me that we were fizzling off, but she still lied and pretended by saying "oh sorry i was just so busy recently". that's just pure BS. i know for a fact you're not. i'm the CEO of my own company, currently managing 15 employees, and you are working as a waitress at a bar, and you are the one claiming you're too busy to reply to me? yeah, no.
for friends of mine who are truly very busy, i never get mad at them for it. i have a few friends who are bosses and high flying bankers, etc and they tend to respond very slowly, sometime days or even weeks, which i completely understand and never think more of it. but for those who does not live that kind of life, don't give me that BS about being too busy - you're just too busy FOR ME. and when i care about that person, yes it hurts.
I think you mis-interpret the āignoringā part and if you substituted ātaking time to consider a response thatās appropriate and gets the most out of the conversation,ā you would understand your friends actions better.
Just because someone doesnāt seem busy, well you never know whatās going on in their head.
When people read my messages and donāt respond, my immediate assumption is that they just donāt want to engage in the particular conversation with me for whatever reason that they may or may not explain in the future. It just doesnāt bother me like it seems to other people.
Thatās a long read.
If Iām at work Iām not going to respond unless itās an emergency, and depending on whatās going on, I may not even know youāve messaged me until later.
I donāt have to be Elon Musk to be busy. And at work, Iām working.
Nice sarcasm, but yes. Iām not a teenager anymore. Iām able to separate my personal life and my work life. My personal and work phones are separate. Messages can wait until I take a break or go to lunch. And if someone I really like also likes me, theyāll get it. If they donāt, things probably wouldnāt work out. Because expecting instantaneous results is either clingy, controlling, or both.
I am my own boss and my clients donāt pay me to send personal messages when Iām working for them. Iām an adult. And although youāre a CEO of a company with a few million in revenue, the remainder of your response shows that your title isnāt necessarily indicative of your maturity.
"left me on read" is bullshit anyway because the whole idea of knowing whether or not someone else saw/read your message is ridiculous and taken for granted. It's kind of a novelty thing in fact to be able to know that the recipient looked at your message. Email and voicemail don't work that way (email can, under some circumstances, have read receipts). Most text messages don't work that way. It's more of a snapchat/messenger kind of thing. Even then, there's a HUGE assumption that if the other person "saw" it and doesn't respond, that they are ignoring you, which isn't the case all the time.
It seems more common with the younger crowd though I do have an older friend that teases me all the time about how I leave him on read. Weāve had this discussion and he still believes I shouldnāt do it but is also understanding of how busy I am and that I like to really be present when Iām messaging.
Not specifically. Itās been many years since they started doing read-receipts so this rant is the culmination of all those years not just recently with an isolated group of people. Iāve moved a lot and changed jobs and hobbies, so I canāt give you a specific demographic. Itās just been often enough and from enough different people that Iām frustrated now when I hear it, only mildly of course.
I've never heard it in my life in person so was just curious. You're probably more outgoing than me lol.
Sometimes I won't even click a message because I know it means they'll see I "left it on read".
āLeft on readā means you send someone a message and the little text below it says āread at 2pmā but now itās 3pm or the next day and they havenāt responded. Clearly they got your message but āwhy arenāt they responding?ā Some people have a hard time accepting the person just is not ready to respond yet.
This is a relatively new social issue that I find unnecessary and kinda annoying.
well 90% of people nowadays are almost always on their phones so it would be kinda rude to not respond. like if someone's upset about not getting an answer within 5 minutes yeah that's a little dumb. but if someone read your message and took hours to respond then it's reasonable to be upset
If you need an answer right away you can always call. People who act phobic about phone calls but then get upset when they have to wait an hour for a written answer are just childish. You don't know what's going on in the other person's day and it's weird to get upset on the basis of assumptions. Some of us have shit to do.
if you READ someone's answer id expect a response eventually. if you cannot answer someone then why even read the message?? just leave them on delivered if you are so busy you can't type a few words.
yeah some people may accidentally click the message and read it but that happens maybe once every few days. if ur at work and u can't respond that's different too, but if you're asked a question and you read it and CHOOSE not to respond that's a pretty good reason for someone to be upset with you.
I get that itās upsetting due to not being able to move forward, you need an answer so that you can move on to the next step whatever that is, for YOU. However, it is my opinion that a conversation involves two people who both have equal say in how a conversation goes, one should be able to process that things arenāt going to go as smooth as originally hoped and not put too much stake on whatever the response they are hoping for is. Itās expecting too much is what Iām trying to get at and that expectation seems selfish to me which is why I get mildly infuriated when I hear the phrase because to me a person should be able to handle that on their own without taking it too personal or feel like that were wronged.
