Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Show HN: I built an app for when I talk too much in online meetings (unblah.me)
451 points by interleave on July 14, 2022 | hide | past | favorite | 190 comments
Hey HN!

Alexis here, I’m a product manager and software developer in Berlin by way of New York.

I want to show you this app I made – It’s like a "buddy" for those, like myself, who inadvertedly talk too much in meetings.

The app gives me feedback and a little more in control of what I have influence over by:

* Keeping track of how long I’ve been speaking

* Catching myself before I talk too much

* Developing a better sense of timing

I truly love having conversations with people in real-life.

But online meetings, especially group calls, tend to make me nervous. I can't read body language. The tone of voice, micro-experessions and social cues get lost.

If you, too, accidentally talk too much too often, check it out "Unblah". Watch the quick 2-minute demo and download the macOS app over at https://unblah.me/.

Cheers!

Alexis

PS: There’s a whole FAQ section for common questions you may have – Including if this is yet another "native" Electron app ;)

edit: bullet-list formatting




Love this idea. I also thing there is a great use case here for people in sales, customer support / onboarding. Listening as a skill is very important for roles like this, and anything that can help people be a bit more conscious about this is great.

A top bar icon for this could also be useful, so not to take up too my screen real estate, e.g. for example if you are giving a sales demo, you may want to hide the application, but still see visually how you are doing.


Would definitely use this if it was a menu widget


Good call with the screen-estate during full-screen sharing.

Noted and noted. Thank you!


I really wish a feature was added to online screen sharing that showed a pie chart of the time each participant was talking. I think it would help a lot of people who talk to much (probably myself included).


You want this until it gets integrated into Microsoft Teams, management gets ahold of it, and now these pie charts are treated as an indication of your contributions to the company. Everyone is itching to talk as much as possible, dragging meetings on forever, a bunch of people saying absolutely nothing as insurance against when layoffs come around and a manager has to choose between 2 people roughly as valuable except... Hm... Bill contributes 3.8% less than Fred in meetings...

Every time I get an email from Microsoft Viva telling me about my productivity last week, I can't help but feel that's the direction we're heading.


I am a manager and am afraid of a future like this. To echo your point I caution everyone to be careful what kind of data you wish for because you just might get it. Over a long enough timeline the probability goes to 1 that it will be misused by management.


I would disagree that the kind of data being talked about lends itself to misuse. Management in general, and especially in well run companies, tends to be responsible and judicious in their use of various metrics and getting a good, holistic view of employee interactions and engagements is vital to ensuring that high performers are identified and adequately mentored. Ideally, this type of data could be paired with a sentiment analysis engine and an emotional identifying model that could help coach negative employees toward more positive and beneficial interactions. This is an area that would require a delicate balance to prevent misuse, but, given most HR departments hesitance to act without strong background information, it would likely be a net positive in nearly every case.

'scuse me I need to go wash my mouth with soap. I just gamed the metrics that would be produced with this and I feel dirty.


People that would make ridiculous decisions like that probably are already making insane decisions with the data they have currently. Why would one more data point hurt?


Slippery slopes aren't cliff sides, they are downward ramps.


Wow, I have been blissfully unaware of Microsoft Viva up until now. I guess Manna [1] came for knowledge workers first.

[1] https://marshallbrain.com/manna1


Viva doesn't tell you about your productivity. It reminds you about meetings you were in and commitments and follow-ups you might want to tend to.

In my 40+ year career I've never met a manager who would use such a vague 'metric' - even if it did exist - to choose between two hires.


Let me introduce you to: https://www.read.ai/

Which tracks real-time talk time among everyone, but also a lot of other statistics, analytics, and transcripts.

Works on meet, teams, zoom and webex. It just joins the meetings as an invitee (will automatically join any integrated calendars). So setup is nearly friction less.

Actual objective is to reduce meetings when possible and improve meetings where people must attend.


Afaik BBB has this feature since at least last year. It shows a room admin the time each participant talked etc. While it was intended for classrooms, I.e. participation in online classes by students, it should cover the same aspect here.


This would force me to contribute to useless meetings, while now I attend (look at him dutifully attending!) and in the meantime just do other work.


My favourite contributions to meetings are "Nothing to contribute that hasn't already been said". Like a breath of fresh air a light at the end of the tunnel.


It annoys me knowing that the indicator for good employees are those who give most ideas / contributions to a topic, while good executors with less idea for it is seen as worse.

The thing is it's usually a good one that give more contributions to make their progress / workflow smoother, not the other way around.


Jitsi Meet [1] has voice and video chat, screen sharing and speaker stats (showing speaker time) out of the box.

[1] https://meet.jit.si/


Maybe you need a better meeting format? We go round robin with our issues to tackle, host limits each to about five minutes.


Totally agreed.

Should be a standard feature imho.


Hey there, great app.

By way of feedback:

* The play icon with the strike through is not meaningful to me. I recommend a popover on hover to explain what this means. You probably thought about a log of different icons but might be worth polling for a few or letting the user pick one of a few a preference (At first I thought it "wasn't working")

* It would be nice to be able to add meta to the session, i.e. "1:1 with joseph" that automatically gets timestamped for start and end. Then be able to show the graphs from a day of meetings stacked.

* Analysis would be good. Being able to say how many others are in the meeting so it makes more sense when there are longer gaps.

* Someone mentioned additional recommendations, that would be awesome if it had a guidance mode where I could fit a template over this thing and have it help keep the meeting on track. 5 mins introductions / waiting for quorum, 5 mins agenda, 10 mins topic 1 etc.

I realize the idea for this is to be a simple private app and its great at that. If necessary, I'd suggest offering something more complex that might require greater buy in privacy wise so it can do more.

I'd still recommend requiring zero network requests as you've done on this version, even though the analytics might be useful.

I use an network filter and manually allow connections from apps.

Starting with this high level of privacy is how you get someone like me to be comfortable allowing your app to run on my machine.


Hey bredren.

Wow. Thank YOU for putting in the effort of sharing your feedback. I agree that many of those would be helpful and likely part of a paid version at some point.

> I'd still recommend requiring zero network requests as you've done on this version, even though the analytics might be useful.

I know, right? It's how I wish an app behaved. The conversation we're having is a thousand-fold more _interesting_ than "312 uSeRs cLicKeD pLaY."

> Starting with this high level of privacy is how you get someone like me to be comfortable allowing your app to run on my machine.

I'm the same way. I had a whole FAQ guide on how to poke holes into the app.

> Q: How do I know this app isn't shipping malware? > A: Me claiming it’s safe is impossible to prove to you. Instead, here’s a good book for malware analysis on macOS that you can use to poke holes into the app: https://taomm.org/vol1/read.html

Is that weird or should I put it in?


You’re welcome. :)

I think it’s okay to add a link but maybe make it secondary to a statement about you and your public reputation, that you stand by your app, etc.

It would probably be worth it to get whatever certifications are necessary so the app can be signed by apple, or even distributed via the App Store.

Despite the clucking, I do think the App Store offers the potential of increased screening for malware. Given the choice I generally install small apps from there to get that update mechanism alone.


I have the opposite problem. According to my reviews, everyone likes me and I do great work. The only ding against me is that I never talk. I can go weeks without uttering a word in total comfort.


Maybe you should ask your colleagues to install this app?


As the page itself suggests, perhaps they should just talk about the issue with their colleagues first.


I've been getting this feedback since grade school, and I'm still getting it now in my 30's.

It's an extroverts' world and I just live in it...


It is hard to join when it feels like interrupting, and you might not want to do that due to differences in culture and/or personality. However, you have to consider joining in the conversation and sharing your thoughts. I noticed people can start making assumptions or making decisions for you, which is not fun.


The app could be used for that. It does work in the opposite, the lack of talking is shown in the chart as well. Not to say you need to arbitrarily start talking but, if this is something people ask you to do more and you're generally okay with it, then this could possibly help.


I especially appreciate seeing this kind of tool + level of self awareness, as a woman working in tech.

For everyone here who's asking how to get their coworkers using something like this, there's a similar feature in Sesh (web app https://sesh.com/ and zoom app https://marketplace.zoom.us/apps/lmZj36WWSJut8-hAaUJrhQ ) that gives everyone equal opportunities to speak (and plays you off oscars-style when you go too long), and another feature called "talk time" that shows how long each person spent talking at the end of each meeting.

At it's core, it's a really useful meeting agenda app, so sharing it is less "hey you talk too much" and more "let's make our meetings better and more equitable".

I work there & am happy to demo or answer any questions about it :)

Again, really love that you made a version of this that individuals can spin up for their own accountability without the need for whole-team buy in. The design is great too!


> that gives everyone equal opportunities to speak (and plays you off oscars-style when you go too long), and another feature called "talk time" that shows how long each person spent talking at the end of each meeting.

As someone who'd rather not speak I dislike this. Now I can't just sit back, relax, and let the talkative people run out the clock. There's now a metric to punish my quietness. :P


Yeah, not everyone has to talk in every meeting. Sometimes people will be taking in info and need time to absorb it.


Do you mind elaborating on why this is especially important to you as a woman in tech?


I'm going to do a bit of "show, don't tell" here, because if you're asking this I'm assuming you're open to learning more about the sexism and bias that typically cause men to dominate conversations in tech/workplaces:

https://www.indy100.com/news/victorias-secret-model-lyndsey-...

https://www.fastcompany.com/40456604/these-women-entrepreneu...

https://hbr.org/1995/09/the-power-of-talk-who-gets-heard-and...

https://janicetomich.com/women-speaking-while-female/

https://time.com/3666135/sheryl-sandberg-talking-while-femal...


Thanks for sharing. I’m aware of talking over people and the dimensions on which it biases. I ask to uncover “unknown unknowns” of some other (unknown to me) behavior that might also need to be addressed.

To be more specific, I am also afraid of over-indexing on inclusion. Do I call on female coworkers more often to speak up in areas where I know they are experts because I know they may not do so themselves? Is that fair to them? Does it make them feel inadequate or is it appreciated or does it not even register? If I ask Susan to elaborate on a sprint update but don't ask Frank does that signal that I don't trust Susan? What if I am really just interested in her task?

I know the cliches about confident white men in tech. Talking over people, the white savior, etc. But, as a confident white man in tech I need input from everyone to be better. So, thanks for sharing.


I’m not a female, but work for a women-owned tech company with a predominantly female staff, and I don’t speak for women when I say this: yes, in my experience, you should call on female coworkers to share their opinions or insights. It’s fair, and often appreciated, but don’t do it expecting gratitude. Do it because you know their input matters.

Many—not all—women have had it ingrained in them since childhood to defer to men, especially men in authority. If it’s appropriate, don’t make it an imperative statement like, “Susan, tell us your thoughts.” Respect their agency, and ask, “Susan, is there anything you’d like to add” or “do you have an update to share on your task?” This applies to your male co-workers too, of course. Because, at the end of the day, none of this is about you. It’s about what’s best for the team, right?

Knowing when to step up and when to step back and elevate others is one of the hardest things to learn about being a leader. But fostering a culture of open curiosity and collaboration is the best antidote to a culture of quiet resentment because someone feels ignored or left out.

Not to mention the loss of productivity that imposter syndrome can cause…but that’s a whole different thread.

Anyway, just my experience on the matter. I personally think it’s important to help men understand how their view of team dynamics may be exclusionary to women. I’m not speaking on behalf of women at all. If there’s any question about how to best include any specific person in your organization, there’s an easy way to get that question answered: ask them.


I think this is a really good practice in general! It would help people (like my younger self) who might be afraid to speak up or interrupt regardless of gender.


As another woman in tech, I thank you for your effort putting together these resources.

Hopefully it will raise awareness and those men who support equality in the workplace and more importantly, see the value of women’s ideas - ideas that they perhaps do not hear because they are not giving time for them to speak them- will benefit.


Honestly this list is of dubious general value

As a long timer man in tech, being a shy and private person and being uncomfortable speaking in public, I've experienced the same exact things listed in those articles for as long as I can remember, except having to fake a business partner cause I've never participated in a round of funding, but I'd probably hire one if I needed to. Because it would work better than sending myself.

I've learned that those aren't my strongest skills and that's OK, I've become a very good writer instead, because it's something I like and I feel comfortable doing. to the point that people now ask me to help them or plainly ask me if they can pay me to write for them (notice that if you think my writing is mediocre it's because it's true: English is not my native language and foreign languages are another of those "not my strongest skills", I'm much better with programming languages)

Sometimes things are as they are because we are as we are.

I also think there's a cultural aspect to the phenomenon, in some countries, especially in USA, people are pressured to talk in public and express "dominance" or "confidence" by taking the stand.

Fake until you make it they usually say.

In my case it only made me feel more of an impostor, who was faking skills he did not have.


I hear your reaction here, and I understand where it's coming from.

But.

Quiet men in tech who are tempted to this line of thinking - that they too have problems with being talked over, that they too don't get noticed for promotions because they aren't the voice people remember hearing...

Please consider that the avenues that are open to you as a man in this industry to overcome those difficulties might not be as available to a woman in the same position. Women are more likely to find themselves in that position, because they have been in situations in the past where speaking up has led to negative reactions, where being opinionated has been dismissed as being bossy, etc. - those constraints are not the same ones you have faced. Your solutions may not work.

You owe it to your female colleagues, when they say 'we find we tend to face these particular problems in ways that we see men tend not to', not to dismiss that as 'well, I'm pretty sure some men have the same issue'. Their experience is relevant. You will learn by listening to what they have to say.

As you rightly recognize, we all have or lack different privileges. As a non-native English speaker doubtless you have encountered challenges I haven't, and indeed that native English speaking women don't face.

But this dismissal of a raft of worthwhile sources for a well documented problem that many women actually experience as 'of dubious general value' is disingenuous.


> I hear your reaction here

Non a reaction, just an informed opinion from a man who's been working in tech for the past 27 years and is old enough to understand that the more you age the more you learn how to react to things that you're sensitive to.

For example being interrupted, some people, like me, do not mind at all.

I used to, now I don't care, I know people younger than me (men and women) feel the urge to make themselves noticed in the workplace, but I'm there as a well paid senior consultant, if they do not want to listen or want to engage in endless discussions over minutia or just to show off what they know, it's their problem. I let them do it also because it's a way to teach them that the more we go off rails or talk over each other, the more the meeting is gonna last. And they will have less time to do the actual job they are paid to do.

Don't like long meetings? (who does?) Don't interrupt and don't go overboard. It's gonna be over much sooner.

And anyway: speak up, if you don't want to participate or think that you have better things to do or don't particularly like that person's temper, say it, using a bit of diplomacy.

If the people paid to solve these problems won't listen, you know you're in the wrong place.

> - that they too have problems with being talked

That's my point.

People talking over other people are not doing it because they are men, there's no such DNA trait in men, their brain is no different in any way for being men.

What is lacking, in my opinion, in those articles is data.

We don't know who these people are, we don't know if it's higher ranking talking over subordinate, the opposite, or it's random, we don't know if it's always the same people doing it or it's only men when there are women present, otherwise the meeting goes butter smooth.

We simply don't know anything more than a spurious correlation: they are men, it must be a men's thing.

As a man I can testimony that no, not every man talks over other men, in fact it is quite the opposite, some of them do, most of them don't.

It's also kinda obvious that in a male dominated work sector you'll encounter more men interrupting than women, if we go in a female sector (like education), I guess the results would be different.

It could simply be that they are American, for what we know.

I too had issues communicating and working with USA people in startup environments, man or woman it did not make any difference.

> Please consider that the avenues that are open to you as a man in this industry to overcome those difficulties might not be as available to a woman in the same position.

Sorry, but that's a non sequitur.

You can't possibly know what I've been through, nobody really knows what others have been through, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't use common sense because somebody had a bad experience in the past. We all had them (mostly) but in the workplace one has to assume to be surrounded by functioning adults that can handle themselves.

> those constraints are not the same ones you have faced. Your solutions may not work.

Exactly, how do you know that?

Because in my past speaking up has led to negative reactions and still of today for some people my being opinionated is dismissed as being bossy

It isn't traumatizing if you believe in what you say, just frustrating at times.

But there are other ways to prove yourself other than having a fight in a meeting.

Not taking it personally helped me a lot to deal with these situations, it's one person talking only to (of) the worker me that is not the whole me and not even the most important part of me.

Even the Bible says something like (not exact words)

  To be offended is a choice we make; 
  it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else
> But this dismissal of a raft of worthwhile sources for a well documented problem

I'm not dismissing the work this person has done, I'm saying it's of no great general value, because the sources are lacking the necessary data to draw a conclusion.


Jo Jorgensen, who ended up being the Libertarian presidential candidate in 2020, was accused of being given more time and more opportunities to speak by another candidate during the libertarian party debates.

It was hilarious when he was told by the moderator that no, Jo had used the least time. She’d make a good point, then stop talking. No bloviating like the men.


What are you trying to show with the first link? It doesn't seem to link into men dominating conversations in the workplace.


Because it has been observed that if someone is talking too much at a meeting (and especially if they're talking about nothingburgers) -- usually it's a dude (at a rate disproportionate to their prevalence within the group).


I wish behaviour like this was weeded out in the interview process. It is really damaging to teams and productivity and I would estimate most people won't try to fix it like OP has tried.


If I weeded people out based on their talking too much in Zoom meetings, I would lose a fair number of my best people. I don't think this would make it into the top 20 red flags to look for in an interview.


To me, one of the most reliable ways to blow your interview is to just keep talking and talking, never providing any sort of re-entry window into the conversation for your interviewer. Double-bad if you are not actually answering the question, and just spouting your prepared speech. This happens so often that I think it must be something these unfortunate candidates are learning somewhere.

Zoom makes this even worse than in person, as the software often won't even let you insert yourself into someone else's stream-of-consciousness word salad to help them course-correct.


I would love it if interviews were structured in a way like it’s an actual conversation.

Unfortunately a lot of companies treat them like a pop quiz, ask everyone the same 10 questions, which are mapped to 10 selection criteria and evaluate their 10 mostly prepared responses.

Good interviewers will have a bunch of questions as prompts, but generally ask a lot of follow-ups.

I blame the STAR method mostly, the concept that you have instant recall of past experiences in a high pressure situation, indexed by the questions the company is going to ask, is absolutely crazy. I wonder if there’s been any research into “tell me about a conflict and how you resolved it” type behavioural questions and whether they are effective. Even the most dramatic of employee knows how to tone it down, rewrite/make up scenarios to pass these types of questions.


Out of curiosity, what would your top red flags be?


No way. Interviews are totally different conversations than team meetings. And I would go so far as to say that if people talking too much is "really damaging to teams and productivity", that is a failure of the team leadership, and they should work on that with the offending participants. Online meeting social skills are important but a lot of people who are really good at their job don't have those skills (yet!)


In an agile/scrum context, what leadership is there in a team to do this? In scrum ceremonies, the scrum master should handle the direction of the meetings but lots of meetings/video calls happen outside these meetings.


Interesting perspective.

I can only speak for myself of course: The issue only happens in online meetings and probably only with specific teams. So, I would have "slipped through", if your interview process is in-person.

It starts with the awareness in my opinion. There are people who talk a lot and enjoy dominating the conversation. I wrote an extensive FAQ on why Unblah is not for them.

Those who (like me) talk a lot but are painfully aware – I think aren't extremely damaging. I hope.


It's probably more common as the person becomes more familiar with the group -- at least it is for me. That'll make it hard or impossible to identify during interviews.

I've been trying not to speak at all during meetings, instead following up in chat. As a bonus, this means there's a searchable record of the details, and thus is far more valuable than any in person or video meeting could ever be.


> It's probably more common as the person becomes more familiar with the group -- at least it is for me. That'll make it hard or impossible to identify during interviews.

Agreed.

> I've been trying not to speak at all during meetings, instead following up in chat.

How does that work? I mean, interpersonally?


I've always been on small teams so I think it works ok, but I guess it could be an unfair burden for my coworkers. Maybe I should ask.


You're someone who has recognised it and built a tool using the skills you have. I doubt you are damaging to a team at all! In fact, it's impressive.


Yeah I feel like I am suffering with this with my teammates. How passive aggressive it would be if I shared this with my colleagues at work?


To answer your question without knowing any context: I would err on the side of it being received as rather passive aggressive.

I do not recommend using the app (especially not without context) as a proxy for a difficult conversation that may have to happen.

Since the question came up earlier, here is my full take on this situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097859


Depending on how you did it, you could be quite “aggressive”!

“Dave, found the perfect app for you!” is aggressive. “Wow I might start using this app!” Is better.


> “Wow I might start using this app!” Is better.

Yeah I thought about going this way.


Try talking with them instead. Use mediation, not a proxy.


The colleague talking seems to be the problem :)

GP is supposed to mediate while at work while their colleague is talking in circles?


Yes, that is literally how you solve interpersonal problems. You pull the person aside and discuss the problem.


It was a small joke. That is a very simplistic view of the world. That approach may solve your problem but it also may not.


Congratulations! You're committing the Fundamental Attribution Error[0]!

Corporate meetings are traditionally structured to accommodate those who talk too much in meetings, but they could be structured differently. Deliberate facilitation, for example "taking stack"[1]," can help the puzzle pieces of panel of diverse personalities find their place in contributing maximally to the tasks at hand. Heck, sometimes it's as easy as setting expectations or as simple (albeit not necessarily easy) as establishing an environment of psychological safety[2] in which coworkers feel comfortable pushing back on antisocial behavior, eg asking "can you not interrupt me?"

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

1. https://techresources.shoestringcollective.com/collaborate/t...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_safety


Did you mean to reply to me? I am not committing the Fundamental Attribution Error.


I tend to agree with the parent. I am a rather shy person who did not naturally talk much during meetings and I had to train to be able to elaborate on simple questions for hiring interviews, because that is what is expected in the interview process. The goal of a hiring interview is to find out as much as possible about you, not to get yes/no answers to pointed questions, and making your interviewers come up with more and more questions to make you keep going is sure to leave a bad impression and cost you the job.

People who talk at length during hiring interviews are not necessarily "people who talk at length in meetings", they are doing that because that's what hiring interviews are about. You are misattributing cause.


You sure are! Presuming that this behavior can be "weeded out" because it's a fundamental attribute of the candidate, rather than a behavioral response to the working environment is a perfect example of the error.


Interesting. I had no idea there was a name for this behavior. Thanks for the link.


I imagine it would go like this:

    > Candidate answered all my questions thoroughly. Do not hire.


Interviews are a very specific beast that is rarely duplicated in the work place besides when your butt is on the line in a conversation, which is still different.


I love the concept of this app. Since I’m a very social person and tend to be the opposite of a wallflower during meetings, I’m constantly asking myself “having I been talking too long” or “am I dominating this discussion” and I feel very insecure about it. My only problem is I work in an embedded software space which means almost all of my meetings are in person. I wish I had something like this on my phone so I can check my phone or smart watch during in person meetings.


Thank you so much for sharing. I can relate.

For in-person, maybe just tell your team that you're feeling insecure about this and would love to get their real-time feedback (?)


Love it. Simple and effective UI. In the past I've had the opposite problem occasionally where I think I'm taking up much more time than I am (a consequence of nervousness maybe) and this would be helpful for that too -- not just an indicator for when you talk too long, but also when for when you are still "in the green" to combat that nervousness induced timewarp.


Ohhhhh... Right.

Just to mirror what I understand: You have experienced that, while talking, you thought "Oh, I've been talking for hours already. I should stop now." but in reality you haven't even scratched the, let's say, 30 second mark?

Absolutely relevant – I hadn't even thought of that possibility. I'm actually thinking, the whole app could stay the same, just swap the green/red colors (?)


Yeah exactly! Thinking back, the time's I've felt this the most is during stressful interviews -- e.g. I'm asked a difficult question and part way through my answer my nerves say "You've been talking for ages, you've lost them" but in reality it's been a perfectly reasonable amount of time and if I listen to my nerves I risk cutting the answer short.

I'd actually love a tool like this for interviews -- if had a mac or there was a linux build I'd definitely use this.

Re: Colours -- If I were to use this for this use-case (next time work gives me a mac perhaps) I think the current green -> red arrangement is fine as-is, as it covers both use-cases (if red -> too long; if green -> still have time)


Thank you for sharing – I just spoke with my girlfriend who described the exact same thing. I had no idea.

> if had a mac or there was a linux build I'd definitely use this.

while I don't have resources now for a Linux build, where would I start in terms of window systems/dekstop environment (I don't even know if those are still the right terms – My last desktop box was running debian/sarge)


You probably don't even have to swap the colors.


This type of analytics will make online meetings better in the long term, in the same way fitbit measured steps to quantify are you walking enough.

A recent study (Q122) from Read highlighted (https://www.read.ai/benchmarks) that 28% of meetings have unbalanced participation and that 11% of participants in a meeting are in "ghost mode", no camera, no audio. The more measurement, the more opportunity for individuals and teams to improve.


This is pretty neat. I am going to use it to monitor myself during the calls. I am curious about the tech behind this. Speaker identification locally on the machine seems like what's happening here. The nerd in me wants more tech deep dive :)


Let me know how it goes – Would love to hear your experience.

It's a small but solid ML model that I've been working on. And I've got a 'headphones'-free feature on my personal roadmap, too!


I really need this for Linux. Sometime I get carried away...


Same here. I am the kind of person who can get lost in a monologue tunnel quite easily.


Might be relatively easy. I dont think you need to classify anything in the sense of speech diarization; just gotta check mike levels and do some stats to estimate starting and stopping. Time to learn linux audio apis I guess.


Damn, I'm very sorry – I can't deliver that at this moment.


You should either change “ (like myself)” to the proper “(like me)” or just remove it entirely from the website.

It also seems like the app did not help when recording the demo video. It should be much shorter than two minutes.


And in more than two minutes I didn't learn what this app does. What do the colors mean, what's the button for, what's the colorful bar at the bottom, how fast the circular indicator is going around.


This looks kind of great? I'd love to see a Windows version.


How can I share this with a coworker without being rude haha?


Totally understand. It's the most common question I've gotten for those who themselves experience 'the blah' by someone else.

