Slashdot Mirror
Call Someone – Without Having To Talk To Them
waderoush writes "After a long beta period, Boston-based MobileSphere launched a 'straight-to-voicemail' service yesterday called Slydial. If you call 267-SLY-DIAL and listen to a short ad, you can then be connected to the voicemail inbox of any US mobile phone subscriber, without causing their phone to ring. Sounds kinda useful — but incredibly, MobileSphere is pitching the service as a way to avoid actually communicating with all those difficult, boring people in your life. In reply to suggestions that Slydial erodes and cheapens genuine human interaction, a MobileSphere exec says the company is just combating technology with technology, by helping people take control of whether and when to talk with their friends, family, and coworkers."
Voice messaging is a lot easier and less dangerous than text messaging, and we do that all the time. I see nothing wrong with this, and in fact was just talking about this idea with some friends a few months ago. What with the iPhone's visual voice mail, I think this is good for the times when you want to quickly leave a person a message without wanting to disturb them, instead of sending them a text message. Now more phones need an easy interface for picking which voice messages you want to listen to.
A community-oriented lyrics site
As soon as service providers realize there's a buck to be made, say good bye to that feature and this questionable service.
"Hey boss! Sorry I'm leaving ANOTHER message! Working from home today as usual. Are you out of town? I've called three times today but you must be in an area without coverage. I really need to talk with you about some implementation specifics before I can start coding." (goes back to sleep)
It's another tool in the handbag of communication and ettiquette.
Visits being the highest priority and inconvenience.
Phonecalls being the next step down in priority and inconvenience.
Voicemail.
E-mail.
IM.
Use the appropriate tool for the level of urgency. Bothering everybody with a visit on your timetable is extremely disruptive to THEIR timetable, so it should only be done when it's called for.
You will never be able to get the telemarketing people off your back then, since they now can fill up your voicemail with their messages without having to experience that you hang up on them.
I'm sure anyone in IT can relate to the concept of someone you'd rather not talk to, but have to leave a message for. I have several people like this that I need to work with. Having a conversation with them is like root canal therapy sometimes. Being able to leave them messages and not actually speak to them would definitely lower my daily stress levels.
Call me anti-social, but these people could drive anyone nuts.
This seems to be the response that's closest to what came to my mind when I read the summary. There are times in relationships (parents, friends, girlfriend) when you are in some way "obligated" to call but don't actually want to have a conversation. It seems a little underhanded, but when you combine this service with the still-existent vagaries of cell phone coverage and behavior ("no, really, I tried to call but it went straight to voice mail!"), it allows you to take the easy way out of fulfilling an obligation. It can also allow you to gain the upper hand in a game of "phone tag" (say, when you're having a fight with your girlfriend) by putting the ball back in the other person's court.
Like I said, it's a little underhanded and probably not the healthiest way to communicate in a relationship, but I can imagine a few applications for this kind of thing.
JRjr
This service means you do not interact with people you don't want to interact with, and therefore increases the percentage of pleasant interactions you enjoy throughout the day.
That's not erosion, that's added value.
Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
Funny, I'm just the opposite. Voicemail means one of my clients has a problem that can't wait. Either that or it's a real estate agent who equates "emergency" with "need something trivial". All I get via SMS are ads or notifications from my cell provider, which I routinely ignore. As for reminders...that's what having a PDA phone is for, right (or does your wife need to keep tabs on you?).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Yep.
Yep.
Nope. More like: ...."
"uhh hh hhh uh dood? I uh hh huh h mmmmmmm wanted to callyouabouttheparty and uh uh uh uh the party is
Repeat for about 10 minutes.
I HATE voice-mail because almost no one knows how to leave a message CORRECTLY.
Correct method:
"Hi! This is *name* at *call back number* and I wanted to talk to you about *subject*. Once again, this is *name* at *call back number* calling about *subject*. Bye!"
Incorrect method 1:
"Hi! This is *name*. Call me."
Unless you are the girlfriend/boyfriend. Then it is allowable.
Incorrect method 2:
"Hi! About the thing that blah blah blah blah blah *ten minutes pass* blah blah blah bl" Cut off by message limit timer.
I prefer email and text because it takes MORE effort to type in excess material than voice-mail does.
Slydial erodes and cheapens genuine human interaction . . .
No, what erodes and cheapens genuine human interaction is being so boring that your friends would rather talk to your voicemail than to you.
Seriously, if they are in a meeting - or elsewhere where a ringing phone is frowned upon - have them silence the thing.
But I'm sure the marketing people will love this. Now they can 'call' you while circumventing a ton of provisions, including telling them to stop calling you right in the very phone call. .. not to mention kids and pranksters.
I'd check my contract on the services rendered by my provider to see if this can be blocked.
Why not? Often, the voicemail contains all of the info needed for you to determine what action needs to be taken, including whether or not a callback is even necessary.
When I call someone, I only leave voicemail if doing so would add useful information. Something like "I need your input on something by 4:00 today, but I'll be out between noon and 1. Give me a call when you get a chance." That lets them know that I require a callback, and what timeframe we're dealing with.
Another example might be "I need you to email me that file by tomorrow afternoon. Thanks." In that case, no callback is required as long as they email me the file in a reasonable timeframe.
The problem is that idiots think voicemail should be used for "Hi, I just called you. Call me back." as if my phone doesn't keep track of incoming calls.
I for one would rather talk to somebody in person about something that may be confrontational
I would rather be able to compose my communication and not go flying off the handle. I've found that expressing emotions is almost always counterproductive.
E-mail doesn't communicate emotions well at all
It saddens me that you would say such a thing.
body language can be very valuable in certain circumstances
I'm afraid I'm a bit of an assburger; I don't read body language well at all. Probably the main reason I can't get a decent girl friend.
That said, I prefer face to face EXCEPT when I'm angry.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Next time it happens, how about saying along the lines of: Yeah, sorry, I dialed a wrong number and I didn't know what to say. Awkward, you know?
The person will be shocked by your honesty.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Usefull? If I can not be disturbed and in a meeting, I either turn off the phone, so it goes directly to voicemail or do not pick it up, beacsue it is in silent mode and you will be tranferd to voicemail.
Perhaps I know best when I do no want or can not be disturbed and not the preson calling me.
And most of the times when I see I missed a call, I just call back instead of listening to my voicemail.
Also when I get a voicemail, I get a message, disturbing me during my precious meeting that you did not want to disturb.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
That's funny, I send text to the people I like. It's rude to reach out and touch people with a big clanging bell or other alarm device that sounds like a sick and angry bird. With cell phone users, you also cost them money. Voice communications with family are nice but that too is expensive and best reserved to times you know they are not busy.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I am fairly certain this does not use any "backdoor" or "special" access numbers in order to function...
If you have access to multiple lines (not including your cell phone), try this: Call your cell phone from one of the lines (be it another cell phone, your desk phone, etc.) As soon as the call starts ringing, place it on hold, and call your cell phone *again* from another line (be it another line on your PBX, another cell phone, etc.) If your cell phone has voice mail service, this second call should connect directly to the voice mail and play your greeting. (While the first call will continue to ring your phone.)
I'm pretty certain this is how the service works. It places one outbound call to the destination cell phone to "tie up" the line, places a second call which *should* immediately go to voice mail, and then drops the first call. Since most mobile phones do not ring immediately after the number is dialed, it is theoretically possible to pull this off if everything is timed correctly, and a little bit of luck plays in your favor. (My experience has been that GSM phones take several seconds to start ringing, and ringback does not start until the handset begins to ring, whereas CDMA will produce ringback immediately to the caller, but the actual handset may take several seconds to start ringing.)
I tried this service against several different phones/providers, sometimes it would cause the phone to ring briefly, and other times it would not.
I also called our PBX at the office with it, and basically saw a call come in on Line 1, followed by another call on Line 2 about half a second later. Which would seem to back up my theory.