Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo! Mail Superior to Gmail ?

ynotme writes "In his column, Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal writes that the new Yahoo! Mail beta provides a superior webmail experience to Gmail. Some quotes: 'The new Yahoo Mail is far superior to Gmail. Yahoo more closely matches the desktop experience most serious email users have come to expect ... Gmail has none of these new, fluid, desktop-like features ... Google's engineers have decreed that familiar email practices are no longer useful, and have substituted approaches they prefer, arrogantly denying users any choice.'"

23 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously? by skomes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The new yahoo mail looks like outlook, but it's more annoying since it's isn't as useful (no newsgroups). I much prefer gmail, the interface is fluid, intuitive and comfortable, and it's oh so pretty! I don't think copying the look of e-mail software should be the next step for webmail.

    1. Re:Seriously? by saden1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious? The question shouldn't be "why would I want to delete an email" but rather "why can't I delete an email easily!"

      I can't believe the parent post is marked insightful.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    2. Re:Seriously? by null+etc. · · Score: 5, Insightful
      why would you even want to delete a gmail?

      I often wonder if I'm the only person in the world who likes to delete things that have no value whatsoever.

      Yes, if I need to migrate my mail or back it up for some reason, do I want to have to worry about whether I 've gotten all of the 1,800 emails, most of which are junk? Or do I want to rest assured knowing that yes, there's those 200 emails that are really worth saving, and sigh it's so much easier to know I've backed them up safely.

      "You had to give it to him. He had a plan. And it started to make sense in Tyler sort of way. No fear. No distractions. The ability to let that which does not matter truly slide."
    3. Re:Seriously? by jrockway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good user interfaces are designed to make frequent tasks easy and destructive tasks hard. Deleting mail is destructive -- you shouldn't need to do it very often, so it's buried in the menus where you won't accidentally do it. Archiving is what you Should Want To Do, so the UI makes it really easy. I've never heard anyone complain that fscking a mounted partition is too hard. Why? Because it's dangerous and it's supposed to be hard! Deleting your e-mail is similar.

      If you don't like gmail's interface, though, don't use it. I personally like to compose messages in emacs and then sign them with gpg, so I use mutt. I also like more control over incoming messages, so I have my own qmail server. YMMV.

      --
      My other car is first.
    4. Re:Seriously? by melorama · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I've been a Gmail user since day one, and have converted all my personal email over to it, so I'm a big fan of Gmail. However I think the whole "you shouldn't NEED to delete messsages with Gmail" is a retarded, fanboy argument.

      Archiving the message certainly sweeps it out of view, but it's the digital equivalent of throwing a rug over garbage in a corner of your room. Sure, you cant see it, but it will eventually stink up the whole joint if you don't toss it out for good.

      Being that one of Gmail's most touted features is its powerful search mechanism, it should be obvious that the less useless data that exists in the search database, more relevant your search results are going to be.

      Why in the hell do you want to keep messages that you KNOW you never want to see again? It makes absolutely no sense, and is one of the stupidest Gmail advocacy points I've ever heard.

  2. Choice? by Grey_14 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does Yahoo mail let you use an interface like gmails? Or do they 'arrogantly' deny us that choice?

    1. Re:Choice? by Grey_14 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My point was, (And I'm sorry that I have to spell this out) Why should one have to look like the other? The use chooses their service, and should gmail hop to and provide a look and function that mirror's yahoo's? Why? I don't think it's arrogant at all, that's choice in itself, their choice.

  3. And the Leopard 2 is superiour to the T-34 by linzeal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I remember correctly Gmail came out almost 2 years ago. What would be more surprising is if Yahoo mail did not have a better engineered GUI. In 6 months or less Gmail will be better than Yahoo and the cycle will begin again.

    1. Re:And the Leopard 2 is superiour to the T-34 by drsquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're joking? Gmail development is slower than a blind spastic with no arms or legs trying to climb up a greased-up lamppost.

      In six months, yahoo mail will still be great, gmail will still be fobbing its users off with slow login times and those dreadful labels.

  4. GMail gives me what I always wanted by __aahsof7392 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but no one else delivered.

    * A nice user interface that is very responsive.
    * Web-based.
    * Auto-complete/tab-completion of email addresses.
    * Ability to search my email.
    * Advanced sorting and rules. I can place my mail subscriptions into different labels and archive them for later.
    * Reliability. Gmail is much more reliable than previous hosts. My mail is delivered and I receive my mail.
    * Group email threads together.
    * Mail filters.
    * vi-like keyboard shortcuts.

    1. Re:GMail gives me what I always wanted by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful
      * Group email threads together.

      Exactly. GMail threads mail more reliably and more usably than any other mail client I've ever used, web-based or not (for example showing you your own replies right there in the thread, and showing the first sentence of collapsed messages in the header's empty space). This Yahoo thing looks just like Outlook, showing you only one mail at a time and forcing you to hunt for related ones. That is a giant step backwards, all in the name of looking like Outlook.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  5. Since Gmail allows you to use POP access by kraada · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can also use any of your normal programs (thunderbird, outlook (shudder), etc) to access it Gmail.

    Yahoo! mail does not have this feature.

    So if you've always liked your Netscape Messenger . . . you can use it, with Gmail. You don't need to get used to using a web browser to read your email.

    *shrug* Frankly, I use PINE, so I couldn't care less.

    (Meanwhile I'd really appreciate it if the articles on /. were more than ads for one service/program/etc over another these days . . .)

  6. Secure POP Access? by diakka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does Yahoo mail have or plan to implement free secure POP access like gmail has?

    --
    -- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
  7. Yahoo's Mail Folders vs Google's Labels by Chmarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The author makes the accusation that google are 'arrogant' by throwing away common email metaphors, and one of them is the common 'folders' practise that just about every mail system except google uses.

    However, I think Google's way of doing things is FAR better. Folders is great, it allows you to file your mail away in a flat or hierarchial organisation. however, it DOESNT easily let you file a mail in TWO locations, unless you make a copy of the mail, and that in itself is really awkward.

    Applying labels, or some kind of keyword system, or however you want to call it, is in fact a far more natural and flexible way of doings things, and I fully intend to apply that idea to a few other projects I'm working on, where 'file away into nested folders' was the original way of doing things.

    So... perhaps Google needs to play a little catchup, but Google's idea of 'labels' instead of 'folders' I think is far superior.

    The author of the article, with his accusations of Google's "arrogance", is really letting his "must put google down at all costs, because it's the cool thing to do" attitude really show.

  8. don't forget by Brigadier · · Score: 4, Insightful

    * Saving your e-mails in conversations ( an incredible concept)
    *Works stable on all browsers ( I'm not sure if anyone else noticed buy yahoo doens't play well with opera)
    *2 gigs of space.
    *pop access
    *and most of all simple.

    I switched my mom (not computer savey) to google and she picked it up in seconds. People need to learn more bells and whistles doesn't always equal better.

  9. That's a Review??? by Comatose51 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Google's engineers have decreed that familiar email practices are no longer useful, and have substituted approaches they prefer, arrogantly denying users any choice.'

    The author comes across being very emotional and too judgmental for me to take the review seriously. Why was it even necessariy to add the arrogant bit? Oh right! That's the common sterotype Google has on Wall Street. I forgot! No doing a traditional IPO and not taking themselves too seriously apparently runs counter to Wall Street traditions so Google is automatically arrogant. I guess then all innovators are in a sense arrogant because they refuse to do things the same way it has been done.

    I work in the finance industry but some of the narrow minded people who work there makes me want to puke. If trying new ideas and being innovative are arrogant, then I hope everyone is as arrogant as Google is. On one hand, Wall Street throws out terms like "think outside of the box" but on the other hand some elements hates change. Take this quote for example:

    By contrast, Gmail has none of these new, fluid, desktop-like features.

    Uh... hello? This is WEB mail, not desktop mail? Maybe things aren't all the same in both realms? My Gmail is fast as hell and gets the job done. I go on there and answer my mails as needed. Then I'm out of there. Total time taken is usually under one minute. That's how I want it to be.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  10. Yeah, but the Yahoo! ads suck by null+etc. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Yahoo! ads, as pointed out by this blogger, really are quite bad - GMail doesn't even come close to having objectionable advertisements.

  11. He just wants it to work like Outlook by tji · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Based on his comments in the article, he just seems pissy because GMail works differently than the mail client he is used to, and he isn't given an option of working the way he wants.

    One clear indication of this is: he complains about having labels rather than folders. Labels are essentially the same thing as folders, except labels allow you to put the message in several labels/folders. The only difference is how they are stored in the filesystem, which is irrelevant in a webmail environment. If they put folder icons on his labels, I bet he would love it.

    He also complains about the "Conversation" view of e-mails (threaded view). I like the conversation view. But, I can see his point that it should be an option (even though I still think threaded/conversation view is a better way to use e-mail, because it allows for better context).

    He complains about the ads in GMail, which cannot be turned off. Okay.. I guess that's a point. If it used large distracting banner ads, like Yahoo! Mail, I would want to turn them off too. But, the small text ads in GMail blend in and don't distract at all.

    There is certainly room for improvement in GMail. But, Mr. Mossberg is a bit harsh when ranting about Google's arrogance for deciding they have a better way to do e-mail..

  12. Re:Why the bias? by ryanov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish I had mod points. The summary even calls Google arrogant. Whether or not you feel that that is the case, this is not the editorial page, this is supposed to be interesting news items.

    And no, I'm not new here.

  13. Re:Why the bias? by 0rionx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary was also largely a quotation summarizing the viewpoint of the original article. In that respect, I don't think it was the summary that was biased, rather it's Mr. Mossberg, the author of the aforementioned quotations. If you're going to villify anyone for being biased, it should be him.

  14. Labels and Filters by stevesliva · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Labels are so much more powerful than folders! They're medata tags, not buckets! When you begin using gmail more powerfully, you begin to realize that storing messages in folders feel about as useful as having them on diskettes when you could have them in a relational database. Sheesh. Can yahoo can give me the intersection of my news label and my subscriptions label, or my purchases label and my travel label? (maybe, I dunno)

    But more than that, I have to say advanced filters are key to webmail for me. I can route the spam that comes from free newsletters right to the trash. Out of principal, I previously would unsubscribe from the obnoxious newsletters that don't allow you to separately unsubscribe from their spam, but with gmail I never see the "special offers." There are quite a few decent letters I'm much happier to be subscribed to now.

    --
    Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  15. Re:well actually by bedroll · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm fond of GMail as well, and I know some people who swear by it. I also know people who just don't care for it. This leads me to understand what Mr. Mossberg's complaints are, but to also know that he is missing the point. I haven't used Yahoo!'s new interface, but I can imagine that I would have some issues with it.

    The point that was missed is that Google's GMail project was meant to test new ideas. Is it really a new idea to try to mimic Outlook's tired functionality within a web browser? Certainly not, Microsoft already did a superb job of that with OWA. GMail follows Google's UI philosophy to a tee and is nothing more or less than I would suspect from them. They are keeping thing simple by limiting options. That may emasculate some users, because they want to think that they're superior to everyone else and know the right way to setup an interface, but it's a good way to test some of the alternative ways of thinking that Google wanted to explore.

    For instance, I had never really taken the time to think of keeping threads of email as a single object. The first place that I saw it was in GMail. After seeing that I really despise having to use Outlook at work with it's cluttered mess of folders. I had also heard of the concept of search folders and labels before, but seeing it in action I realized how much better it is to see, interact with, and think of each message as a single object with multiple attributes that link it to other objects. If I'm looking for an email that was recently sent to me with an image attached I can just click on the "Attachments" label that I created and see all of the messages with attachments.

    It's time to put aside that gushing and look at why I understand his complaints. It's difficult for people who just think of email as email to objectify it to realize that GMail's interface is logical. I converted my wife, who almost immediately converted 20 or so of her friends, and she had some issues setting up filters for use with labels. Some of her friends just didn't get it and switched back to whatever they used before. Not the least, I understand the concept of not throwing away data when you have so much storage, but do I really want to have that thrown in my face every time I delete something that I don't want being there? I also wish that GMail would trim the original text of large threads, check the original document of a 100-message thread sometime.

    Then again, this is Google so it is a beta project. I could also refute each of my points with someone else's opinion that they like things the other way. Nothing changes that GMail is extremely successful at changing the way it's faithful users think about their email.

    Yahoo!'s interface sounds interesting, but I'm interested in knowing if it has what GMail does. Does it have good keyboard shortcut support? Does it treat email messages as one object if I try to organize it in two different ways? I know it doesn't have threaded viewing of messages (yet) but does it hide previous emails and quoted text and/or highlight quoted text in such a way that I can easily discern quoted from new (for those who like to reply to one paragraph at a time)? If not then shame on Yahoo! for not incorporating features that save me time and are well done by Google. For that matter, if they don't have keyboard shortcuts then shame on them for not incorporating an indispensable part of standard UI.

  16. Re:well actually by keelerm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, I don't think Gmail really needs to offer the kind of options our author spoke about -- individual messaging, folder options, etc. Those are the very things I was trying to get away from when I switched. If I wanted a desktop e-mail program, I would use Thunderbird or Kmail. I wouldn't go looking to Yahoo!. But that's just me. About the invitations, they're really not that hard to get. Everytime I give away an invite, I get another to replace it -- and I'm not the only one. Hell, go into almost any chat room, find a gmail user, and just ask them at random for an invite. I'm sure they wouldn't mind. Google just did it to spark interest. People always want what they can't have.