<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Deep Jive Interests &#187; gmail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/category/gmail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Web 2.0, Social Media, Marketing.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:51:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>When Will Twitter&#8217;s Gmail Import Feature Get Updated?</title>
		<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/25/when-will-twitters-gmail-import-feature-get-updated/</link>
		<comments>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/25/when-will-twitters-gmail-import-feature-get-updated/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Hung</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gmail]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/25/when-will-twitters-gmail-import-feature-get-updated/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On a lighter note, does anyone else know when Twitter&#8217;s invite-through-Gmail process is actually going to get updated?  I understand that Gmail 2.0 (or whatever they&#8217;re calling it) with its updated contact management has broken things for Twitter, but jeez (&#8230;)</p><p><a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/25/when-will-twitters-gmail-import-feature-get-updated/">Read the rest of this entry &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On a lighter note, does anyone else know when Twitter&#8217;s invite-through-Gmail process is actually going to get updated?  I understand that <a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/05/gmail-20-is-nice-still-no-sorting-function-though/"  target="_blank">Gmail 2.0</a> (or whatever they&#8217;re calling it) with its updated contact management has broken things for Twitter, but jeez &#8212; I think its been a few weeks now that I&#8217;ve been getting an error when I try an &#8220;import&#8221; my Gmail contacts.</p>
<p>Anyway, many thanks who have added me, and many apologies if I haven&#8217;t gotten around to adding you in return.  (<em>You see, the gmail importing thing seems to be broken &#8230; </em>;) )</p>
<p>I&#8217;m at <a href="http://www.twitter.com/tonyhung" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/www.twitter.com');" target="_blank">http://www.twitter.com/tonyhung </a>if you&#8217;re interested in future twitter updates, so please drop a line to say hello!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/25/when-will-twitters-gmail-import-feature-get-updated/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gmail 2.0 Is Nice &#8212; Still No Sorting Function, Though.</title>
		<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/05/gmail-20-is-nice-still-no-sorting-function-though/</link>
		<comments>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/05/gmail-20-is-nice-still-no-sorting-function-though/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:43:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Hung</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gmail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[updates]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/05/gmail-20-is-nice-still-no-sorting-function-though/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I noticed that my gmail account has been upgraded to the &#8220;gmail 2.0&#8243; today, which is cool &#8212; we have some new features, such as an improved contacts function, the ability to filter emails based on a single email (not (&#8230;)</p><p><a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/05/gmail-20-is-nice-still-no-sorting-function-though/">Read the rest of this entry &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I noticed that my gmail account has been upgraded to the <a href="http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-10-29-n47.html" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/blogoscoped.com');" target="_blank">&#8220;gmail 2.0&#8243;</a> today, which is cool &#8212; we have some new features, such as an improved contacts function, the ability to filter emails based on a single email (not sure if this means by author and content &#8212; I&#8217;m thinking &#8216;probably&#8217;), and a little label at the top which tells me if something is loading (because Lord knows I need a label to tell me that); also, its subjectively faster, which is always nice.</p>
<p>To be honest, the one thing that I was hoping would appear still has not, and that is the ability to sort a page of emails base on alphabetical name, or date.</p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t the first time <a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/07/18/the-one-thing-gmail-really-needs-and-has-never-been-done/"  target="_blank">I&#8217;ve talked about it</a>, and its still mind-boggling how this feature is still noticeably absent.  I know that <a href="http://internetducttape.com/" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/internetducttape.com');" target="_blank">some folks</a> are still fans of creating ever more filters, but for my money, there&#8217;s still no easier way to &#8230; well, sort through a ton of emails than by actually *sorting* them by name.</p>
<p>In other news, the free storage space for gmail is now almost 5 gigabytes, which is also nice.  I remember when I first got access and it was just over 1 gigabyte, and how game-changing that was for web based email services.  Man, I am feeling old &#8230; :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/05/gmail-20-is-nice-still-no-sorting-function-though/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lame, Lame, Lame! (Lame!)</title>
		<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/10/lame-lame-lame-lame/</link>
		<comments>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/10/lame-lame-lame-lame/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Hung</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lame]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Picasa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gmail]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/10/lame-lame-lame-lame/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google announced that you can now purchase extra storage that can be shared amongst all of your g-utilities, including gmail, Picasa, docs and spreadsheets and so on.  The price?  Well, it starts at an incredible $20 per year to bump (&#8230;)</p><p><a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/10/lame-lame-lame-lame/">Read the rest of this entry &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Google announced that you can now <a target="_blank" href="http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/08/google-offers-cheap-online-file-storage-with-a-catch.html" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/www.marketingpilgrim.com');">purchase extra storage </a>that can be shared amongst all of your g-utilities, including gmail, Picasa, docs and spreadsheets and so on.  The price?  Well, it starts at an incredible $20 per year to bump you up to 6 gigabytes.  There is a graduated scale up to 250G which will run you $500 per year.</p>
<p>Without trying to sound absurd, <strong>I think that this is incredibly lame</strong>. In an era where the price of storage is dropping every quarter, where one of its competitors is offering &#8220;unlimited&#8221; email storage (although the storage doesn&#8217;t carry over to its &#8216;briefcase&#8217;), and where other Web2.0 offerings are offering similarly competitive products at a per-gigabyte price which is just as competitive (or more) with this, I just don&#8217;t see how this is anything but lame.</p>
<p>Yes, g-utility users now have the *option* of paying for more space, but that&#8217;s <strong>like giving car owners the *option* of paying for extra gas </strong>once they&#8217;ve driven the car off the parking lot.  There&#8217;s nothing special or innovative about that &#8212; and in fact, runs a little counter to the spirit of &#8220;holy shit&#8221; when Gmail first shattered the storage barriers about three years ago.</p>
<p>One does wonder if, with this move, Google is now running into a <strong>consolidative (?complacent) phase</strong>, where it feels happy with the kind of progress and inroads its made into online email, online docs and spreadsheets, and online pictures.  Although gmail isn&#8217;t leading the field when it comes to online email.  Nor is Picasa leading the field when it comes to online pictures.</p>
<p>For a company that is banking its <strike>future</strike> existence on the ability to sort, categorize, and make meaningful the world&#8217;s information &#8212; that is fairly robust in terms of its assets, brand, and equity &#8212; you would think they would <strong>try and remove all barriers</strong> to getting people to make that information available *to* google. And you would think that would mean, it wouldn&#8217;t, at least while it isn&#8217;t yet the leader in any one of those categories, because it isn&#8217;t &#8230; particularly to hard core / early adopters, who are going to be the *only* ones who are running into that limit at this stage in the game.</p>
<p>Google being short sighted? Trying to do a cash grab? Snubbing *its* faithful?</p>
<p>Or, maybe they have something else up their sleeve?</p>
<p>Heck, in this case, I think its <strong>a, b, c, but *not* d</strong>. Sorry, Google, this move is teh lame, and there&#8217;s no three ways of saying it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/08/10/lame-lame-lame-lame/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The One Thing Gmail Really Needs &#8212; And Has Never Been Done</title>
		<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/07/18/the-one-thing-gmail-really-needs-and-has-never-been-done/</link>
		<comments>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/07/18/the-one-thing-gmail-really-needs-and-has-never-been-done/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:15:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Hung</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[gmail]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/07/18/the-one-thing-gmail-really-needs-and-has-never-been-done/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And that I would almost pay money for. I mean there are a bajillion add-ons for Gmail &#8212; and some of them are even useful &#8212; but for the love of all that&#8217;s holy, why hasn&#8217;t anyone figured out a (&#8230;)</p><p><a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/07/18/the-one-thing-gmail-really-needs-and-has-never-been-done/">Read the rest of this entry &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And that I would almost pay money for.</p>
<p>I mean there are a bajillion add-ons for Gmail &#8212; <a href="http://lifehacker.com/software/lifehacker-top-10/top-10-unofficial-gmail-apps-and-add+ons-279556.php" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/lifehacker.com');" target="_blank">and some of them are even useful</a> &#8212; but for the love of all that&#8217;s holy, why hasn&#8217;t anyone figured out a greasemonkey script to allow Gmail to sort your inbox/folders by its column? It, by its unchangeable default, doesn&#8217;t allow you arrange your inbox by anything EXCEPT by date.  You cannot, for example, sort by author, or by subject.</p>
<p>I love gmail as much as the next geek, but when my email is piled way high, I find that this single thing prevents me from sorting things out in an efficent way.</p>
<p>Last week, <a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/07/07/avoiding-email-bankruptcy/"  target="_blank">bordering on the brink of email bankruptcy</a>, I would have done terrible things all for being able to sort by author.  Doesn&#8217;t anyone else notice how much easier it is to sort through email once you&#8217;re able to group and SEE your email by common groups?  Like who wrote it?</p>
<ul>
<li>&#8220;Ah yes, all my email newsletters &#8212; they are all crap, good-bye&#8221; [delete!]</li>
<li>&#8220;Hmmm, notifications from the university &#8212; better save them all&#8221; [archive!]</li>
<li>&#8220;Email forwards from my favourite aunt &#8212; again?&#8221; [spam!]</li>
</ul>
<p>Yes, <a href="http://mail.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=suggest" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/mail.google.com');" target="_blank">I know we can &#8220;ask&#8221; for it to be done</a> with its next &#8216;upgrade&#8217; or whatever, but why it hasn&#8217;t been implemented by now by Google proper, OR, some greasemonkey ninja is simply beyond me.</p>
<p>If anyone does know how this can be done, please let me know so I can do this and help publicize this important piece of information for the world to enjoy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/07/18/the-one-thing-gmail-really-needs-and-has-never-been-done/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

