This is spot on. You should blame the tool for mismanaged expectations if the tool inherently sets the expectations.
I'm just trying to imagine ways you could use slack and not set an expectation of having someone online to chat to. Use a bot to resond with "we'll get back to you when we can"? There's no option that doesn't feel like an incredibly frustrating experience for the user.
Other support chat tools have solved this for quite some time with a queue and display of estimated waiting time. You may not get an initial response immediately, but once an agent becomes available they're assigned the chat and do communicate synchronously.
In comparison, Slack has no way to indicate that an agent is already working with someone else in another channel, nor any good way to assign a specific owner--customer questions are dumped into a channel with X support agents as members, one of whom will hopefully respond.
What confuses me is that's just not my experience. I've seen and helped run multiple company Slack channels, and none of them regularly had instant responses.
Would be an interesting slack integration to enable setting SLAs. Say a message prefaced with (question) starts a timer and then you can track an SLA against that.
Is this intended for support? We use single channel guests at the moment to collaborate on projects with external companies without any issue. This seems to be geared towards that.
I imagine it's intended for any use case in which you want to communicate with people outside your company via slack, but don't want to invite them into your org. I was responding to these comments:
>You customers are feeling like they can ask any question and get an answer in 1 minute, and if you dont answer them straight away then they are unhappy. Definitively not something I recommend
>Don’t blame the tool for mismanaged expectations.
So am I, "Don’t blame the tool for mismanaged expectations.". This is correct IMHO. Inviting customers in that expect support is setting their expectation that they'll get support in real time. I could think of potentially two of our customers that pay enough for us to consider this. The tool just needs to be used the correct way.
I don't understand how this can be a patent. I seem to be infringing on the patent every day whenever I try to navigate through xmls and json files with a friendly API. Can anyone shed some light on how this patent is innovative?
It sounds good in theory. In practice, I haven't heard much around running backwards migrations on a data warehouse / massive collection of events but I'm sure some out there already do it.
Yeah, that's the challenge. For instance, how do you handle when a column was one data type but then down the road was changed to another type when the two aren't cross compatible or could potentially break?
You could retain this info in a meta field of flexible type. For a DB, it could a JSON type. For messages, it could be an extra _meta field on the message that the systems themselves ignore.
Certain features of social networks like likes, reactions, recommendations, etc. trigger micro-dopamine releases in the brain, which in turn keep the individual craving for more.
The infinity scrolling appeals to our hunger for more and more stimuli, which in turn has us spend more time browsing the network. That longer exposure allows FB to monetise even further.
One thing that worries me – and it's not discussed in the article – is the loss of productivity, as well as cost of the opportunity for the individual.
In fact, individuals who become addicted to social networks may carry a psychological cost as well, which in turn reflects on the productivity of the individual inside the global economy system.
You could argue that time spent on Facebook would've been spent on other leisure activities anyway. But is it true? Much of this time is now spent due to compulsive behaviour, every 5 minutes, 10 minutes, as soon as you wake up, before going to bed, etc.
An individual does not owe the world 100% productivity. An individual doesn't owe the world any productivity. The only time an individual owes productivity is when there is an agreement for services in exchange for money or something else of value.
People commonly use productivity to try to quantify something in dollars, but it's always struck a nerve. It seems like when using that argument, the arguer assumes the world is owed any type of productivity by nature.
In your argument, you say you are worried that Facebook use results in a loss of productivity, as if the world is owed productivity. It is not. I'm not criticizing you, it's a common argument, but it is based on a misconception. If a person wants to spend almost all their time reading Facebook, or reading literature, as long as they are neutral with the system (pay for themselves in some way), that's perfectly fine.
I understand both your view (the worth of an individual is more than simply the net productive output of said individual), and the view that you are replying to (the loss to the world expressed in terms of systems thinking along some dimension).
I think you can actually reconcile both views in terms of happiness i.e. the global economy measured in terms of happiness generated. With this sort of model in mind, both you and person you are replying to can both be correct in that it is possible that social media is sub-optimal compared to some alternative that delivers some combination of increased immediate happiness and/or increased probability/reliability/sustainability of future happiness.
Oh, the psychological effects of Facebook I'm certainly not arguing with. I would imagine there are some issues as there are some plusses. I'm not well versed in it because I dropped my account years ago, but my wife uses it to keep in touch with people and groups. Like anything, it depends on how it's used or how much it's used. I was just concerned with the concept of productivity cost as a measurement.
I think the Quality of Life indicator represents what you are talking about.
This is anecdotal but I've noticed my time online is more 'productive' since quitting facebook. In places like waiting rooms, public transportation or general boredom the precise parts of the internet you use to waste time all serve a similar purpose (e.g to keep from staring into space mindlessly in the absence of other stimuli).
The greater productivity enters the picture because now I read things like hacker news and look up random things on the internet. This has lead to me learning useful skills and enough general knowledge to be helpful with different courses I've taken and small chat with people about their professions, interests etc.
Granted, there's the whole issue of people choosing their smartphone over interacting with the equally bored stranger next to them, but thats an entirely different problem.
Careful. Pointing your A record to a third party allows that party to use HPKP [1] with a long expiry period and never give you the key, potentially nuking the domain (for anyone who has visited it before you sell it).
This is a pretty serious attack - is there really no way to mitigate it? An arbitrary HTTP header is pretty low on the totem-pole of trust, so why don't they periodically check DNS records for corroboration?
People are reacting to the clickbait title, not the use of metaphor. As the submitter, you should be able to change the title of the submission. If you no longer can, contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer so they can update it on your behalf.
Continuing to submit a post tweaking the title to improve it's chances can be viewed as spamming, particularly as it appears that you're also the author. Please don't do that.
You're right in some of your comments, as is the author. At the end of the day, this kind of articles/outcry pushes the dev team to strive and shift focus to painpoints that may have not been a priority before (performance). I see it as a healthy sign in OSS communities.