I published an FAQ (https://unblah.me/#faqs) earlier today. Posting it here for simplicity:

---

Question: I have this person on my team who talks WAY too much and never notices it. They LOVE hearing themselves talk and never shut up. Should I tell them to get this app?

---

Answer: First off... I believe your struggle with this person is 100% real. I fully believe their behavior is affecting you negatively.

But, my answer is a STRONG NO. Please don’t use Unblah as a proxy for a difficult conversation that sounds like it needs to be had.

Think about it: They would never use it anyways, because, as you’re saying yourself “...and never even notice it.”.

They don't have a problem.

You do.

I don't know how much rapport you two have, how much safe space you can create for resolving this situation, etc.

So, to keep everyone safe, please check with HR or leadership on how to best deal with this situation if it impacts you, your team and your performance.

For learning more on this kind of topic, I can recommend “Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most” by Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone, and Sheila Heen.


This sounds like a possible next step for your app: “unblah” for teams.


Yes, has been on my radar for exactly that reason. I want to believe there is a wetware solution in there somewhere :)


And: You can always lead by example!


It could backfire too in that it causes people to stop talking because an artificial timer is in the red. Or cause people to start talking about nothing if the app indicates they've been too quiet.

I prefer the organic method. The natural variations of life and people. The best "app" to moderate your own conversation skills, is the one between your ears.

My mother talks too much because she strings unrelated stories together back to back without pausing. She could fix this by simply pausing at the end of one story, allowing others to chime in. She doesn't need an app to do that.

Sometimes people take longer to reach their point. Or sometimes in meetings we are trying to solve problems, or understand background info which one person might focus on, while others listen. It's a slippery slope to involve artificial timers when not everyone in meeting may have equal amounts to share.


I love this idea and I could see myself using it in 1:1 meetings with my direct reports.

One of the advantages of getting older is the experience one gains. It is often the case that I can relate a current situation to one that has occurred in my past. This can help me make good decisions by anticipating expected similar outcomes to the most obvious approaches.

Yet the other side of this is I can find myself droning on about old war stories to junior engineers. What I mean to be well-intentioned advice can turn into a monologue. This is especially true when I am giving advice "off-the-cuff" in response to situations brought up in 1:1 meetings with direct reports. I might struggle finding the best way to communicate my experience. This can cause me to rephrase the same idea several different ways in an attempt to clearly convey my thought.

I feel this kind of tool could help me focus more on listening to the people I manage.


> Yet the other side of this is I can find myself droning on about old war stories to junior engineers.

Middle-aged here – I've been in that situation as well.

> What I mean to be well-intentioned advice can turn into a monologue.

+1 – So well-intended ("So they don't make my stupid mistakes") but hard to really take in.

> I feel this kind of tool could help me focus more on listening to the people I manage.

Please, if you do, let me know if it helps.

Also, if those are personal 1:1 you could always just call it out and ask them to give you live feedback tech-free (?)


Oh sweet! I had a similar idea in undergrad in ~2012[1]. I love the retroactive timeline so you can see the rough balance of who was talking when—this is a really useful graph.

1. https://christian.gen.co/conversation-monitor/


Wanted to let you know HTTP requests are not automatically redirected to HTTPS.

Love the idea for this, will be trying it out!


Hey gscho – Thank you so much for letting me know, have NO idea how that http:// got in there (?)

Please don't tell me you're getting a browser error after the click (?)

Do you know who/how can help me update that title?


Not sure how you’re hosting the site but the best way to fix this would be to have your web server automatically redirect incoming http traffic to https. Then it doesn’t matter if the link is http or https :)


I forgot to set the 'Enforce SSL' in the Github pages preferences. Updated this morning X)


I don't understand how it can know if you talk too much. 30 seconds can be too much if you don't have anything relevant to say but 30 minutes can be fine if you have a lot of important things to say. Does it transcribe what you say and match on bad patterns or something?


I couldn't agree more with this. If one were to truly solve this problem they'd have to do several things:

1. Understand who the listener is, and what they care about. What are their reinforcers, and attractors? What are the things they want to achieve that they haven't been able to so far. What is relevant information for them? What is their state of mind? Are they tired? Do they need to sleep, eat, go to the bathroom?

2. Understand the information content of the speech. A person can say a lot in a little time or a little in a lot of time (with the dependencies being questions listed above in #1. What is a 'little' for someone might be 'a lot' for someone else depending on how much they know).

My concern with an app like this is multi-fold. Firstly, I have some very smart friends who read a lot and talk for hours but I never tire of it because they're always saying something new and interesting. Secondly, sometimes these friends are working out thoughts on the fly that they haven't before. Stopping before the thought is complete risks losing hidden gems, maxims/aphorisms, well-articulated and profound crystallizations of thought. A ticking time-bomb clock adds pressure to end this line of thought that may need time to manifest itself fully.

That being said I totally see the flip side, that it can go on for too long, but I'd point back to all the concerns in #1.


If you have thirty uninterrupted minutes of things to say, is that a meeting? Or is it a lecture/presentation? Is it better to break it up into discrete topics?

Attendees of a meeting will quickly disengage if someone talks for too long. Attendees of a lecture or presentation have different expectations.


> If you have thirty uninterrupted minutes of things to say, is that a meeting? Or is it a lecture/presentation? Is it better to break it up into discrete topics?

That's the key question that will frame how I schedule my attention and interjections.

The reason I chose the times as seen is because they jive with my personal experience and the content of this article here: https://hbr.org/2015/06/how-to-know-if-you-talk-too-much


Ok, but regardless "too much" heavily depends on context. It can't be that x minutes is the correct amount of time to talk regardless of what you are saying.


This is a great idea. Any chance you can back port it to older versions of macOS? My laptop is running Big Sur (11.6.7) and I see it requires Monterey (12.3+).


Unfortunately I think I have the exact opposite problem (don't talk enough) but awesome work! And thank you for making and clarifying that it is private and 100% on device. More tools need to be like this!


Hey there! I empathize that not talking enough is just as difficult.

I have had this on my radar as well and, in a way, you can totally use it to track your non-speaking as well.

Here's an idea: What if there was a toggle for your scenario and the count-down of "other people talking" started when you're silent.

The colors on timeline would be inverted, you'd see your "airtime" as a few gray dots.

What do you think? Would this be helpful?


I think it could be, but without trying it I'd hesitate to say spend a bunch of time and energy implementing it. I also can't really help you as I don't have a mac to run it on.


Wow, love it. I think i described this exact app to a friend about a week ago. I'm so impressed! And look at what a great conversation you generated here.

Here's a bit of language that a good friend told to me, maybe you could use it somehow in your marketing or documentation:

"When you are talking with people in a group, look around the circle and do the math. For instance, if there are three people, and you are talking more than 1/3 of the time, then you are a bore."


> And look at what a great conversation you generated here.

Totally, that's been the best part of sharing it. I think conversation around "communication hygiene" is valuable for everyone.

> "When you are talking with people in a group, look around the circle and do the math. For instance, if there are three people, and you are talking more than 1/3 of the time, then you are a bore."

Being "a bore." Interesting choice of words, thank you for sharing!

This reminds me of a quote that I've always loved

> "I never learned anything while I was talking.” – Larry King


I love apps like this, but every time I see one I lament that Zoom doesn’t provide audio streams in distinct channels. Every “conversational intelligence” Zoom app seems to be forced to use speaker segmentation to identify who’s talking. I wish they had the voice version of “Jane is typing…” like text chat applications.

Edit: I recognize those apps are different from yours, which is local-only, and just monitors whether YOU are speaking without plotting others’ speaking time.


If you don't mind me asking, how did you come to the realization that you talk too much? Did your colleagues tell you that, or did you figured it out by yourself?


Hi rubslopes, good question.

As a neurodiverse person, I've been acutely aware of my impact on conversations for the last two years (since diagnosis).

And I guess I just started noticing when I 'flew off the rails' and think to myself "Ohhh... Shit. I just 'lost' everyone." And how embarrassed that made me feel.

Then I read this article https://hbr.org/2015/06/how-to-know-if-you-talk-too-much which gave me some guidance and vocabulary that I didn't have until then.

Then I started keeping tabs on my 'airtime' and I decided I had to build a simple feedback loop.

Does this answer your question?


Yes, it does! Thank you.


Nice, thank you for the post. Maybe you could think of integrating other aspects of meeting etiquette? I once wrote an article about this[1] and from time to time, I read it again to remember the details.

[1]: https://pilabor.com/blog/2021/04/tips-and-tricks-for-meeting...


Thank you for creating this! I have been looking for something that does this for quite a while.

I have been using poised (https://www.poised.com/) for this as it does it and related things...but have backed off on it since they went from free to paid (though is still may pay for it).


I'm going to use this for user interviews since I have a hard time talking too much during the introduction. Also, stand-ups...


Hope it helps you, ping me if you need anything.

PS: The "introductions" are my personal Kryptonite.


Send this to my manager, ok? 90% hog at my 1-1s


Definitely gonna give this a try! Feature request can you make this into a teams integration so that we can all keep tabs on how long every other participant is hogging the meeting. This is a BIG feature request and I am not savvy enough to make a teams integration. Perhaps you can?


Hey ultrasounder!

First off, even if it's a big request, I very much appreciate your input. Thank you.

> "...so that we can all keep tabs on how long every other participant is hogging the meeting"

The idea of "Unblah for teams" has come up in here and it seems like an obvious idea – it did to me.

I'm starting to doubt that adding this accountability-layer top-down is a good idea.

Honestly, I wouldn't want that myself as a team-member. It's a very personal quest to grow and change.

And so funnily enough: Before launching, I had doubted making the app so ultra-local, native and stand-alone.

Now I'm realizing that may be one of its strengths!

What do you think?


Advising people to rat out coworkers to HR is going to damage people and doesn't reflect well on you.

HR is there to protect the company. They hire and they fire, and guess which one applies here. Could you maybe offer talk to your coworker as an alternative to sending a link to your product?


That's pretty neat. I really like how simple and concise the website you shared is! If you're screen-sharing during a meeting and have Unblah running, will the other people see it (or is it blocked for privacy the way an email notification is)?


Hey ComputerCat (coolest name btw.)! – Thank you for your question.

- If you're screen-sharing your whole screen then: Yes. They'll see it running.

I gather, you'd rather keep it private – Can you please share why you feel that way? (Happy to do a quick call if you're more comfortable there)


It doesn't work without headphones. I never use headphones in meetings ):

It says this is needed so it doesn't trigger for other people speaking. I feel this should be doable by isolating the mic stream and stereo mix in software.


Source code? License/TOS?


Thanks for sharing! Do you plan to add this to the menu bar in the future?


Second that for a menu bar. Something to quickly glance up to see if I'm talking too much. PS, just downloaded, looks promising! Will try it and let you know.


Cool, thanks for giving it a spin, too!

If there are any issues with the installation/set up, please let me know. Happy to jump on a call as well (See the contact button on the site)


Hey there, you're very welcome.

I hadn't thought of the menu bar yet. How would you want that to work?


I always thought Clubhouse and Twitter Spaces should have a feature like this!

Or a way for the crowd to point out that you've been talking for too long, make your phone start buzzing or something


Does the microphone pick up both you, and the remote speakers? If so, how are you differentiating?

Or does the microphone automatically cancel out the sounds coming from the speakers?


I was just checking out AssemblyAI's API today and it seems this would be a good use case for both recording what I said as well as putting a timer on me.


IIRC UberConference used to send a report after the call listing the time each participant was talking. I always found that super insightful and entertaining.


Sounds like a great idea. Just an idea for another feature: a word counter. I tend to often use words like "um" when I'm nervous.

Good look on your product :)


While it's not a bit problem for me, I've got a friend who really needs help with breaking his own monologs, so I'm sending him that


Bold.

Please keep me/us in here updated!


I love how you highlighted that this shouldn't be a proxy for a difficult conversation, and included a book recommendation.


I thought so too. We're all adults here.

I did add a recommendation to "lead by example" – which is something within the immediate control of the person asking the question.

What do you think about that?


No cmd, settings pane. How do I tune how much is too much? its culturally informed. What If I want a warning in 10sec not 30sec?


Love the focus on personal improvement rather than changing others. I’m going to use this when I pitch investors on zoom!


Yay for the focus – Far easier, sometimes, than changing others :)

> I’m going to use this when I pitch investors on zoom!

Much success!

Tip: I would still recommend doing a dry-run since adding another signal (the timer) can lead to an unnecessary high self-awareness at first. That fades after the first-ever 10 minutes (in my experience.)


Another idea which I dare say has been already solved. Just hit a timer button as soon as you start talking.


Please release it on iOS as it can be more widely used and there is really a need for it.


Zoom should have an indicator like this under each participant's video.


Awesome that you built something that helps you and you’re sharing it.


You go it!


You don't need an app, you just need to shut your mouth.


You don’t need crutches, you just need to walk.


have you considered open sourcing it?


I would buy this for Windows.


Could we turn this app into wearable tech so that it can be used IRL for dating?


Why do you need it?


This is awesome!


While I do occasionally encounter people rambling on about nothingburgers in meetings, I get more irked that the status quo at my workplace is people just sit there silently, contributing nothing in medium sized (6-12 people) meetings. It just seems like nobody wants to risk saying something that might be challenged or "seem dumb", as if they are all suffering from imposter syndrome.

