Show HN: I built an app for when I talk too much in online meetings (unblah.me)
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
198 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 265 ms ] threadI hadn't thought of the menu bar yet. How would you want that to work?
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)
Good look on your product :)
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.
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.
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 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
“Dave, found the perfect app for you!” is aggressive. “Wow I might start using this app!” Is better.
Yeah I thought about going this way.
GP is supposed to mediate while at work while their colleague is talking in circles?
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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 (?)
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)
> 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)
It's an extroverts' world and I just live in it...
PS: The "introductions" are my personal Kryptonite.
Love the idea for this, will be trying it out!
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?
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?
Please keep me/us in here updated!
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!
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!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
> But this dismissal of a...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
Should be a standard feature imho.
The thing is it's usually a good one that give more contributions to make their progress / workflow smoother, not the other way around.
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.
[1] https://meet.jit.si/
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.
'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.
[1] https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
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.
- 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)
> 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.)
For in-person, maybe just tell your team that you're feeling insecure about this and would love to get their real-time feedback (?)
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.
It's a leadership thing. Good leaders do that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
The meta point being I don't think there are simple tricks or shortcuts to better participation.
Unless you invite totally irrelevant people to meetings, they should have some kind of view or feedback on whatever was just presented.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you!!!
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Attendees of a meeting will quickly disengage if someone talks for too long. Attendees of a lecture or presentation have different expectations.
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
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.