Yeah, I agree that this feels like a silly thing to be upset about. :) But at the same time, conversations with her are exactly like those described on nohello.com, taking upwards of 10-15 minutes to get to the point and repeatedly interrupting me and disrupting my focus. If she just asked up front, I could answer her question immediately and save us both quite a bit of time and frustration.

Yep! I think it's reasonable for you to want to cut that time down. That's why I think you should talk to her about it, telling her how you'd appreciate the conversations going in the future, the next time you chat with her.

"Hi! Do you have a question? Like I said last time, I appreciate it when we start conversations by getting to the point - I think it saves us both time :)" - For this I would answer "You just wasted much more time with your comment than me with my half-second hello" and deliberately continuing to say hello every time I call. Because I find it rude to order me around this way, no matter how "politely" it is formulated. So it's not always about not reading the OP's mind or recognizing the status.

A response to "you wasted more time typing that" could be "but typing this one phrase is less time consuming that doing smalltalk over the next minutes" ;-) I read the question as if it's not only this one hello that upsets her. One shouldn't forget that forcing the OP into this smalltalk every time is ordering around as well. I'd add something like "could we please come to the point right now because I am into some thoughts on my work and get distracted by new messages" to make clear what my problem is. If possible point out that the colleague is wasting time too.

@Val the time cost is not in the typing but in the waiting, so while you could say that, you'd also be wrong about it. (Unless it takes someone multiple minutes to type that sentence, anyway)

@puck : a simple "hi, what can I do for you?" would be stopping the smalltalk and continuing the flow of conversation much more efficiently than acting offended by the other one daring to start with a short greeting. Remember, the other party didn't yet start a smalltalk at all, it was just a simple greeting. Would she start a smalltalk, then it might be more appropriate to rebuff her.

@Val yes the question would stop smalltalk for now. But one should see the situation in general. I know situations when you think "oh come on ... when on earth would you like to start telling me what you want, I got things to do here... " so I really do understand it can be a pain to know you have to do the same procedures again and again every time. I upvoted Sopuli's answer because a general and not personal advice about this chat is the best solution to bring all employees on a good level of communication, without offending someone. Of course noone should feel offended!

dv because while you note the battles and the politeness aspect, telling someone "Hi! Do you have a question? Like I said last time, I appreciate it when we start conversations by getting to the point - I think it saves us both time :)" is rude. Don't ever do this.

@Val I don't see how my suggested reply is rude? It's statimg a boundary without being aggressive about it.

I think this answer would be improved by explaining how to be polite with this request. For instance, The OP can reinforce that it's their personal preference, not something the coworker is doing wrong in general with statements like "Don't worry, I won't be offended if you don't say hello. In fact, I usually prefer skipping right to the meat of the conversation on messaging platforms." Also, the OP could link directly to nohello.com, while being clear their doing so for informational purposes: "I think nohello.com summarizes the advantages I find to being more terse on messaging platforms."

"You can end the conversation by asking her not to spend so much time saying hello the next time she talks with you." This is horrible advice, unless your goal is to be seen as the Dwight Schrute of the office. You'll be seen as rude, asocial, and awkward. It's better just to be impeccably polite but immediately to the point like other people have suggested. Some people will get the message. Others won't, but it's just the cost of interacting with other complicated human beings.

While I also like @Carcosa's answer, I'm accepting this one because the coworker did it again after I posted here, and commented about not wanting to disturb me and how long it takes to get an answer. That gave me a perfect opening to follow this answer's script and explain to her she'll disturb me less, and I can answer much faster, if she leads with the question instead of just "hi!". She was very receptive and seemed to take it well, so hopefully it sticks!

@thatgirldm “It's important to remember that other people can't read your mind.” At the end of the day you need to realize that this is the core of the issue. The fact it might take “10-15 minutes to get to the point” seems like an exaggeration at best. Do you really think dropping the “Hello!” in chat will clear things up so much that it won’t take time to understand what the request it? At best your supposed 10-15 minutes becomes 5-10 minutes when the reality is you want 0 minutes of explanation. There’s a strong level of self-centered entitlement to this question. Learn to listen better.

@JakeGould It's not an exaggeration. It's spelled out in the nohello site, but tl;dr the nature of async communication means what would be 10 seconds of pleasantries when verbalized, can and does take 10-15 minutes when both parties have to wait on the other - likely getting distracted themselves in the meantime, which further draws out the time. (cont)

In the latest example, if she'd asked her question up front, I could have told her immediately that she needed to file a ticket for X, but instead she had to wait ~3 hours because I saw her hello, didn't respond immediately because I was in the middle of something, then she didn't respond again for a while after because she was busy, and then I was busy again when she finally asked the question.

This answer (and several comments) ignores the aspect of time lost due to context-switching. In additonion to several minutes spent chatting about nothing important, you will lose momentum on your current task, and it will take extra time to get that momentum back.

@DoritoStyle “…of time lost…” Whose time is ultimately lost? Is this programming environment some bizarre world where this person is working on her own projects all day? Nope. She is working for a company that wants her to develop. And if supposed “interruptions” are part of the job, then that is that. If the project is ultimately slowed down by another human saying hello, make a case about this supposed “No hello…” idea to a supervisor. At the end of the day most people work in environments where they must do some task and they must interact with human beings. Simple as that.

@JakeGould Opportunity cost / lost time due to context switching is a pretty well established concept.

@JakeGould ultimately, the mindset you describe is well-meaning but still detrimental. If there is no problem waiting till OP's next free moment, then interrupting them is unintentionally disruptive at best, and at worst costs them upwards of 30 minutes regaining momentum for each interruption (of which there are several per day). I'm sure the company would prefer that time not be wasted needlessly in virtually every case.

@Val The problem isn't the half-second hello, it's the minutes of switching back and forth before you find out what they even want, waiting while they type. What I do is post a friendly small-talk greeting and the actual question at the same time (shift-return new line, or cut-paste two messages), or "Do you have some time to discuss X" if it's not a simple question. They can instantly gauge how long it'll take to answer my query, and what priority it is. They can respond to the small talk if they're not busy and want a chat, but can get straight to the point if they are busy.

@DoritoStyle Yet nobody seems to ask the question: "If 16 messages can effectively reduce an entire day's productivity to zero, Why would any sane company allow chat in the first place?" In an environment where concentration is everything, and "context switch" is the great productivity killer, instant messaging makes no sense whatsoever.

@douwe I think most companies expect employees to behave like adults and respect each other’s time as well as company time. Now to be fair, these interruptions probably aren’t costly enough to justify action by management, but that’s not who this question asks about.

"saw her hello, didn't respond immediately because I was in the middle of something" That's how IM is supposed to work.

The context switching argument is nonsensical to me because this should not impact it in any way. If it was urgent, it wouldn't be happening over async chat and they wouldn't be waiting after sending their greeting, so treat it accordingly. Review chat messages during a natural break in your workflow, reply appropriately, and then let them sit until your next break. Whether there is "waiting" or a bunch of switching back and forth is entirely up to the individual, and has nothing to do with whether there's a greeting.

@MatthewRead as an IT technician, I am expected to be "on call" for emergencies via IM, but I also have long-term projects and maintenance to do. Therefore, I am absolutely required to stop what I'm doing and and look at IMs, even if they turn out to be pointless.