Recently a fellow developer was doing a demo of an automated UI testing suite and how it could apply to our product, and when it came time for questions or to show any sort of interest at all, its just crickets. I feel obligated to participate in situations like these, reach for questions or at least acknowledge other's hard work, because nobody else seems to want to. For me its frustrating, I wish I were surrounded by people that are more willing to give their 2 cents, even if it means a little bit longer meeting, rather than staring at a sea of blank faces that don't bother to queue their mic for the entire meeting.


6-12 people isn't a meeting, it's a presentation. At that size not everyone can contribute and most people probably don't need to be there. Meetings of that size are generally either "update the boss" meetings where everyone goes one by one and says what they have been doing. These are a terrible waste of everybody's time, EXCEPT for the boss and so can sometimes be justified. Or they are presentations from one person to the group. If you find there is no interaction or feedback from the rest of the people in your presentation, it is probably either a bad presentation or you are presenting to people who don't want or need to be there.


I really think this is a backwards way to look at it. Work typically happens in an organization, and in organizations you don't always do the most optimal thing for yourself as an individual. I know everyone on HN would love it if they just got a steady stream of tickets into their inbox, never had a meeting about anything ever, and only interacted with git and HN. But that's not how the world works. Being attentive and engaged for 30 minutes while you get information that may very well make your job easier is not a big ask.

I love love love working from home full-time but this is my chief complaint about it - before COVID (at least in the smaller places I worked), if you brought your laptop into a meeting, spent the entire time typing, and didn't engage anyone, you'd probably get either a warning or it would be your last meeting. It forced people to actually pay attention and not just pretend like they were, or at the very least risk getting called out for it.

And while 12 is certainly pushing it, I've definitely been in productive working meetings with 6-8 people where all have been contributing.


Having worked from home for 20 years now, before COVID people were more careful to work within the medium (at least in the places I worked). Someone blissfully playing on their laptop ignoring what's going on around them was never an issue as you would never be put in that situation to begin with.

Since 2020, it seems everyone wants to carbon copy the office at home. I expect because they haven't (yet) developed WFH skills, which is understandable, especially in organizations that were abruptly thrusted into the home without experienced leadership to guide those unfamiliar with the environment along.


An alternative is to target your presentation at the people who will be in the room and prepare a bunch relevant questions/anecdotes/start a discussion with a couple of people you know will participate. As in—know your audience. This usually relaxes everyone and kicks off the interaction.

My experience is that nobody wants to ask the first question because it sets the bar. But that doesn’t mean nobody wants to participate.


Ever try asking people questions? Like, "Bob? What do you think of this? Would you ever use it?" No need to make excuses, just do it.

It's a leadership thing. Good leaders do that.


Like, "Bob? What do you think of this? Would you ever use it?"

It's actually kind of obnoxious to call on people like that. Even if it may seem like a "leadership thing" -- which may explain why it seems such a favored technique among wannabe alpha manger types.

I'm with the parent commenter: if people are in the flow (and give a shit), they'll definitely have something say (and your difficulty will be in getting them to keep it short). If they're not, and you're getting crickets -- it points to a deeper problem. That cannot be solved by, in effect, throwing chalk at people to get them to speak up.


My assumption is that if you're in the meeting, it has some adjacency to your work. This isn't about calling on the daydreaming kid in high school Spanish class who _has_ to be there to graduate. If you're in the meeting, it should be applicable to you and you should be ready to give some input; even saying something like "I'm not sure, need more info", or "don't have anything to add" is a valid and acceptable answer.

If the meeting isn't germane to your work, why are you in it?

I know people who do this because they're genuinely trying to get input from a broad set of people, some of whom will never speak unless they're asked directly. It doesn't have to be a mark of an alpha trying to beta everyone else.


>My assumption is that if you're in the meeting, it has some adjacency to your work.

This assumption does not match up with my experience.

>If the meeting isn't germane to your work, why are you in it?

I personally have gotten pretty good about declining meetings, but plenty of people aren't. Besides, I've been occasionally asked by my direct manager to attend a meeting that it turns out I wasn't actually needed at or remotely interested in for my work.

It would be nice to live in a world where meetings worked ideally and there weren't a bunch of people there wasting their own time, but that is sadly not the world we live in.


If it's not a meeting that you have any applicability to and someone asks for your input in the meeting, say so.

"Sorry, I don't see myself using this product/service/team - not because it isn't good, it just isn't relevant to what I'm responsible for/in charge of".

I feel like people treat meetings like this inescapable prison; once you're invited, you can never escape! It's bonkers. If you don't need to go to the meeting or don't have applicability… don't.

I work for a Fortune-listed company -- exactly the kind of place where attendee bloat thrives and I've never once had any manager or supervisor aggressively push back on my declines if they are valid.


But throwing chalk works. Don’t get me wrong I wish all the people I value the opinion of or need to get adhesion from were full of confidence and perfectly fine speaking in public. It would make my life easier. Sadly they are not so I sometimes have to push them in the swimming pool. Hopefully at some point they will realise they are perfectly able to swim. In the meantime, well, tough love it’s gonna be.


I think throwing chalk could just be gaming metrics. If people are interested it shows that what's happening is valuable, they benefit from what's being presented or have input that the presenter needs and they want to get that across. What the organization should care about is not that people ask questions or give feedback, it should care that time is being used well. That is we know this meeting isn't a waste of time because people are interested active participants and if people just sit quietly and wait for thing to be over maybe it wasn't that useful.

When you force people to talk you are getting the metric (people asked questions) but because you are forcing it the metric becomes disconnected from what you actually care about - was this meeting a waste of time. You haven't actually improved things you've just obfuscated the problem.


I have worked with people who will just sit quietly and wait for things to be over even if they have questions just to not have to talk in a meeting and might ask them to you later if you are lucky.


It "works", but with negative side effects whose impact you seem to be underestimating the importance of. Meanwhile it's quite easy to encourage people to speak up more (and to take risks while doing so) via other, infinitely more decent and respectful means.


It's a "leadership thing" because most good leaders have learned that it's useful to invite others to share their opinion before you do so yourself. Especially in more authority-style cultures, because you'll get better input that way. Then people aren't trying to just agree with whatever the person in a leadership role said.


The thing is there's a (not-so-subtle) difference between "inviting" people to speak and, in effect, forcing them to.


I think there is a nuance here, where this is only useful if you do the work to tailor it to that person. ie "Bob, I know your team has had [X] concern in the past. From the [Y] perspective, does this seem useful to you?"

The meta point being I don't think there are simple tricks or shortcuts to better participation.


