[HN Gopher] Organize your Slack channels by "How Often", not "What"
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Organize your Slack channels by "How Often", not "What"
        
       Author : todsacerdoti
       Score  : 31 points
       Date   : 2025-09-30 20:04 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (aggressivelyparaphrasing.me)
 (TXT) w3m dump (aggressivelyparaphrasing.me)
        
       | saltyoldman wrote:
       | This kinda highlights how behind Slack is with AI. No reminders
       | of questions, no agentic flows, no focus on UX and AI. At this
       | point if someone asks me - when is the release? It should have a
       | prompt - Answer: "It looks like the release is still waiting for
       | Timothy to get his PR done. Slack AI has this status from him -
       | Almost done - but it does also appear he's not at his desk and on
       | the phone in a vehicle at this time."
       | 
       | Slack is slackin
        
         | al_borland wrote:
         | Ideally, if the person asking has access to the channels with
         | this information, it should show the person sending it the
         | answer before sending the message interrupting you.
        
       | Axol wrote:
       | I use Teams but I usually just leave on read as a signal to get
       | to it later when I have time. I have notifs muted. But I'm also
       | not pinged so often that I need tactics like this article. Good
       | stuff.
        
       | kbos87 wrote:
       | It definitely depends on the nature of your work, but the notion
       | of having a channel I need to check hourly makes me ill. If I'm
       | needed I should get a notification, and if I'm involved in an
       | active discussion, I'm there. Otherwise I'll catch up on a daily
       | basis.
        
       | dogleash wrote:
       | Even with OP's kind of sorting, office chat products conceal the
       | priority of any given message to trick you into more
       | participation. The "purpose of a system is what it does" style
       | thinking can get carried away, but more than 99% of the messages
       | in places I will be expected to notice things that require same
       | day attention, don't. The goal is to waste my time.
       | 
       | I rarely have >3 unscheduled conversations in a day that couldn't
       | wait until tomorrow morning. They just never come from the same
       | place.
       | 
       | It's a yappers paradise. They wouldn't include me on an email
       | where they deliberately have to pick participants, but think the
       | serendipity will occur down the road justifies forcefeeding me
       | whatever bullshit they're working on just in case.
        
         | cosmic_cheese wrote:
         | I think this has gotten worse with time. In the early days back
         | when Slack still had a barely modified standard chat UI, it
         | wasn't nearly as much of a problem. Most of the UI changes made
         | since then have been "solutions" to problems caused by their
         | other changes.
         | 
         | I'd love to have original the origins design back.
        
       | lucb1e wrote:
       | Huh, I never thought of it that way but we sort of have that,
       | just that it's two entries instead of a whole list of
       | frequencies. There's a general chat that you can read
       | whenever~never (participate as much as you want), and one that
       | you _are_ supposed to read (also after a holiday, you 're meant
       | to read what was announced). Taking a peek every now and then
       | throughout the day is fine (most days there's 0-2 messages in
       | it). It's basically email whereas the other chat is 'chat'
       | 
       | And of course, if someone needs you specifically, they'll
       | @mention or PM you
       | 
       | Not sure why you would need a four-tiered scheme of frequencies
       | for this
        
         | chatmasta wrote:
         | How big is your company? We have ~800 people and after about
         | two years I'm in close to 200 channels. I don't leave them
         | because then I won't be able to find messages in search for the
         | private channels. I just throw everything into a "stale"
         | category at the bottom of the sidebar every few months.
        
           | fluoridation wrote:
           | They're _all_ private? Why are you guys doing that?
        
             | chatmasta wrote:
             | A good number of them are. I don't like it either. I make
             | every new channel public.
        
       | matsemann wrote:
       | Why can't slack let me do something in between muting a channel
       | or notifying me of every new message? Like, perhaps for some
       | channels I want to read every message, but it's not time
       | critical, so it would be nice if it only became "unread" once a
       | day if it has new messages since last time.
        
         | rectang wrote:
         | Notify on start of new thread or @mention is the sweet spot.
         | 
         | But there are always people who insist on having their entire
         | conversation at the top level of the channel rather than in a
         | thread, so everybody gets notified for every message (unless
         | they mute the whole channel).
         | 
         | /me shakes fist at cloud that looks like the face of a past
         | team lead
        
           | chatmasta wrote:
           | That doesn't generate notifications by default. It does bold
           | the channel though.
        
         | oncallthrow wrote:
         | Disable notifications for the channel and use the Unreads tab
         | (or "Catch Up" I believe it is now called)
        
       | dredmorbius wrote:
       | I've arrived at this organisation method on a number of
       | platforms, essentially sorting contacts into a set of priority
       | lists, usually just three: high, medium, low, or A/B/C, whatevs.
       | 
       | I'll often also pin a specific search term of interest for a
       | topic I'm following for the moment, but don't plan on subscribing
       | to.
       | 
       | Most of the time my streams are then the A & B lists plus a topic
       | of interest. Very rarely more than that. If anything vital turns
       | up I'll generally see it one way or another. Every so often (a
       | few times a week/month/year) I'll glance at the lower-priority
       | lists.
       | 
       | I've also made a point of putting highly-voluble sources in their
       | own channel, and then ... ignoring that. This keeps them from
       | dominating other streams, their good stuff (usually infrequent)
       | tends to show up elsewhere through re-shares, and my own QoL is
       | generally improved.
       | 
       | Whenever the experience starts to get too annoying, I start
       | pruning from my high-priority lists. Less is more. No news is
       | good news.
        
       | sublinear wrote:
       | I'm surprised people are still using work chat like this.
       | 
       | My workplace switched to Teams about 5 years ago. The app is of
       | course janky and slow, but it had the side effect of pushing all
       | the important conversations to emails and scheduled meetings.
       | 
       | Teams integrates with Outlook well enough that I never have to
       | second guess my schedule and all the chatter is now just DMs,
       | informal group chats that I would actually care about, and a
       | bunch of broader group channels that nobody is expected to look
       | at very often (not even every day).
       | 
       | I rarely feel distracted by chat anymore unless it makes sense
       | because something is actually on fire.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-09-30 23:00 UTC)