How much of this has to do with “slack sort of deliberately gives you a bunch of lego blocks and lets you build whatever you want out of them, so of course people build differently shaped things out of them?”.
I could imagine a middle ground where there’s a bit more streamlining of possible interaction ontologies.
(If you meant channels specifically, it’s also worth noting that right now I thinking about “reactions” specifically. Channels I think are particularly bad, wherein people try to create conversations with names that made sense at the time, but then turned into infinite buckets. Reacts seem to have much less confusion, and when they do it’s because a given org/server needed to establish a convention, and when you visit another org they’re using a different convention)
How much of this has to do with “slack sort of deliberately gives you a bunch of lego blocks and lets you build whatever you want out of them, so of course people build differently shaped things out of them?”.
I could imagine a middle ground where there’s a bit more streamlining of possible interaction ontologies.
(If you meant channels specifically, it’s also worth noting that right now I thinking about “reactions” specifically. Channels I think are particularly bad, wherein people try to create conversations with names that made sense at the time, but then turned into infinite buckets. Reacts seem to have much less confusion, and when they do it’s because a given org/server needed to establish a convention, and when you visit another org they’re using a different convention)
would likely be solved if slack had a robust 3 level ontology rather than two level. Threaded conversations don’t work very well.