5 ms·

I disagree. Twitter integration is great because it gives us a way to have tweets about our brand appear and we can discuss each one if needed. Munin integrati

I disagree. Twitter integration is great because it gives us a way to have tweets about our brand appear and we can discuss each one if needed. Munin integration via our bot just alerted us to the Linode DDoS today. We've created our own bot which recognizes bug ID's and expands the bug with title, description and status and a link. Same with support tickets. Also our bot can draw cows on demand. Very important that.

rekoros 11y ago
Twitter-wise, even better is to respond from Slack to tweets in real time with this integration — https://sameroom.io/integrations/respond-to-twitter-from-slack https://sameroom.io/integrations/respond-to-twitter-from-sla... [0] [0] shameless
- mmaunder 11y ago
  Thanks for sharing. A channel for every tweet would create a lot of channels for us. We've had a few hundred tweets today. https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=wordfence&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=wordf... In general our workflow is to have 2 people in the org able to reply to tweets. And the rest of us are the peanut gallery just expressing what we think in the channel. So it works better to have it read-only in a single channel - at least for our purposes. Right now we just see name, username, link and tweet. So it might be useful to unfurl that a little and show number of followers/following and give permissions to specific usernames to reply in-channel. Also create @channel or @username alerts when a twitter user has more than X followers - although I really hate that idea because I've seen people who (I'm pretty sure) buy followers bullying companies on twitter to get VIP treatment - but I guess that could be useful too.
  - rekoros 11y ago
    It's a channel for every "conversation", not tweet. The benefit here is that you can keep talking to someone without asking them to email support@company.com. There is usually a window of open channels -- 15 or 40, say, that remain active in parallel. Oldest channels outside the window get auto-archived. You can also favorite directly from Slack with "-sameroom <3". Only those people who are "on call" will actually see the channels (for details, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cg7LQOVZbkm8tmUyc_yJsp8eKHimWBS3XbaejQL3GCU/edit# https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cg7LQOVZbkm8tmUyc_yJsp8e...)
    - te_chris 11y ago
      This seems terrible. If much rather people used proper support software like desk for support
      - dvanduzer 11y ago
        That is one way of thinking about the world. Another way is to consider all software as support software. The machines are supposed to be there to help us. There are countless players offering transactional support systems, and just like every other Big Software Vertical, the industry is still re-aligning around "Web 2.0". Desk's primary market distinction is that Salesforce owns them. (That's a huge selling point in the enterprise, but not necessarily interesting to the HN crowd.) The grandparent post is describing a workflow for more conversational customer interactions. The industry term-of-art for this is something like multi-channel support, but Slack's Big Philosophy is to just be more playful. The "proper software" to use is the software that gets stuff done. If you get more than two people defining what "proper support software" is, you end up with something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMC_Remedy_Action_Request_System#Applications_using_Action_Request_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMC_Remedy_Action_Request_Syst... People just have different workflows. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
zwarag 11y ago
3. Integrations are mostly gimmicks. FTFY

rekoros 11y ago

Twitter-wise, even better is to respond from Slack to tweets in real time with this integration — https://sameroom.io/integrations/respond-to-twitter-from-slack https://sameroom.io/integrations/respond-to-twitter-from-sla... [0] [0] shameless

mmaunder 11y ago
Thanks for sharing. A channel for every tweet would create a lot of channels for us. We've had a few hundred tweets today. https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=wordfence&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=wordf... In general our workflow is to have 2 people in the org able to reply to tweets. And the rest of us are the peanut gallery just expressing what we think in the channel. So it works better to have it read-only in a single channel - at least for our purposes. Right now we just see name, username, link and tweet. So it might be useful to unfurl that a little and show number of followers/following and give permissions to specific usernames to reply in-channel. Also create @channel or @username alerts when a twitter user has more than X followers - although I really hate that idea because I've seen people who (I'm pretty sure) buy followers bullying companies on twitter to get VIP treatment - but I guess that could be useful too.
- rekoros 11y ago
  It's a channel for every "conversation", not tweet. The benefit here is that you can keep talking to someone without asking them to email support@company.com. There is usually a window of open channels -- 15 or 40, say, that remain active in parallel. Oldest channels outside the window get auto-archived. You can also favorite directly from Slack with "-sameroom <3". Only those people who are "on call" will actually see the channels (for details, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cg7LQOVZbkm8tmUyc_yJsp8eKHimWBS3XbaejQL3GCU/edit# https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cg7LQOVZbkm8tmUyc_yJsp8e...)
  - te_chris 11y ago
    This seems terrible. If much rather people used proper support software like desk for support
    - dvanduzer 11y ago
      That is one way of thinking about the world. Another way is to consider all software as support software. The machines are supposed to be there to help us. There are countless players offering transactional support systems, and just like every other Big Software Vertical, the industry is still re-aligning around "Web 2.0". Desk's primary market distinction is that Salesforce owns them. (That's a huge selling point in the enterprise, but not necessarily interesting to the HN crowd.) The grandparent post is describing a workflow for more conversational customer interactions. The industry term-of-art for this is something like multi-channel support, but Slack's Big Philosophy is to just be more playful. The "proper software" to use is the software that gets stuff done. If you get more than two people defining what "proper support software" is, you end up with something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMC_Remedy_Action_Request_System#Applications_using_Action_Request_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMC_Remedy_Action_Request_Syst... People just have different workflows. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

zwarag 11y ago

3. Integrations are mostly gimmicks. FTFY