Love this. This whole "email is broken" argument reminds me of the "SMS sucks, and iMessage/GChat/BBM will destroy it" argument perpetuated by TechCrunch and other tech pundits. There are two reasons that email and SMS are not broken, and the author of this article points them out: asynchronous communication, and no single entity controlling the entire ecosystem. The value of knowing you can reach anyone, anywhere, a…
SMS helps prove the point that email is broken. When my wife sends me a text message, does she care about the protocol? No, she just wants to remind me to pick up appetizers, wine, and beer for tonight's party. Does she want to be limited to 140 bytes? No. She can send a long message and has no idea about the protocol limit. Nice SMS clients take care of splitting it up and packaging it all back together into one sea…
Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
121–130 of 146 posts
Re: Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I read this piece from Paul Graham, I wondered if he had an assistant (I mean a flesh and bones personal assistant). Is that that assistant are too expensive nowadays in the West? If I were a powerful influencer with enough money, I'd consider hiring an assistant to help me filter these mails. He or she will probably be easier to train than a Bayesian filter... Automatisation is not the last word for every human…
Yea he should probably hire an assistant. Good secretaries can light saber through bullshit. That said, I can't afford a secretary and my inbox is completely out of control. It's won. I've lost. There is virtually nothing I can do about it at the moment.
Is it just that you're communicating with too many people? Do most of the emails require action, or are some of them things you don't even want to read?
Re: Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
#123Email is not a reliable messaging system. It gives enough of an appearance of reliability that most people using it think it is reliable. But if you have ever had a very important message disappear into a black hole with no notification, you learn not to treat email as reliable.
Email is not private. But most people do not realize this, and act as if it is. The quantity of proprietary business information and very private personal information transmitted by email is astounding. Governments can, and many do, slurp all email messages. Email "providers" such as ISPs, Google, Yahoo, et al have all your emails, even those you think you may have deleted. PGP/GPG are attempts to add a privacy layer, but have failed because they are too difficult for almost everyone.
Email is useful, for what it was intended for. If you expect it to be something it was not designed to be, then of course you might think "email is broken".
Today there is a need for a reliable and private global messaging system. SMTP is not such a system, but it is still used as one because it's "good enough" and so widespread that nothing better has been able to displace it.
Re: Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
#124In the work environment, little is more frustrating than not being addressed/cc-ed on some important/critical conversation. Someone leaves your address off, and "Bam!", you're out of the conversation.
I call this the "submarining conversation". It dives below the water, and you remain unaware of it unless or until it surfaces. (Whereupon it often causes considerable disruption. E.g. An entire section of specifications that you were never made aware of.)
Or you are added to an assignment and have to spend time and effort chasing down the various email conversations that have comprised its efforts to this point. AND... once you have them, gluing them together in your head and/or on screen or in text, in order to come up with a coherent and not overly redundant picture.
Google's Wave I saw as a genuine effort to address this. Actually, it is really an iteration on the centrally stored, group conversation. For example, web bulletin boards that were "all the rage" about a decade ago.
Wave added decentralize-able membership controls and sophisticated authoring and version control. Things very useful in a work or similar environment.
It didn't need to be email. But it could better fulfill a role too often filled poorly by email.
HOWEVER, Google slapped a ridiculously bogged down and unintuitive user interface on top of it, then said "figure it out". And so, it died, at least as a Google product and with respect to gaining Google's potential momentum.
SO, I'd say there are some applications of email, that could better be done other ways than through email. But this is not email's fault. It is the result of the limitations of users, both conceptually and in terms of the limited scope of tools that -- particularly in many work environments -- they are supplied and permitted.
P.S. Such organization of conversations pertains not only to contemporary work, but also to compliance and audit-ability. When trying to determine later what happened, with email conversations one it left to obtain, search, and/or reconstruct any number of email archives, hoping that none of the archives nor individual messages have been irretrievably lost or deleted.
Re: Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
#125Couldn't upvote this more. I am fed up with posts telling me email is broken and a new disruptive tech will be the cure. Email is an open protocol, decentralized, providing optional security. Shortcomings—or rather call them additional requirements—can be solved with tools keeping email focussed on async text-based communication. Want to send large files? Dropbox. Want more automation? Improve the client side and/or…
Email was not designed to be used the way we use it now. ...my inbox is a todo list, and email is the way things get onto it. But it is a disastrously bad todo list. ...it seems unlikely that people in 100 years will still be living in the same email hell we do now. And if email is going to get replaced eventually, why not now? ...some of the most powerful people are all at the mercy of email too. [1] Your posts remi…
And what is that problem? Yeah, email makes a poor to-do list, but if everyone around you is eating soup out of top hats, then you need to rethink soup bowls, not top hats. Tinkering with email doesn't help you make a better to-do list.
Re: Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
#126There is one thing I have found to be "broken" with email. Or rather, a manner in which it is commonly poorly/mis-used. Group conversations. In the work environment, little is more frustrating than not being addressed/cc-ed on some important/critical conversation. Someone leaves your address off, and "Bam!", you're out of the conversation. I call this the "submarining conversation". It dives below the water, and you…
Internal message boards are a possible solution to this.
Re: Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
#127"Email is a distributed, asynchronous messaging protocol." What a complete disconnect from the users of email. To 99.99% of people who use email, Paul is correct: "Email is not a messaging protocol. It's a todo list. Or rather, my inbox is a todo list, and email is the way things get onto it." When people say "email", they almost always mean their email client. Failure to account for the common usage of the word and…
Half of these are not to-do items in a sense other than "please read this text". They don't even want a reply.
* The political call to action is an annoyance; it wants me to sign a petition against CISPA. I plan to write my congress people directly instead. I don't know how I got subscribed to these, but writing this comment reminded me to unsubscribe.
* I don't want to read any of the four newsletters. I might want to read them some day, and ideally, they'd be filtered in to a "newsletters" folder and not show up as "new mail" when they come in.
* The account statement is something I want to have but not act on. It shouldn't trigger a "new mail" alert either.
* I have no desire to apply for the jobs. I'm kind of curious as to where these people got my email address, as they appear to be actual employers and not recruiters.
* I might go to the meetup.
* I wrote a reply to my friend, agreeing to host her website and telling her what she needs to do to make that happen.
How do you propose to improve my experience?
Re: Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
#128There is one thing I have found to be "broken" with email. Or rather, a manner in which it is commonly poorly/mis-used. Group conversations. In the work environment, little is more frustrating than not being addressed/cc-ed on some important/critical conversation. Someone leaves your address off, and "Bam!", you're out of the conversation. I call this the "submarining conversation". It dives below the water, and you…
> In the work environment, little is more frustrating than not being addressed/cc-ed on some important/critical conversation. Someone leaves your address off, and "Bam!", you're out of the conversation. Internal message boards are a possible solution to this.
Re: Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
And why would anyone follow it? You need some kind of punishing system for it to be effective, and I'm opposed to that.
I'm opposed to that too, but I immediately ignore arguements made by people who can't make them without swearing.
Also, your stance might be unfortunate if someone ever shouts at you, "Fuck me, there's a tiger, run!"
Re: Email is not broken: It’s a framework, not an application
#130Couldn't upvote this more. I am fed up with posts telling me email is broken and a new disruptive tech will be the cure. Email is an open protocol, decentralized, providing optional security. Shortcomings—or rather call them additional requirements—can be solved with tools keeping email focussed on async text-based communication. Want to send large files? Dropbox. Want more automation? Improve the client side and/or…
I agree with the entire sentiment as well, but would point out one flaw: You send a message and it either goes where it’s supposed to, or you get an error message back. Generally yes, assuming everything between you and the recipient is properly configured, but it's not guaranteed. It's possible to send an email had it just disappears. No bounce, no delivery. It doesn't happen often, and as far as I know it's never h…
While it's possible for a mail to just disappear (or more often, automatically be sorted into a spam folder) the protocol is designed to be quite robust in how responsibilities for delivery are passed on to servers delivering the message.