Hacker News Reader

Comment by edw519 | Hacker News Reader

I appreciate a good hack, but just can't get past the idea that this is a solution in search of a problem.

2 Reasons I would never consider using this:

1. I don't want anyone to have any idea "how busy I am". Maybe I'm old fashioned, but the size of my inbox, like many other things, is no one's business but mine.

2. This effectively makes the sender the gatekeeper for deciding what's important. I want to be my own gatekeeper. I would much rather have everyone send everything when they would normally send it and let me decide when or whether to read it. I can't think of any good reason why losing control and losing data would be advantageous. I'd rather figure out ways to manage my time and my inbox than wonder what I'm not receiving because someone else made a decision "on my behalf".

View on HN

"I appreciate a good hack, but just can't get past the idea that this is a solution in search of a problem."

I had exactly the same reaction: good hack, where's the problem?

The solution to the problem of too much email already exists, and that solution is ... email. Email is asynchronous, and you get to decide when and what to do with it.

Overflowing inboxes are the problem. Perhaps we should have provided more context about what we're trying to fix : )

These guys do a good job: http://emailcharter.org

We're trying to provide a framework around that first rule of respecting the recipient's time.

But respecting people's time isn't about knowing how much e-mail the person you're sending to has...

It's about sending only important e-mails/"not spamming". So, regardless of whether the guy I'm sending to has an empty or an overloaded inbox, I should always send the e-mail, because it's important.

Great point. That's why theres a line underneath "unbearable" that says "please only send if it's urgent."

Also to your point, I'm not sure if this is a good product for workplace email exchanges. In that setting you're sort of forced to send things to people wether you want to or not.

I don't have an overloaded inbox, but for those who do, it seems to me that they're mostly overloaded with stuff that was sent to a group rather than to them as an individual.

If the sender is even thinking about the question "Does this particular individual have time to read this email?" then the chances are that this email is already far more important than average.

"Overflowing inboxes are the problem." Exactly, maybe you can hack a simple "remove reply all button", so people need to think before they actually add more names to the CC list!

I know lots of people who could get a ton of use out of this. VC's, local startup facilitators, generally people who are probably getting a ton of emails from people who they don't know. I think this could be really useful for these people. Hell, even middle managers at large corps who are buried in mail.

Basically, if you're not getting a ton of email, you don't need this.

2) I can understand why you would want to see each and every email. Although I think some people get so much email that they would happily place some of the burden on the sender in exchange for the time savings.

I don't have this problem as I just leave emails I'm not immediately taking action on in the inbox. But maybe an auto-responder is a better solution for those that have this problem. It could explain that you're busy and hint that the sender can add the word "URGENT" to the subject to grab your attention in emergencies. You could then, with a few simple rules, manage your inbox without giving an external service access to your inbox.

Anyway, as far as anyone is concerned my inbox is always swamped. It's usually true, but if it's not I might get away with reading a few extra articles on HN without anyone knowing my inbox is screaming for some action.

2 Reasons I would never consider using this

I'd never use it either, but I'd also wouldn't post nearly as much information on facebook as most of my friends do.

Ones own preferences might not always be a good indicator the public's preferences.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com