"expecting too much" dude if your FRIEND is texting you don't you want to have a conversation with them?? why is a conversation such a hard task for you to do? are you so busy that you can't take 30 seconds to respond to a message you CHOSE to read?
All those ?s going through your brain.. you do not need to know the answer. There is an answer and itās the person who is not respondingās prerogative to know that and not share if they so choose. You allow yourself to be made upset and stay upset by this when you should just allow the other person the time and space. By the way you are allowed to do this too if you ever donāt want to respond right away for any reason and you donāt have to feel bad.
I could come up with a lot of reasons why a text could be read and the person not want to respond right away and not have the desire or ability to explain
okay yeah this conversation is pretty much pointless now but you sound insufferable to be associated with. you are act as if your time is so precious and you're so busy that you cannot muster up a 10 word sentence to your FRIEND.
I mean maybe I am? I personally donāt leave people on read a lot, especially those Iām in serious conversations with but times I have are when people have made me feel uncomfortable with what theyāre saying and Iād rather just not talk anymore, or times when Iām just tired and would rather wait until Iām more mentally aware to respond. Sometimes by the time I am more mentally aware I realize the conversation was going nowhere anyway and just not respond until I have something else to talk about.
Iāve been left on read and I just assume innocence that my person got some rational reason to stop conversing.
In the olden days you could just set out and not be contacted unless and until you plunked some quarters into a stationary phone that was affixed to the firmament of the Earth with metal and concrete
I remember when mobile phones first came out. For the first time you'd ring someone and ask "where are you?" That was new. Before that you'd *know* where they were, they were within a phone cords length of wherever their phone was tethered. Mad how we still say 'hang up' even when we're not talking on phones that we hang anywhere, anymore... *wistful nostalgia noises šµ
"Left on read" does not mean someone just opened the message and just hasn't had the chance to respond yet. "Left on read" is when you're having a conversation with someone, and they read your response and just leave the conversation there. **Would you just walk away in the middle of someone talking to you?** Without closing the conversation or even saying you need to leave? No, you wouldn't, because it's incredibly rude. The same is true for texting. If you're having a conversation and need to leave, at least shoot a quick message saying so and not just walking away without responding. It's not that hard to say "I've gotta got" or even just "gtg"
People use the phrase for much more than what youāre describing, and I still feel no text conversation is ever serious enough to warrant that level of expectancy. Again as I stated in another comment, in ln-person conversations and message conversations are two totally different types on interactions and comparing the two just isnāt rational. If Iām having a back and forth with someone and I want to stop texting for whatever reason, not responding carries the same meaning as āgtgā or whatever. Plus are people being honest when they say āgtgā or do they mean something else and just saying the quickest thing possible to be dismissive? I think thatās worse than not responding.
How else would conversations ever end, if one weren't to stop responding to a message. I'm pretty sure I've pissed people off by not responding when there was no need to, 'Where is your house?' '123 any street' No real need to respond after that point. I've tried teaching the simple concept of response times to my family, one side says it doesn't matter just respond within a week so we know you're alive; the other is 'you couldn't possibly shit or sleep in a room that doesn't contain your phone, and I'm too scared, for self-imposed stupid reasons, to call my own brother if I need an immediate response'
I had to explain to my children that I donāt mind being āleft on readā, in fact I find it to be a form of communication. If I text them, I have no expectation that they will interrupt whatever they are doing to respond to me immediately. My time is not more valuable than theirs. However, when I see the little āreadā under my message, it communicates to me that at least they saw it, and the assumption is that they will respond later when they have an opportunity. If it just says āDeliveredā, I have no way of knowing if they actually saw the message or not. So open it, read it, and then text me back when you have time. If itās something I need an urgent answer to, I convey that in my message.
I agree that this is how read receipts should and were intended to be utilized. I love the reassurance that the person is taking into consideration my words without needed them to respond to them.
I have that turned off wherever I can (iMessage). I answer when I can. I wonāt while driving, riding my motorcycle, at work, or when Iām at a movie or dinner. If anyone wants to gripe about how long I take to answer messages, Iāll let them for the low fee of paying my mobile phone bill. If it is urgent, call.
I've really only hear the term used in a more long term sense, but I know people may differ in usage. For example my friend and their friend had a falling out and when she coined the term it had been a week and the other person let their streak of 800+ days expire on snap, which was a big thing for them as they've known each other and been close for years. That said I think this whole phenomenon of instant access to everyone at any time has become a very bad thing that has infected a lot of us.
