6 ms·

Actually I think you are wrong. The problem is then replaced with filter maintenance. If you've ever witnessed a seasoned outlook email hoarder, you will see th

by meaty 14y ago

Actually I think you are wrong. The problem is then replaced with filter maintenance. If you've ever witnessed a seasoned outlook email hoarder, you will see this is just as bad. I very much doubt a person functions any better with a smartphone versus without. Communications can usually wait, and if they can't, voice is still better.

eru 14y ago
> Actually I think you are wrong. The problem is then replaced with filter maintenance. If you've ever witnessed a seasoned outlook email hoarder, you will see this is just as bad. Outlook is a bad example, because its filters are too dumb. GMail does a pretty good job of maintaining its built-in filters automatically. So filters might be a compromise worth going for. Going without a smartphone might be better in the long run. But that will be a harder sell to people than good filters.
- meaty 14y ago
  I've not found Gmail or Outlook filters to be different to each other in any significant way. I actually find Gmail filters slightly worrying as they don't actually let you have SPAM and decide what to do with it. Occasionally in the past, I've had false positives on other providers but there is no way to know either way with GMail. I think people are starting to lose interest in smart phones. There is a rapid decline of them in my organisation (150 people). We've gone from all staff having them to about 90 users in the last year. The rest are back on cheap phones.
  - eru 14y ago
    GMails keeps your spam for two weeks. You can check the Spam folder regularly to check for false positives. > I've not found Gmail or Outlook filters to be different to each other in any significant way. Recently, GMail has introduced statistical filters for some predefined categories. Like Notifications, Social Updates, and a few more.
    - plywoodtrees 14y ago
      Actually, gmail keeps your spam for 30 days. If it's so low-value that it was recognized as spam and I didn't go looking for it for 30 days, the odds are high that I'll never want to see it again.

by meaty 14y ago

eru 14y ago

> Actually I think you are wrong. The problem is then replaced with filter maintenance. If you've ever witnessed a seasoned outlook email hoarder, you will see this is just as bad. Outlook is a bad example, because its filters are too dumb. GMail does a pretty good job of maintaining its built-in filters automatically. So filters might be a compromise worth going for. Going without a smartphone might be better in the long run. But that will be a harder sell to people than good filters.

meaty 14y ago
I've not found Gmail or Outlook filters to be different to each other in any significant way. I actually find Gmail filters slightly worrying as they don't actually let you have SPAM and decide what to do with it. Occasionally in the past, I've had false positives on other providers but there is no way to know either way with GMail. I think people are starting to lose interest in smart phones. There is a rapid decline of them in my organisation (150 people). We've gone from all staff having them to about 90 users in the last year. The rest are back on cheap phones.
- eru 14y ago
  GMails keeps your spam for two weeks. You can check the Spam folder regularly to check for false positives. > I've not found Gmail or Outlook filters to be different to each other in any significant way. Recently, GMail has introduced statistical filters for some predefined categories. Like Notifications, Social Updates, and a few more.
  - plywoodtrees 14y ago
    Actually, gmail keeps your spam for 30 days. If it's so low-value that it was recognized as spam and I didn't go looking for it for 30 days, the odds are high that I'll never want to see it again.