__________ is/are underrated.

[webny99]

...

To be clear... I was obviously aware of "reply all" and its functionality in regular usage, just not that it could be used to reply to a single recipient from a previously sent item.

Nope.  Like I said, the overuse of "reply all" in any situation is well-known and well-made-fun-of.  This "shortcut" that you were just made aware of contributes to people groaning over getting e-mails galore from people overusing the function.

What? This shortcut is exclusively for replying to a single recipient, not a whole bunch. Not to mention that replying to one's own sent item represents a tiny fraction of most people's email usage to begin with.

[vdeane]

What? This shortcut is exclusively for replying to a single recipient, not a whole bunch. Not to mention that replying to one's own sent item represents a tiny fraction of most people's email usage to begin with.

It's not the majority of the email I send, sure, but I probably do it more than you'd think just to follow up on things I need a response to.

[Rothman]

...

To be clear... I was obviously aware of "reply all" and its functionality in regular usage, just not that it could be used to reply to a single recipient from a previously sent item.

Nope.  Like I said, the overuse of "reply all" in any situation is well-known and well-made-fun-of.  This "shortcut" that you were just made aware of contributes to people groaning over getting e-mails galore from people overusing the function.

What? This shortcut is exclusively for replying to a single recipient, not a whole bunch. Not to mention that replying to one's own sent item represents a tiny fraction of most people's email usage to begin with.

Not if the e-mail in your sent folder was sent to multiple recipients.  You hit the reply all, it goes to all of them.

[webny99]

It's not the majority of the email I send, sure, but I probably do it more than you'd think just to follow up on things I need a response to.

Same here: that's the whole reason I thought it was worth mentioning to begin with. I was just giving the benefit of the doubt in assuming that I do this a lot more than the average Outlook user.

To  This shortcut is exclusively for replying to a single recipient, not a whole bunch. Not to mention that replying to one's own sent item represents a tiny fraction of most people's email usage to begin with.

Not if the e-mail in your sent folder was sent to multiple recipients.  You hit the reply all, it goes to all of them.

Right, but that's not a shortcut since you would already be using "reply all" in that scenario. It only works as a shortcut when the original was sent to just one person.

[Rothman]

It's not the majority of the email I send, sure, but I probably do it more than you'd think just to follow up on things I need a response to.

Same here: that's the whole reason I thought it was worth mentioning to begin with. I was just giving the benefit of the doubt in assuming that I do this a lot more than the average Outlook user.

To  This shortcut is exclusively for replying to a single recipient, not a whole bunch. Not to mention that replying to one's own sent item represents a tiny fraction of most people's email usage to begin with.

Not if the e-mail in your sent folder was sent to multiple recipients.  You hit the reply all, it goes to all of them.

Right, but that's not a shortcut since you would already be using "reply all" in that scenario. It only works as a shortcut when the original was sent to just one person.

Funny how you used the (s) in your e-mail pointing it out originally, then.

[webny99]

To  This shortcut is exclusively for replying to a single recipient, not a whole bunch. Not to mention that replying to one's own sent item represents a tiny fraction of most people's email usage to begin with.

Not if the e-mail in your sent folder was sent to multiple recipients.  You hit the reply all, it goes to all of them.

Right, but that's not a shortcut since you would already be using "reply all" in that scenario. It only works as a shortcut when the original was sent to just one person.

Funny how you used the (s) in your e-mail pointing it out originally, then.

Ok, we are officially going in circles now. It was ironically correct to use the the (s) there, but I can see how it came across as suggesting misuse of "reply all".

Unfortunately, the replying to yourself bug leaves no good fix for replying to just one person when the original was sent to multiple people.

[7/8]

Not sure if this is underrated, or just a little-known Outlook factoid.

Say you need to follow up on an email when you're the last person that emailed in the chain. Going to your sent items and clicking "reply" will reply to yourself, which is annoying because you'd rarely/never want to do that, so you have to back out your email and re-enter the recipient(s) email(s). But if you instead click "reply all", it will reply to the original recipient(s), even if there was only one recipient. Voila! I use this feature all the time now that I've figured out it's a thing.

Dude...SMH...

Am I the only one that didn't know this? I use Outlook a lot, so I figured if I didn't probably plenty of other people didn't either.

To be clear... I was obviously aware of "reply all" and its functionality in regular usage, just not that it could be used to reply to a single recipient from a previously sent item.

Not sure why everyone's ganging up on you here lol, it is a weird quirk and different from the standard "reply" and "reply all" from an email in your inbox. When clicking "reply" on an email in the sent folder, I think it would be better if it left the recipient blank (because like you said, how often do you want to send the email to yourself?).

[webny99]

Not sure if this is underrated, or just a little-known Outlook factoid.

Say you need to follow up on an email when you're the last person that emailed in the chain. Going to your sent items and clicking "reply" will reply to yourself, which is annoying because you'd rarely/never want to do that, so you have to back out your email and re-enter the recipient(s) email(s). But if you instead click "reply all", it will reply to the original recipient(s), even if there was only one recipient. Voila! I use this feature all the time now that I've figured out it's a thing.