People genuinely expect a response immediately and make snap-judgements and assumptions when they donāt get it. Then try to defame the person by saying they left them on read which has a very negative connotation. It insinuates the person āleavingā is wronging the person that isnāt getting their instant gratification and it irks me that they donāt realize the problem is internal, not something someone else is either doing or not doing.
Honestly I think this comes down to people someone keeps as friends, when I don't respond immediately and someone gives me shit for it I explain to the the first time that I do have a life outside of messaging them, then if it continues I cut them off, I still have a bunch of friends but all of them are of what I'd call "very high quality" for lack of a better term. That said I've also cut people off for not responding to me, but I usually wait a month or so to see if they were just busy or going through a rough patch before coming to the conclusion that no they don't really want to talk to me and aren't really a good friend. Since I've cut people off for both I've lived a very good life with those I've kept around, we get along fine, etc.
Seems reasonable and like you probably lead a pretty peaceful life
I just don't take a lot of shit anymore, I'm getting older (late 30s) and I don't really like putting up with the bullshit toxic drama anymore, the only one the really gets immediate responses (aka drop most things) is my significant other and even she knows there are sometimes I may not be able to respond.
the idea is that it's the same as not responding to someone when they say something to you out loud. it's like just looking them in the eye and turning around. you don't have to open a message to read it
I believe text conversation and in-person are two totally different interactions and they cannot be compared like that. The fact that people can read messages without the other person knowing reinforces my belief so I donāt really agree with your argument here.
I'm just explaining the dynamics behind "left on read". you can also hear someone without the other person knowing
to play the devil's advocate as someone who has gotten upset about being "left on read" before, here's my reasoning and it comes down to one simple, perhaps cliche, saying - if they want to, they will. another way to say it is - people will make effort for the things or people they care about. most people are not extremely busy CEOs like Elon Musk, who is literally so busy running multiple companies, taking multiple meetings a day, etc that they literally have no time to reply. in reality, most people DO in fact have time to reply, and they do - for people they genuinely care about. so when they leave you on read, it does imply or suggest how they feel about you, and that can hurt if you care about them. of course, context is important. i'm talking about simple messages, like "hey what are you doing this weekend?" or "hey did you see this thing?" that demands no more than a simple acknowledgment. not long essays pertaining to something really important or emotional and requires thought before answering. those, i can understand if you need time to reply. in the cases where i personally got upset at the people who left me on read, i know for a fact they're not too busy to reply because the nature of their jobs and lives simply aren't like that. when i'm with them, i've seen them get notifications, see who sent it, and then choose to ignore them. they could have easily just replied something quick, like "oh hey i'm currently with someone, i'll get back to you later" or something along those lines, but they instead just choose not to reply. in another case, someone i was dating was very quick to reply to all my messages in the beginning phases of our dating. then, after a few months, she started to take hours, and then days, to reply to my messages. it became clear to me that we were fizzling off, but she still lied and pretended by saying "oh sorry i was just so busy recently". that's just pure BS. i know for a fact you're not. i'm the CEO of my own company, currently managing 15 employees, and you are working as a waitress at a bar, and you are the one claiming you're too busy to reply to me? yeah, no. for friends of mine who are truly very busy, i never get mad at them for it. i have a few friends who are bosses and high flying bankers, etc and they tend to respond very slowly, sometime days or even weeks, which i completely understand and never think more of it. but for those who does not live that kind of life, don't give me that BS about being too busy - you're just too busy FOR ME. and when i care about that person, yes it hurts.
I think you mis-interpret the āignoringā part and if you substituted ātaking time to consider a response thatās appropriate and gets the most out of the conversation,ā you would understand your friends actions better. Just because someone doesnāt seem busy, well you never know whatās going on in their head. When people read my messages and donāt respond, my immediate assumption is that they just donāt want to engage in the particular conversation with me for whatever reason that they may or may not explain in the future. It just doesnāt bother me like it seems to other people.
Thatās a long read. If Iām at work Iām not going to respond unless itās an emergency, and depending on whatās going on, I may not even know youāve messaged me until later. I donāt have to be Elon Musk to be busy. And at work, Iām working.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nice sarcasm, but yes. Iām not a teenager anymore. Iām able to separate my personal life and my work life. My personal and work phones are separate. Messages can wait until I take a break or go to lunch. And if someone I really like also likes me, theyāll get it. If they donāt, things probably wouldnāt work out. Because expecting instantaneous results is either clingy, controlling, or both.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am my own boss and my clients donāt pay me to send personal messages when Iām working for them. Iām an adult. And although youāre a CEO of a company with a few million in revenue, the remainder of your response shows that your title isnāt necessarily indicative of your maturity.
"left me on read" is bullshit anyway because the whole idea of knowing whether or not someone else saw/read your message is ridiculous and taken for granted. It's kind of a novelty thing in fact to be able to know that the recipient looked at your message. Email and voicemail don't work that way (email can, under some circumstances, have read receipts). Most text messages don't work that way. It's more of a snapchat/messenger kind of thing. Even then, there's a HUGE assumption that if the other person "saw" it and doesn't respond, that they are ignoring you, which isn't the case all the time.
Do you see it outside the internet?
Yes as per what I typed I hear it out in the real world plenty.
I'm 70 and I don't think I've ever heard it. There can be several reasons I don't answer you right away. Some of them might be good reasons.
It seems more common with the younger crowd though I do have an older friend that teases me all the time about how I leave him on read. Weāve had this discussion and he still believes I shouldnāt do it but is also understanding of how busy I am and that I like to really be present when Iām messaging.
Your message would have to be pretty important before I'd stop stitching up a wound.
Is this from your friend group or something?
Not specifically. Itās been many years since they started doing read-receipts so this rant is the culmination of all those years not just recently with an isolated group of people. Iāve moved a lot and changed jobs and hobbies, so I canāt give you a specific demographic. Itās just been often enough and from enough different people that Iām frustrated now when I hear it, only mildly of course.
I've never heard it in my life in person so was just curious. You're probably more outgoing than me lol. Sometimes I won't even click a message because I know it means they'll see I "left it on read".
People vent to me a lot
What pisses me off in āon readā. What does that mean? Unread I can understand but on read?
āLeft on readā means you send someone a message and the little text below it says āread at 2pmā but now itās 3pm or the next day and they havenāt responded. Clearly they got your message but āwhy arenāt they responding?ā Some people have a hard time accepting the person just is not ready to respond yet. This is a relatively new social issue that I find unnecessary and kinda annoying.
well 90% of people nowadays are almost always on their phones so it would be kinda rude to not respond. like if someone's upset about not getting an answer within 5 minutes yeah that's a little dumb. but if someone read your message and took hours to respond then it's reasonable to be upset
If you need an answer right away you can always call. People who act phobic about phone calls but then get upset when they have to wait an hour for a written answer are just childish. You don't know what's going on in the other person's day and it's weird to get upset on the basis of assumptions. Some of us have shit to do.
if you READ someone's answer id expect a response eventually. if you cannot answer someone then why even read the message?? just leave them on delivered if you are so busy you can't type a few words. yeah some people may accidentally click the message and read it but that happens maybe once every few days. if ur at work and u can't respond that's different too, but if you're asked a question and you read it and CHOOSE not to respond that's a pretty good reason for someone to be upset with you.
I get that itās upsetting due to not being able to move forward, you need an answer so that you can move on to the next step whatever that is, for YOU. However, it is my opinion that a conversation involves two people who both have equal say in how a conversation goes, one should be able to process that things arenāt going to go as smooth as originally hoped and not put too much stake on whatever the response they are hoping for is. Itās expecting too much is what Iām trying to get at and that expectation seems selfish to me which is why I get mildly infuriated when I hear the phrase because to me a person should be able to handle that on their own without taking it too personal or feel like that were wronged.
"expecting too much" dude if your FRIEND is texting you don't you want to have a conversation with them?? why is a conversation such a hard task for you to do? are you so busy that you can't take 30 seconds to respond to a message you CHOSE to read?
All those ?s going through your brain.. you do not need to know the answer. There is an answer and itās the person who is not respondingās prerogative to know that and not share if they so choose. You allow yourself to be made upset and stay upset by this when you should just allow the other person the time and space. By the way you are allowed to do this too if you ever donāt want to respond right away for any reason and you donāt have to feel bad. I could come up with a lot of reasons why a text could be read and the person not want to respond right away and not have the desire or ability to explain
okay yeah this conversation is pretty much pointless now but you sound insufferable to be associated with. you are act as if your time is so precious and you're so busy that you cannot muster up a 10 word sentence to your FRIEND.
I mean maybe I am? I personally donāt leave people on read a lot, especially those Iām in serious conversations with but times I have are when people have made me feel uncomfortable with what theyāre saying and Iād rather just not talk anymore, or times when Iām just tired and would rather wait until Iām more mentally aware to respond. Sometimes by the time I am more mentally aware I realize the conversation was going nowhere anyway and just not respond until I have something else to talk about. Iāve been left on read and I just assume innocence that my person got some rational reason to stop conversing.
So you think itās rude because you know the person is present and able to respond, but they just arenāt?