Since it's a communication tool, you'll get better results if you use it like it was designed and like everyone else does.
I'm not asking for a poll, but reasoning (which is the explicitly stated purpose for this forum). If a thousand (apparently annoyed) HNers agreed on something but could not reason why, I wouldn't care for it. In fact, I've seen exactly this kind of cultish thinking among developers specifically, hence the existence of flamewars over notation preference.
The tone of some of these replies also suggest to me there's some projection going on, that also makes me defer to the explicit reasoning provided rather than the sentiment.
> you're using this tool fundamentally differently than everyone else and than it's meant to be used, and you're doing it in a way that inconveniences everyone who has to use it to interact with you
I disagree, but if you've already made up your mind, there's no opportunity for discourse here.
There's no opportunity for discourse, but it's apparently because your idea of "reason" is also different from everybody else's.
Candidly, you sound like an incredibly selfish communicator.
You ask "Is anyone free to help me with <X>?".
Is this a "selfish communication"?
What about messages posted in a group chat?
But it doesn't matter either way, because in-person is a different medium to text with a different dynamic. If you'd read the article, you'd see this is directly called out:
> You're trying to be polite by not jumping right into the request, like you would do in person or on the phone. But Chat is neither of those things.
A group message is still chat, but it is a different dynamic to sending out individual messages. Can you honestly say - in good faith - that you don't see the differences between directly and personally addressing someone, versus addressing a group? Try to put yourself in other people's place and imagine how these things might be different.
I also agree with the sibling comment that walking up to a bunch of people working and saying "Hello" with no context then waiting around for a response would be poor etiquette. If you can see that people aren't working - that they are taking a break or already idly chatting - then I would say it's fine. But these are the types of rich context clues that you get from in-person communication that you usually don't get from chat.
Your reply from elsewhere:
> They don't need to poll a channel, most chat applications will pop up a notification when a message appears.
It was you that said the purpose of "hi" was to have them check back. If the notification were sufficient on its own, then you wouldn't need to say "hi" at all. They'll receive a notification once you ask your question either way. The selfishness is in the asymmetry of the interaction. The standalone "hi" is the lowest effort and highest ambiguity way of interrupting someone and asking for their attention.
> What would be the purpose of providing more context before actually asking a question?
So that people have some idea of how important your question is going to be, how long it might take to answer, whether it is relevant to the work they're currently doing and so on. Maybe you see a "hi" in chat and it doesn't matter to you either way. If that's the case, you are probably a minority among technical workers.
What would be "selfish communication" would be to walk up to a group of people working at desks and just say, "Hello," and stand there awkwardly waiting for them to acknowledge you.
Same thing with a group chat. Asking, "Is anyone free to help me with X?" is a reasonable way to ask for help. Sending a whole group of people, "Hello," is a waste of everyone's time.
“Hello”
“Yes?”
“Nevermind.”
What?
