About This Googler's Manifesto • Hacker News Board

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#261

Post by smsm42 » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:18 PM UTC

jogjayr wrote: post #136

smsm42 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, if we look at Google's track record, they have much better luck with technical problems than with people-interaction problems. Search driven by algorithms - excellent. Social networks - epic fail. Advertising backend - money juggernaut, mostly driven by clever algorithms, as I understand? Mobile OS backend - great (well, ok, not too bad). Mobile OS frontend - meh. Chrome is kinda borderline, but I think technolo…

You're forgetting important Google products where design or user experience played a crucial role in winning. Gmail - the dominant webmail platform that made pioneering use of AJAX; before it you had to refresh the page to check if you had new email. And whose inbuilt chat client crushed Yahoo Messenger/MSN/AOL. People came for the 1GB of free storage, stayed for the friends they made on chat. YouTube - Video juggern…

Let's see:

> Gmail

This one gained popularity when promising a whopping for free 1Gb was crazy good offer. People seriously thought it's a gimmick that won't last. Now that you can pretty much buy 1TB drives with pocket change it sounds funny, but back then it was spectacular. UX had very little to do with it, and frankly I still kinda avoid using gmail website, much preferring to use mail client.

> Youtube

Excellent idea, and excellent decision whoever decided to buy it. Social aspect is not that clear - youtube comments are notorious for being utter garbage, and while everybody is using youtube, nobody does social networking on youtube. UX is ok, not spectacular.

> Google Productivity Suite

Google drive and google photos are UX epic fail, IMHO. I'm still pissed about them killing Picasa, it wasn't excellent but at least useful.

> Orkut

Yeah, this is an undeniable success in social networking, and everybody I heard from in Google are equally surprised and have no idea what happened there and why it took off. I suspect it's one of those "right place, right time" moments.

> Chromecast

That works reasonably well, but does it have any UX to speak of? Then again, maybe it's exactly Google's forte - the products that don't need any UX beyond plugging them in and turning them on. That, however, I think would also kind of play to my point of technology being stronger then UX.

> They didn't try to become a "portal" like Yahoo

Yes, they avoided a dumb mistake, which is a plus for them, but I'm not sure that this qualifies as being strong at UX. Unless you say that there is to be no UX anymore beyond the very basics - which, again, works for some tasks, but far from all.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#262

Post by Overtonwindow » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:18 PM UTC

I'm deeply troubled by the response to this "manifesto". Pitchforks are out for this guy, and when they find him, it won't be pretty. I think that's wrong. He has expressed his opinion, and people are free to confront, and denounce him all they want. But this guy might lose his job. His career. All for voicing his opinion. I don't think it matters that he did this internally. Had he stood up at a discussion in Palo Alto and said these words, the pitchforks would still be out. Our country has reached a dangerous fork in its evolution where the freedom to speak can literally ruin your life. There was a time when people were, and still are, shot for speaking their minds. Is this the natural evolution we are heading towards?

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#263

Post by Lagged2Death » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:21 PM UTC

pacala wrote: post #199

> And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just…

Textbook thoughtcrime punishment.

People are fired for exhibiting corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitudes every day. Are they all victims of "textbook thoughtcrime punishment?"

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#264

Post by smsm42 » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:21 PM UTC

runamok wrote: post #233

codeisawesome wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't completely disagree with you. But, Gmail: From my hazy memory of the time it was released: 1. Best usage of AJAX and providing complex interaction without refreshing the page. 2. More storage space than any other provider. Both, technical feats of excellence? Youtube: It was an acquired product, and there were quite a few points at which the YouTube community reacted angrily to Google driven changes, prominentl…

Gmail in my opinion was powerful because it was used search vs. painstakingly moving messages into folders. It also had auto-threading so you would not have the clutter of re:re:re:re: ad nauseum... And most of all it was very fast.

> because it was used search vs. painstakingly moving messages

In other words, we eliminate UX (folders, etc.) with superior technology (just search for whatever thing you need). Of course, people still use folders (renamed labels - that btw I think is a win, but most people afaik don't use that aspect too much). And BTW Inbox - their attempt to redesign the whole experience - is not that popular as I understand?

> And most of all it was very fast.

Technology! :)

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#265

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:21 PM UTC

untog wrote: post #251

_xhok wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine for a second that, controlling for all environmental factors, the average IQ of men was shown to be 3 points lower than women. (Totally hypothetical.) Additionally, women in this world outperform men at chess by a noticeable margin. There is a valid argument in this case to be made about how the reason women are better than men at chess is partly biological, and that chess diversity programs should be cogniza…

> There is a valid argument in this case to be made about how the reason women are better than men at chess But there isn't. There is an argument that women are, on average , better than men at chess. But that argument does not apply to an individual person. Why would you use male vs female average IQ when judging who becomes a member of the chess team? Why not assess the candidates IQ? Or, maybe have them play chess…

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#266

Post by MartinCron » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:25 PM UTC

johnny22 wrote: post #106

evangelista wrote: post #58

I do not like this article or the author's approach to argumentation. The author attempts to argue like this: "I am so right I do not have to argue why I am right and even if I did, you would be too dumb to understand it. waves hands around vaguely there is lots of science proving everything I think is true. I am too lazy to cite any of it or even indicate what arguments you made specifically are wrong, online people…

I ain't tryin to refute the rest of this, so you don't have to worry about that but this bit.. "And why is it always engineering? Why not coal mining? Why not nuclear engineering? Pig farming? Deep sea fishing? Plumbing? Carpentry? Why the incessant, unrelenting insistance from all corners that 50% of engineers MUST be women and no other profession?" I've never personally advocated for 50/50 because I have no idea if…

Exactly. If I had devoted my career to a different industry that had serious diversity problems, I would be advocating for corrective actions in that industry.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#267

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:25 PM UTC

johnny22 wrote: post #106

evangelista wrote: post #58

I do not like this article or the author's approach to argumentation. The author attempts to argue like this: "I am so right I do not have to argue why I am right and even if I did, you would be too dumb to understand it. waves hands around vaguely there is lots of science proving everything I think is true. I am too lazy to cite any of it or even indicate what arguments you made specifically are wrong, online people…

I ain't tryin to refute the rest of this, so you don't have to worry about that but this bit.. "And why is it always engineering? Why not coal mining? Why not nuclear engineering? Pig farming? Deep sea fishing? Plumbing? Carpentry? Why the incessant, unrelenting insistance from all corners that 50% of engineers MUST be women and no other profession?" I've never personally advocated for 50/50 because I have no idea if…

[deleted]

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#268

Post by DrBazza » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:26 PM UTC

to_bpr wrote: post #19

Is there any other professional industry as politically divided and toxic as tech has become? Is there any other industry in which private companies shove their "values" down the throats of their employees in the manner we experience in tech?

Arguably politics is a profession. Just look at recent elections in the US and the UK to see how nasty it can get.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#269

Post by Lagged2Death » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:27 PM UTC

Overtonwindow wrote: post #262

I'm deeply troubled by the response to this "manifesto". Pitchforks are out for this guy, and when they find him, it won't be pretty. I think that's wrong. He has expressed his opinion, and people are free to confront, and denounce him all they want. But this guy might lose his job. His career. All for voicing his opinion. I don't think it matters that he did this internally. Had he stood up at a discussion in Palo A…

But this guy might lose his job. His career. All for voicing his opinion.

This has always been true and I can't understand how you would imagine it was ever otherwise.

Re: About This Googler's Manifesto

#270

Post by avisser » Sun, Aug 06, 2017, 5:29 PM UTC

thehardsphere wrote: post #236

nl wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it has clearly detracted from the point as this discussion shows. But it's pretty important to realize that "punching someone in the face" is a crime, and no company can allow that.

Maybe you missed it, but there's been a distinct trend in America lately to suggest that violence can be OK in political contexts. I would not assume that the author was apeaking figuratively, because many authors who would likely agree with the author would not be.

Here here. "Punch a Nazi" is no longer figurative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvmGWqFYBGk