New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Still Waiting for That E-Mail?

A study of 16 billion e-mails reveals distinct patterns in our e-mail behavior

There's nothing like firing off a carefully crafted e-mail and then waiting for what seems like an eternity for a reply. When you finally do get an answer, you might still be frustrated. What do you make of the fact that it is only 10 words long?

We now have some clues about typical e-mail response patterns, thanks to a recent study drawing on 16 billion e-mails sent by more than two million people. The participants were Yahoo Mail users who allowed their anonymized data to be used in what appears to be the largest-ever analysis of e-mail behavior. The researchers, based at the University of Southern California and Yahoo Labs, used algorithms to mine data about the times messages were sent and the number of words they contained, among other factors. Here are some of the surprising revelations:

  • The most likely length of a reply is just five words.

  • More than 90 percent of replies are sent within a day.

  • The younger you are, the faster and more terse your reply (box at bottom).

  • Messages sent on weekday mornings got the fastest responses.

  • E-mails with attachments took twice as long to get a reply as those without.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers included only users who wrote to one another at least five times in the months covered by the study period. After mining the data, the researchers found they could use their algorithm to predict when an e-mail conversation was nearing its end. For the first half of a dialogue, correspondents usually developed similar reply times and e-mail lengths, lobbing messages back and forth at a regular clip. Yet that similarity decreased as the conversation trailed off. Many conversations ended with a long lag before one correspondent sent a final brief reply.

Of note to the anxious e-mailer: the more words in a reply, the longer it tended to take for the writer to send it—but only up to 100 words. Beyond that, the time for a reply actually dropped slightly, except for in the oldest age group. So if you're expecting a hefty reply to your mission-critical missive, it won't necessarily take any longer than a 100-word message. That may be some comfort while you wait on the edge of your seat.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe