Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Actually, Slack really sucks

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#31

Post by Bedon292 »

Manishearth wrote: post #16

I've found that slack takes up way more time for me too. I'm usually in 50 IRC channels at once. My workflow when I open irc is to check my hilight window for pings, and then glance at the channel list for backscroll chatter in channels I follow closely (if bored, also look at chatter in other channels). I then respond to things, and switch back to the hilight window. I occasionally glance at this window to check for…

Have you tried the slack desktop app? It is much better than having to keep a bunch of different tabs open. I find it easier to handle multiple teams that way.

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#32

Post by eridius »

schlarpc wrote: post #18
eridius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised your gaming groups are on Slack, given that Discord is basically a Slack clone that's geared specifically for gaming and seems to be really popular. Edit: Discourse -> Discord

I don't particularly like Discord (which I assume you meant) because I don't see a monetization plan for them that doesn't screw over their users. With Slack, I know that they have enterprise customers that essentially pay for the free users. Discord has nothing like that, and I can only foresee two outcomes: running out of money or selling out their users. Charging for their service won't really work, either, becaus…

Yeah I meant Discord. Not sure why I typed Discourse there.

You have a great point about monetization. My understanding is that their monetization plan is to start selling things like sticker packs (e.g. how other messenger services get monetized), but I don't know how likely that is to succeed.

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#33

Post by eridius »

existencebox wrote: post #20
eridius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised your gaming groups are on Slack, given that Discord is basically a Slack clone that's geared specifically for gaming and seems to be really popular. Edit: Discourse -> Discord

Wonderful case in point; one of my groups is on slack, whereas my serious raid group is on Discord (which I assume you meant :) ) and a third group is on TeamSpeak; up until recently Mumble was in the mix as well. It's really a portmanteau of silly apps to keep track of.

Yeah I meant Discord.

Having a mixture of groups is hard. When I was playing Destiny, my group there was actually using GroupMe (which is pretty awful for a variety of reasons). I actually created a Slack and wrote a GroupMeSlack gateway, though it kept breaking because GroupMe's API stopped sending messages until I cycled the connection, and I eventually had to shut that down when Heroku changed their free tier (which coincided nicely with me losing interest in Destiny).

My current WoW guild (of which I'm a casual, not raiding, member) uses TeamSpeak, and I don't know why they're not on Discord. It's annoying enough that I don't usually bother to join it.

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#34

Post by mavhc »

rafBM wrote: post #29

We (founders of ConferenceBadge.com) never enjoyed Slack nor other chat apps because they encourage immediate attention, or you just end up missing out. And we are a team of 4… can’t imagine using it in larger organizations. We never found any tool that would completely satisfy our collaboration needs, so we created Missive: https://missiveapp.com It’s built on the idea that conversations should be scoped and archiva…

The way you describe it reminds me of Google Wave. That was way too complex for most people though.

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#35

Post by leepowers »

mratzloff wrote: post #10

At least for our company, Slack has been a net positive. Most issues around notifications are resolved by customizing your notification preferences per channel. Now try this in Slack. Remember, it’s one of 10 issues you’ll have in a day, so you start with creating a group chat instead of a dedicated channel. Stop. All of the problems that follow this statement are a result of creating a group chat instead of a channe…

Good policies, and a good use case for Slack. My own Slack experience has been like others - bad usage patterns aka "Slack abuse" that makes works more difficult. The problem is not the platform, but how people use the platform. 90% of email is spam. That fact doesn't detract from the utility of email.

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#36

Post by amelius »

mratzloff wrote: post #10

At least for our company, Slack has been a net positive. Most issues around notifications are resolved by customizing your notification preferences per channel. Now try this in Slack. Remember, it’s one of 10 issues you’ll have in a day, so you start with creating a group chat instead of a dedicated channel. Stop. All of the problems that follow this statement are a result of creating a group chat instead of a channe…

> ... you're most likely doing it wrong. You should have long-running specialized channels by topic that include the relevant people.

But then you end up with a thousand channels.

Also, if so many people are "doing it wrong", isn't that a sign that the UX is lacking?

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#37

Post by mratzloff »

gingerlime wrote: post #26
mratzloff wrote: post #10

At least for our company, Slack has been a net positive. Most issues around notifications are resolved by customizing your notification preferences per channel. Now try this in Slack. Remember, it’s one of 10 issues you’ll have in a day, so you start with creating a group chat instead of a dedicated channel. Stop. All of the problems that follow this statement are a result of creating a group chat instead of a channe…

> I've established a guideline for my group that all (non-sensitive) communication should happen in public, and that means on Slack. That alone has made a big difference in making sure people are in the loop and that bad decisions are visible to everyone. This is one of the main challenges I'm seeing. Getting people off DM's and into public chats. I explained several times that DMs should only be for sensitive, perso…

Blocking DMs wouldn't solve the core issue and is counterproductive. You still want them for coordinating things like one-on-one meetings, for starters.

Instead, tie concrete problems for the individuals who prefer DM to a lack of visibility. Hold them accountable for future problems that occur.

Oh, that release went poorly? Who needed to be in the loop who wasn't? What can you do differently next time? Yes, getting them all in a group chat would be an improvement, but if you really want it to go smoothly next time, make it visible and public so everyone who has something to contribute can and you personally don't have to run around making sure everyone is in the loop. It's easier for you and it's a better practice.

The next time there's a problem that can be attributed to lack of public communication, reference the first conversation and ask why they didn't make it public. Then ask what steps they can take after this conversation to make sure they do it next time. After this it becomes a standard coaching/performance issue.

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#38

Post by mratzloff »

amelius wrote: post #36
mratzloff wrote: post #10

At least for our company, Slack has been a net positive. Most issues around notifications are resolved by customizing your notification preferences per channel. Now try this in Slack. Remember, it’s one of 10 issues you’ll have in a day, so you start with creating a group chat instead of a dedicated channel. Stop. All of the problems that follow this statement are a result of creating a group chat instead of a channe…

> ... you're most likely doing it wrong. You should have long-running specialized channels by topic that include the relevant people. But then you end up with a thousand channels. Also, if so many people are "doing it wrong", isn't that a sign that the UX is lacking?

Better to have many narrow channels that update infrequently than a few firehose channels that are impossible to keep up with. Of those channels, there are usually only a couple that an engineer really needs to follow on any given day, so it's easier to go heads-down. In the firehose channels things get missed unless people are very good about using @ mentions for the correct people, which most aren't.

Also, if so many people are "doing it wrong", isn't that a sign that something is lacking in the UX?

People use email poorly, too. You have to make your communication work for your organization.

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#39

Post by captn3m0 »

gingerlime wrote: post #26
mratzloff wrote: post #10

At least for our company, Slack has been a net positive. Most issues around notifications are resolved by customizing your notification preferences per channel. Now try this in Slack. Remember, it’s one of 10 issues you’ll have in a day, so you start with creating a group chat instead of a dedicated channel. Stop. All of the problems that follow this statement are a result of creating a group chat instead of a channe…

> I've established a guideline for my group that all (non-sensitive) communication should happen in public, and that means on Slack. That alone has made a big difference in making sure people are in the loop and that bad decisions are visible to everyone. This is one of the main challenges I'm seeing. Getting people off DM's and into public chats. I explained several times that DMs should only be for sensitive, perso…

Whenever someone sends me a DM, I usually reply with a "please use #tech" or whatever the relevant channel is.

Our company onboarding guide includes the line: "All communication on slack _must_ be in public channels. All emails must be cc'ed to a mailing list." Of course there are sane exceptions to this, but everyone follows this generally, and we get >90% public communication over slack every month.

Our current stats are:

>95% public channels, 0% private channels, 4% DMs (>1M messages)

Re: Actually, Slack really sucks

#40

Post by LinuxBender »

captn3m0 wrote: post #39
gingerlime wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've established a guideline for my group that all (non-sensitive) communication should happen in public, and that means on Slack. That alone has made a big difference in making sure people are in the loop and that bad decisions are visible to everyone. This is one of the main challenges I'm seeing. Getting people off DM's and into public chats. I explained several times that DMs should only be for sensitive, perso…

Whenever someone sends me a DM, I usually reply with a "please use #tech" or whatever the relevant channel is. Our company onboarding guide includes the line: "All communication on slack _must_ be in public channels. All emails must be cc'ed to a mailing list." Of course there are sane exceptions to this, but everyone follows this generally, and we get >90% public communication over slack every month. Our current sta…

You probably know this, but any public channel a user is in can be relayed to a 3rd party (entirely) if that user subscribes to an app that was approved. All of those messages are also available for any of your admins to pull on demand. All of this said, I'm sure your org is ultra careful what things you talk about in Slack. I am just saying this in the event someone doesn't know.
Post reply on HN