Sure that's nice. But what the post above suggested works fine as well, just pick someone that hasn't said anything yet and ask what they think.

Unless you invite totally irrelevant people to meetings, they should have some kind of view or feedback on whatever was just presented.


Then poor Bob has to fumble to find the mute button and confess he hasn't paid attention to what you have been droning on about for the last 2 minutes and asks you to repeat the question.


Could it be seen as bullying?


If you're asking an expert in the area of what the topic is about, or stakeholders, or those that maybe have that topic in their circle of competence, then why would it be considered bullying? You'd expect them to have an opinion or some sort of feedback.

If you're asking someone who has literally nothing to do with that area of your work then, that's just kind of a weird situation. The key is tying the question to the area that is impacted by the person you're asking. It could be an open ended question and not even super specific.


Really asking a colleague his/her opinion on work related decisions is potential bullying now?


No, unless you're only doing it to one person or being a jerk about it.


How so?


For engagement, one thing that works from me is telling people before the demo/presentation that you'd like them each to share their "feedback" afterwards. But, replace "feedback" with a very specific thing that makes sense for the situation.

So, let's say the demo is on a specific feature, then you might preface the demo by saying this is the way that you decided to solve the problem, but you want to hear from everyone on how you could have done it differently.

That gives people the cue to be actively engaged by putting them between the problem and the solution. It also gives them fair warning that you're going to call on them afterwords, so it gives them time to think of something that they won't feel embarrassed to say (some people need time to be creative, while others think about alternatives and questions on the fly).

Either way, if people aren't speaking up then they might not be engaged. That doesn't mean they weren't listening, it just means they don't know why they are there. Maybe it really is a waste of their time, or maybe they just think it's a waste of their time because they don't understand the expectations or purpose.

My dad was a successful executive and he gave me several pieces of advice when I joined the workforce. I think #2 fits in this case, "Expectations are to people, what oil is to an engine".


The question, though, is why are you presenting live in the modern age in the first place? Perhaps 100 years ago there wasn't much choice but to form an assembly in a meeting room to present your information, but with all the technology we have today – and especially when you are working from home – that is completely unnecessary and counterproductive.

A meeting can be very valuable, but only when the meting takes place after the participants have taken in the presentation and are ready to discuss it. After they've understood the material and have gathered any additional context needed to relate the information to the bigger picture.

In my experience, when you do this the people involved will be much, much more engaged and you will see far more productive results from that. The "Let me bombard you with new information without the full context. Any questions?" meetings never go anywhere because the attendees haven't come prepared with the context they need. The people generally want to be engaged, but when something is sprung on them, it is hard to work with. Even when people do speak up, you can hear that they're struggling to relate it all together. Things are very different when it is an "after the fact" meeting.

I suppose it is fun to reenact the past once in a while, but it is strange that we want to do it so frequently when it so clearly falls flat.


> Recently a fellow developer was doing a demo of an automated UI testing suite and how it could apply to our product, and when it came time for questions or to show any sort of interest at all, its just crickets.

Get back to me in a day or two after I've had time to read the documentation, play with it for a while, and, most importantly, think about it, and I might have some questions or comments. In the moment watching someone else dick around? No chance. Even if I wanted to participate beyond your expectations, my mind will be blank. Guaranteed.

> For me its frustrating

I too am frustrated by these types of meetings. An email/Slack/whatever message containing "Hey! Check out this UI testing framework. Think it would work for us?" would provide just as much information as the presentation, while allowing more time to actually investigate to a necessary depth and come back with a constructive response.

A followup meeting to discuss the merits of the technology after everyone has had a chance to consider it aren't so bad. When these are hosted I find people are much more engaged and interesting discussion comes of it. I have no qualms about being challenged or "seeming dumb" in these meetings.

> I wish I were surrounded by people that are more willing to give their 2 cents

Whereas I wish I were surrounded by more people who were interested in software engineering, not being an actor in amateur live theatre. Not that there is anything wrong with the latter, but time and place. Nobody wants to see your presentation at work. Sorry.


IMHO this effect is much worse in video meetings, partly because of the lag and just the whole experience where social cues are muted.

In a real meeting, someone who has something to add will actually have different facial expressions that can be read by others. It just feels so much easier to gradually cut in without feeling like you might be talking over someone.


Much of the time that I don't have anything to say in a meeting, it's because I don't think fast enough to have anything to contribute on the spot. If someone posted the content of the meeting as a text post in a Slack channel, I'd read it, stew on it, and then probably end up writing 2–6 paragraphs of thoughts about it about five hours later. But you want those 2–6 paragraphs right now? I haven't thought of them yet!

And, IMHO, this is the main reason "async meetings" (e.g. email threads) are an improvement over sync meetings. Why put people on the spot, when you know you'll end up getting only a fraction of their mental capacity out of the deal? "War rooms" are for emergencies, not for creative thinking.


> Why put people on the spot, when you know you'll end up getting only a fraction of their mental capacity out of the deal?

I don't get it either. In a meeting the other day I was asked about something I did six months ago. I responded with something to the effect of "Let me refresh my memory and I'll get back to you", but the boss laid on the pressure "well, why don't we try to figure it out now?" So we spent a lengthy amount of time talking about it and reached a conclusion.

When the meeting was complete I spent a few minutes fully engrossing myself in that work, like I wanted to do originally, and realized that what we concluded was wrong. Following that realization, I got back to them with the correct response... What a waste of time that was. It's not like we are talking about how nice the weather is. Technical discussion requires a lot of information that usually isn't available in the moment.

As a 20 year veteran to working from home, I have worked with teams who have embraced async communication in the past and it is amazing how much more productive it is. Now that everyone and their brother think they can work from home, without having built working from home skills, it's been interesting to say the least.


> I feel obligated to participate in situations like these, reach for questions or at least acknowledge other's hard work

There must be two (or more) schools of thought on this then. I am the opposite. It's painfully obvious when people are just asking questions for the sake of it. It's completely pointless and wasting everyones times. Another thing I see is where the Asker wants to make a point about something. They make their point and then tack on a question at the end.


Sounds like more of a symptom of bad meetings. Maybe no one cared and only attended because they felt pressured to show up. Ime a more common complaint about meetings is along the lines of "why am I here", not "I'm to scared to chime in".

In your situation, someone doing some unsolicited sales pitch of something that I probably don't need doesn't automatically deserve my attention. They aren't entitled to any acknowledgment from me.


And this is the moment in my life when I learned the word "nothingburger", which I will never forget.

Thank you!!!


[flagged]


It’s a Show HN, which means it’s the first version. There is no reason to expect it won’t be on other platforms later.


Does it work for my wife?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: