5 ms·

At least for our company, Slack has been a net positive. Most issues around notifications are resolved by customizing your notification preferences per channel.

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 channel. If you're creating a group chat, you're most likely doing it wrong. You should have long-running specialized channels by topic that includes the relevant people. For example, if you're discussing a bug in XYZ analytics, post in #xyz-analytics. If you're discussing something specialized and short-lived, create a channel anyway. For example, #xyz-1.1-release. This helps in allowing engineers to focus on channels that are relevant to them. Go through all the channels with notifications showing, reading through each channel. Realise most of the content wasn’t relevant to me. Sometimes miss content that was that had shot too far up the page overnight. Unless that communication simply wasn't happening (in which case, Slack is a making a positive impact), that communication existed in some form elsewhere. It might have been email or in person, but either way, if the volume increased for you it's probably because you are simply privy to it now where you weren't before. Perhaps it's not relevant for you. That's fine, because at some point it will be, whereas you would have been excluded before. That means being able to head off bad decisions before they've had much time to gestate. 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. Slack isn't my ideal vehicle for this (I'd prefer something behind a firewall), but if it gets people talking out loud, then sure.

gingerlime 10y ago
> 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, personal conversation. Everything else should go into channels. But people seem to drift into DMs to "not disturb" others, or because it's only a question to one person etc. Our stats show around 40% public chat vs. 60% in DM (sometimes even 30/70). I some times wish I could block DMs completely, but I don't think it's possible. Any tips?
- mratzloff 10y ago
  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.
- captn3m0 10y ago
  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)
  - LinuxBender 10y ago
    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.
xraystyle 10y ago
I think the main takeaway here when I encounter these complaints about Slack all boil down to "you're doing it wrong". If you set good guidelines on usage and make sure you actually police them Slack is in an incredibly useful tool. Especially if you have offices in different geographic locations or a large number of remote employees. You can't hold the hammer by the head, try to pound nails with the handle, then complain that the hammer is no good for pounding nails.
leepowers 10y ago
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.
amelius 10y ago
> ... 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?
- mratzloff 10y ago
  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.
  - amelius 10y ago
    Just out of curiosity: do you have a manager role in your company? Are you the one who creates the most channels on slack, and do you invite the most users on slack? Because I suspect that people in different roles may feel differently about slack.
    - mratzloff 10y ago
      Yes. I don't create any channels. Team members create and invite users as necessary. The multiple narrow channels request in particular came from engineers.

gingerlime 10y ago

> 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, personal conversation. Everything else should go into channels. But people seem to drift into DMs to "not disturb" others, or because it's only a question to one person etc. Our stats show around 40% public chat vs. 60% in DM (sometimes even 30/70). I some times wish I could block DMs completely, but I don't think it's possible. Any tips?

mratzloff 10y ago
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.
captn3m0 10y ago
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)
- LinuxBender 10y ago
  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.

xraystyle 10y ago

I think the main takeaway here when I encounter these complaints about Slack all boil down to "you're doing it wrong". If you set good guidelines on usage and make sure you actually police them Slack is in an incredibly useful tool. Especially if you have offices in different geographic locations or a large number of remote employees. You can't hold the hammer by the head, try to pound nails with the handle, then complain that the hammer is no good for pounding nails.

leepowers 10y ago

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.

amelius 10y ago

> ... 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?

mratzloff 10y ago
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.
- amelius 10y ago
  Just out of curiosity: do you have a manager role in your company? Are you the one who creates the most channels on slack, and do you invite the most users on slack? Because I suspect that people in different roles may feel differently about slack.
  - mratzloff 10y ago
    Yes. I don't create any channels. Team members create and invite users as necessary. The multiple narrow channels request in particular came from engineers.