4 ms·

Agreed. I definitely have more than 1GB of email, but asking one would need/use that amount of storage is a perfectly legit question.

rbanffy 15y ago
Because, according to the old paradigm, part of using email systems was the chore of deleting old messages. Much like it's perfectly natural to a lot of people to find a company's website, download a setup program and run it instead of running a package manager.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  Maybe it's just me, but I still have to delete messages. Otherwise a bunch of crap I no longer care about gets returned in GMail's search, completely defeating the purpose of having a search-driven interface.
  - FaceKicker 15y ago
    I find I'm unable to determine whether a message is crap I'll never care about again or not. Often I can't think of a reason I'd possibly ever use a message again, and lo and behold there's some strange reason I want to refer back to it 2 years later (e.g., figuring out my start date for an old job on a new application ... weird little cases like that).
    - nirvdrum 15y ago
      I guess just about everything Google will classify as "bulk" I'll never need again. The Groupon deal that expired yesterday isn't something I'm going to need to access 2 years from now. Maybe those monit alerts I will, but in all likelihood not. Things like that. But they usually end up having just enough terms to throw off GMail's already terrible search making it hard to find content I really care about.
  - mapgrep 15y ago
    I found using the is:read modifier in my searches is a great way of weeding out the crap, since I usually don't even bother to open that stuff. YMMV!
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > Otherwise a bunch of crap I no longer care about gets returned in GMail's search It may be a language issue or a query-building issue, but I feel no difficulty searching through my gmail mailboxes. I often adopt an iterative approach where I build up my query by watching what gets returned.

rbanffy 15y ago

Because, according to the old paradigm, part of using email systems was the chore of deleting old messages. Much like it's perfectly natural to a lot of people to find a company's website, download a setup program and run it instead of running a package manager.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nirvdrum 15y ago
Maybe it's just me, but I still have to delete messages. Otherwise a bunch of crap I no longer care about gets returned in GMail's search, completely defeating the purpose of having a search-driven interface.
- FaceKicker 15y ago
  I find I'm unable to determine whether a message is crap I'll never care about again or not. Often I can't think of a reason I'd possibly ever use a message again, and lo and behold there's some strange reason I want to refer back to it 2 years later (e.g., figuring out my start date for an old job on a new application ... weird little cases like that).
  - nirvdrum 15y ago
    I guess just about everything Google will classify as "bulk" I'll never need again. The Groupon deal that expired yesterday isn't something I'm going to need to access 2 years from now. Maybe those monit alerts I will, but in all likelihood not. Things like that. But they usually end up having just enough terms to throw off GMail's already terrible search making it hard to find content I really care about.
- mapgrep 15y ago
  I found using the is:read modifier in my searches is a great way of weeding out the crap, since I usually don't even bother to open that stuff. YMMV!
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > Otherwise a bunch of crap I no longer care about gets returned in GMail's search It may be a language issue or a query-building issue, but I feel no difficulty searching through my gmail mailboxes. I often adopt an iterative approach where I build up my query by watching what gets returned.