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

We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

medium.freecodecamp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 133 posts

Re: We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

#91

Post by pavel_lishin »

AckSyn wrote: post #67
pavel_lishin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are drawbacks, though: * no built-in file uploads * a bot is required for archiving * a bot is required for notifications * no native scrollback/history - IRC bouncers solve this problem, but it's not a plausible solution for most non-techies * the last two issues also mean that mobile solutions are going to be lacking. It's possible to have IRC as fully featured as slack, but it does mean either rolling your o…

* file uploads in your chat client are misplaced at best, and "rich" environments with formatting and images are 99.999% distractions * channel services can provide archiving and notifications. * scrollback can be handled by a bouncer, yes, but it's up to the IT dept to set it up per-user * there are plenty of usable irc clients for mobile, web, and desktop to satisfy this need. source: Started using telegram/slack b…

> file uploads in your chat client are misplaced at best, and "rich" environments with formatting and images are 99.999% distractions

We can agree to disagree, but I think that the wide adoption of things like Slack and Hipchat are strong indicators that most people side with me.

What sort of productivity problems did y'all have? Because I have a hard and fast rule - if someone tries to introduce a giphy bot into a channel, I will throw a full-blown tantrum and abuse it until it's gone.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly that Slack, etc., are not a place for documentation.

Re: We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

#92

Post by sucrose »

dahart wrote: post #86
mulletbum wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His point, which you have missed, is that although the archive thing was a problem, it may been their own fault. However, the number of users allowed was not, plus paying for the service wouldn't change that the cap exists.

My point, which you have missed, is that the author should have uncovered this cap before moving his community. It was clearly on sketchy ground before he did it. You can't say anything about what paying would have done, because he had no intention to pay. And if he had paid the 0.5 million, I'd be willing to bet that Slack would attend to his needs. But none of that happened, so it's a straw man.

> It's called a team and marketed for internal use, not as something you 're-sell' or offer customers.

Do you have a source for that information? One of the roles of Slack[0] is named "Member" not "Coworker".

> the author should have uncovered this cap before moving his community.

He tried: Slack said there was no limit, yet there was. Even Slack themselves mention starting with a "pilot team"[1] to demo; which wouldn't have discovered the limit either. How would you discover it?

[0] https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/201314026-Roles-and... [1] https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/217626298-Tips-for-...

Re: We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

#93

Post by pavel_lishin »

a_imho wrote: post #65
pavel_lishin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are drawbacks, though: * no built-in file uploads * a bot is required for archiving * a bot is required for notifications * no native scrollback/history - IRC bouncers solve this problem, but it's not a plausible solution for most non-techies * the last two issues also mean that mobile solutions are going to be lacking. It's possible to have IRC as fully featured as slack, but it does mean either rolling your o…

Why not just email?

Email implies a different sort of latency.

If I want to ask my coworker René for a quick bit of knowledge, a phone call is too disruptive and too urgent, and an email might not be answered for a few hours. Slack/hipchat/irc are the perfect medium for "hey, do you know off the top of your head why X is Y?"

Re: We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

#94

Post by Spooky23 »

Nomentatus wrote: post #90
dahart wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point, which you have missed, is that the author should have uncovered this cap before moving his community. It was clearly on sketchy ground before he did it. You can't say anything about what paying would have done, because he had no intention to pay. And if he had paid the 0.5 million, I'd be willing to bet that Slack would attend to his needs. But none of that happened, so it's a straw man.

Please share your method of uncovering, in advance, undocumented limits inherent in software; it's desperately needed. The guy left a free trial for another free trial; if he's at fault we're all at fault every time we change our go-to software. The lesson might be that "there be dragons" - you should guess that any "better" program or SaaS out there is less that half of what it says once unknown limits have been dis…

Customer: Hello vendor, we're a customer with tens of thousands of active users and no intention to pay. How many users can you support in your free tier? How do you handle situations with high message volumes?

You should engage with the vendor. Perhaps there are intangible benefits to the vendor for you to use them even at no cost (PR, testing opportunity, etc)

Generally speaking, if you are dependent on a free service to do your business, you are fucked. A friend is a policy consultant who relied on Google Reader to be his knowledge repository. He bills the equivalent of $800/hr and was nearly paralyzed as it went away.

Re: We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

#95

Post by dahart »

sgift wrote: post #88
dahart wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a completely legitimate point. They are expecting "team" to be self explanatory, and it is a vague term that is not self-explanatory. If there's a size limit, it would be best if they stated that plainly. But, come on, you have to admit that an online community of thousands of people does not fit even the most charitable interpretation of the word "team".

> But, come on, you have to admit that an online community of thousands of people does not fit even the most charitable interpretation of the word "team". That is basically what the whole thread and article evolves about. Are 10k people a team? Really? Sure, you can argue all day that technically it may be the case, the whole world could be my team, some kind of super team and so a service shouldn't make any assumpti…

The whole world is not a team. You can only say that if you're making an intentionally, consciously hyperbolic statement.

I am not interested in long and un-ending pedantic arguments about the extreme corner-case definitions of words. I maintain that an online community of 10k people does not fit even the most charitable meaning of a working "team". If that doesn't work for you, then you're only setting yourself up for surprise.

This argument that "any size" should really mean "any size" amounts to someone walking into an "all-you-can-eat" buffet and expecting to be able to sit at the same table for 2 weeks eating all meals for the price of one, and then complaining that the 'all you can eat' advertisement should overrule all other policies the restaurant has.

It would be the same as someone seeing an ad for mini-golfing for $20 for a family of any size, and then bringing four thousand of your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cousins, and demanding that the entire group gets in for $20. While there's a pedantic, technical truth to cousins belonging to your 'family', it doesn't meet anybody's common understanding of what an ad for family prices means, even the person trying to cheat the system.

If the author truly didn't even suspect that his 10k users is a massive stretch of the idea of a "team", the message limits should have been a clue, but instead of acknowledging he was pushing the limits, he blamed Slack.

Re: We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

#96

Post by dahart »

Nomentatus wrote: post #90
dahart wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point, which you have missed, is that the author should have uncovered this cap before moving his community. It was clearly on sketchy ground before he did it. You can't say anything about what paying would have done, because he had no intention to pay. And if he had paid the 0.5 million, I'd be willing to bet that Slack would attend to his needs. But none of that happened, so it's a straw man.

Please share your method of uncovering, in advance, undocumented limits inherent in software; it's desperately needed. The guy left a free trial for another free trial; if he's at fault we're all at fault every time we change our go-to software. The lesson might be that "there be dragons" - you should guess that any "better" program or SaaS out there is less that half of what it says once unknown limits have been dis…

It's called "due diligence", and people do it all the time.

He didn't change his own personal go-to software, we're not talking about a trial of a video game here. He changed the software for thousands of his users. He put thousands of people on a free trial for something that was not obviously going to work.

You do have the option to investigate before you make that kind of move. If you choose not to exercise it, you don't have that much ground to stand on when things don't work out.

Re: We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

#97

Post by xkxx »

Spoom wrote: post #81
pavel_lishin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are drawbacks, though: * no built-in file uploads * a bot is required for archiving * a bot is required for notifications * no native scrollback/history - IRC bouncers solve this problem, but it's not a plausible solution for most non-techies * the last two issues also mean that mobile solutions are going to be lacking. It's possible to have IRC as fully featured as slack, but it does mean either rolling your o…

Matrix[1] solves some of these issues, notably the archiving and native scrollback, and has a working IRC gateway. We're experimenting with it at our IRC network now. 1. http://matrix.org/

Can you name your IRC network and elaborate on how you are planning to integrate Matrix into it?

Re: We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

#98

Post by dahart »

sucrose wrote: post #92
dahart wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point, which you have missed, is that the author should have uncovered this cap before moving his community. It was clearly on sketchy ground before he did it. You can't say anything about what paying would have done, because he had no intention to pay. And if he had paid the 0.5 million, I'd be willing to bet that Slack would attend to his needs. But none of that happened, so it's a straw man.

> It's called a team and marketed for internal use, not as something you 're-sell' or offer customers. Do you have a source for that information? One of the roles of Slack[0] is named "Member" not "Coworker". > the author should have uncovered this cap before moving his community. He tried: Slack said there was no limit, yet there was. Even Slack themselves mention starting with a "pilot team"[1] to demo; which would…

How about "Slack for Teams is a single workspace for your small- to medium-sized company or team."? https://limnu.slack.com/pricing

But your question presumes that the word "team" isn't enough, and that the implied team size that comes with a 10k message limit also isn't enough. Why?

Re: We Tried Slack and We Deeply Regretted It (2015)

#99

Post by zedadex »

dahart wrote: post #96
Nomentatus wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please share your method of uncovering, in advance, undocumented limits inherent in software; it's desperately needed. The guy left a free trial for another free trial; if he's at fault we're all at fault every time we change our go-to software. The lesson might be that "there be dragons" - you should guess that any "better" program or SaaS out there is less that half of what it says once unknown limits have been dis…

It's called "due diligence", and people do it all the time. He didn't change his own personal go-to software, we're not talking about a trial of a video game here. He changed the software for thousands of his users. He put thousands of people on a free trial for something that was not obviously going to work. You do have the option to investigate before you make that kind of move. If you choose not to exercise it, yo…

The due diligence in this case would have been researching the user limits which (as others have pointed out) were not published or advertised anywhere.
Post reply on HN