3 ms·

> it's like taking a $100 bill and lighting it on fire. Interesting example, appreciated! Let me try to improve it: it's like taking an envelope that might o

> it's like taking a $100 bill and lighting it on fire. Interesting example, appreciated! Let me try to improve it: it's like taking an envelope that might or might not contain an $100 bill and lighting it on fire. Not everything is useful, but we don't know until later. Also, the company doesn't get that $100 bill right away, only if they can dig it out 2 years later. Still, good example.

Alex3917 7y ago
> the company doesn't get that $100 bill right away, only if they can dig it out 2 years later. There's a fundamental tradeoff between the percentage of communication that gets captured and the usefulness of search. We take the position that email threads shouldn't be archived unless someone flags them to be saved, on the assumption that for most employees there are only a couple dozen (if that) really important email threads being created per year. But the value preserving this knowledge can be extremely high. E.g. most SaaS startups are built in part by wiring together a few third-party APIs, and the process of partnering and integrating with those third parties often involves email threads with hundreds of messages back and forth. If those threads get lost because the person leaves the company then that becomes extremely problematic.
- eitland 7y ago
  > We take the position that email threads shouldn't be archived unless someone flags them to be saved, on the assumption that for most employees there are only a couple dozen (if that) really important email threads being created per year. This probably differs from team to team I'm more or less sure I have been saved more than once by people who didn't tidy up after themselves and so left information behind even when they planned to remove it. Sometimes the reason seemed to be that people didn't care, on other cases it seemed like a way to try to keep knowledge for themselves. In those cases we would have been much better off if the default wasn't one-to-one. Not because they wouldn't have tried to circumvent it but because it would slip up more often. (Of course the real problem on such places is the culture though.)

Alex3917 7y ago

> the company doesn't get that $100 bill right away, only if they can dig it out 2 years later. There's a fundamental tradeoff between the percentage of communication that gets captured and the usefulness of search. We take the position that email threads shouldn't be archived unless someone flags them to be saved, on the assumption that for most employees there are only a couple dozen (if that) really important email threads being created per year. But the value preserving this knowledge can be extremely high. E.g. most SaaS startups are built in part by wiring together a few third-party APIs, and the process of partnering and integrating with those third parties often involves email threads with hundreds of messages back and forth. If those threads get lost because the person leaves the company then that becomes extremely problematic.

eitland 7y ago
> We take the position that email threads shouldn't be archived unless someone flags them to be saved, on the assumption that for most employees there are only a couple dozen (if that) really important email threads being created per year. This probably differs from team to team I'm more or less sure I have been saved more than once by people who didn't tidy up after themselves and so left information behind even when they planned to remove it. Sometimes the reason seemed to be that people didn't care, on other cases it seemed like a way to try to keep knowledge for themselves. In those cases we would have been much better off if the default wasn't one-to-one. Not because they wouldn't have tried to circumvent it but because it would slip up more often. (Of course the real problem on such places is the culture though.)