Dude...SMH...

Am I the only one that didn't know this? I use Outlook a lot, so I figured if I didn't probably plenty of other people didn't either.

To be clear... I was obviously aware of "reply all" and its functionality in regular usage, just not that it could be used to reply to a single recipient from a previously sent item.

Not sure why everyone's ganging up on you here lol, it is a weird quirk and different from the standard "reply" and "reply all" from an email in your inbox. When clicking "reply" on an email in the sent folder, I think it would be better if it left the recipient blank (because like you said, how often do you want to send the email to yourself?).

Right, or as vdeane mentioned, it should at least default to replying to the recipient like gmail does, since that has to be way more common than replying to yourself. But if it was left blank, that would be an improvement too - then you'd be sure it was correct before hitting send

[Scott5114]

how often do you want to send the email to yourself?

This can sometimes be useful as a bootleg way to transfer files between computers (when physical media or something more sophisticated like a network share drive, cloud storage, or a purpose-built application like KDE Connect isn't available).

[JayhawkCO]

how often do you want to send the email to yourself?

This can sometimes be useful as a bootleg way to transfer files between computers (when physical media or something more sophisticated like a network share drive, cloud storage, or a purpose-built application like KDE Connect isn't available).

I do this often if I take a picture on my phone and want to store it on my laptop. Easy to just email it to myself, open Gmail, and download it. I post a decent amount of pics on this forum that way.

[7/8]

how often do you want to send the email to yourself?

This can sometimes be useful as a bootleg way to transfer files between computers (when physical media or something more sophisticated like a network share drive, cloud storage, or a purpose-built application like KDE Connect isn't available).

I do this often if I take a picture on my phone and want to store it on my laptop. Easy to just email it to myself, open Gmail, and download it. I post a decent amount of pics on this forum that way.

I do as well to get photos from my work phone to my in-office computer when I'm working remote. Though in those cases I create a new email instead of replying to one of my "sent" emails.

[1995hoo]

I sometimes reply to myself because at the end of the work day I often use an e-mail to myself as a to-do list for the following morning. If I then need to add something else to the list, I may reply to that message so that everything remains in a single message when I view it the next morning. Certainly a low percentage of my overall e-mail usage, of course.

[webny99]

how often do you want to send the email to yourself?

This can sometimes be useful as a bootleg way to transfer files between computers (when physical media or something more sophisticated like a network share drive, cloud storage, or a purpose-built application like KDE Connect isn't available).

I do this often if I take a picture on my phone and want to store it on my laptop. Easy to just email it to myself, open Gmail, and download it. I post a decent amount of pics on this forum that way.

I do as well to get photos from my work phone to my in-office computer when I'm working remote. Though in those cases I create a new email instead of replying to one of my "sent" emails.

Likewise, I am no stranger to sending emails to myself, but it's almost always a new email. And even in a rare case where I wanted to reply to myself from a sent item, I think I would be more likely to use "forward" and enter my own email, as that seems more intuitive than "reply". That would also ensure that I receive any attachments from the previous email.

[thspfc]

Off topic - is there ever a more blatant reflection of the brain's negativity bias than the "overrated" thread being almost triple the length of the "underrated" thread?

[webny99]

Off topic - is there ever a more blatant reflection of the brain's negativity bias than the "overrated" thread being almost triple the length of the "underrated" thread?

I think people are also more argumentative about things being overrated because no one likes to be told that something they like is overrated, causing defensive knee-jerk reactions.

[Max Rockatansky]

A good argument I've found is often more interesting than agreement. 

[Rothman]

Nilla Wafers

[hbelkins]

Nilla Wafers

+1. I can demolish a box of those things in no time flat.

[thspfc]

Golden Oreos are strictly off limits for me because an entire full size package will be gone in an hour tops.

[webny99]

Golden Oreos are strictly off limits for me because an entire full size package will be gone in an hour tops.

Meanwhile, they're off limits for me because even though I can eat almost anything, I just genuinely don't like them, LOL.

[formulanone]

Gyros

Never hear much absolute love nor hate for them but they almost always rock.

[jeffandnicole]

Gyros

Never hear much absolute love nor hate for them but they almost always rock.

Some certainly better than others, but yes, they are good.

Also, make sure it's pronounced correctly, especially in more-authentic restaurants.  I always feel that's worth bonus points.

[hotdogPi]

Also, make sure it's pronounced correctly, especially in more-authentic restaurants.  I always feel that's worth bonus points.

I've found that the workers often won't know what you're talking about if you use the correct pronunciation. Either that or they'll relay it back to the person in the kitchen with the ignorant pronunciation.

[JayhawkCO]

Also, make sure it's pronounced correctly, especially in more-authentic restaurants.  I always feel that's worth bonus points.

I've found that the workers often won't know what you're talking about if you use the correct pronunciation. Either that or they'll relay it back to the person in the kitchen with the ignorant pronunciation.

Not in Denver. No one works in a Greek/Mediterranean restaurant that isn't originally from there.

[Rothman]

YEERO