Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

naildrivin5.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 173 posts

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#111

Post by ChuckMcM »

wzdd wrote: post #101
ChuckMcM wrote: post #99

As with most folks here I was struck by the wholesale adoption of the 'brilliance applied to clicks' meme. For those who aren't aware of it, its the 'pay the best and the brightest minds to figure out ways to get me to click on ads.' It makes for a great sound bite, but it is completely and utterly wrong. To a first approximation, these internet services don't write ad copy or design ad banners, and that is where all…

I don't understand why providing a relevant set of ads in the shortest possible time is unrelated to encouraging people to click on ads. It seems clearly to be quite closely related to me -- provide a better ad experience, and people are more likely to make use of the ads. Whether the engineers optimising the system realise this or not is somewhat irrelevant.

Ok, I agree that providing a better ad experience makes it more likely that people will use those ads. Would you agree that that might be expressed by saying, "If the probability of someone clicking on an advertisement is X then increasing the number of people who see/visit the page proportionally increases ad clicks by factor X ?"

If you agree that this restatement adequately captures your claim then I'd like you to consider the difference between "creating a desirable web site", versus "getting someone to click on an ad."

Using examples, someone who designs an advertisement to 'appear' underneath my mouse as my mouse traverses a trigger point is "trying to get me to click", whereas someone who designs a web page on widgets which includes an advertisement for something associated with widgets off to the side, they are not working on 'trying to get me to click.'

My claim is that engineers at Google (and presumably Facebook and Twitter) are working on making your experience with their products the best it can be. This increases the number of people who use their products, and if the probability of someone clicking an advertisement is fixed, the higher traffic rates will result in more clicks. And yet, unlike the original author's posting, they worked not on 'getting people to click' rather they were working on 'being more useful to more people.'

Its important to remember that advertisements are not 'evil', not even a little bit evil. I used to subscribe to BYTE magazine and Computer Shopper in part to get access to the advertisements. These represented companies who had things I would likely want to purchase and knowing about them was a service, not a burden. The consumer 'cost' of advertising relates to how much the consumer cares that its 'part of what they are looking for' or not.

Abusive use of advertising decreases your readership which reduces the rate your desirability as an advertising platform. Its a negative value coefficient in the feedback loop so it self corrects.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#112

Post by justincormack »

mrkurt wrote: post #88
justincormack wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of geeky people have the same issue as me with internet advertising. I dont click on ads. I do not buy any advertised products. The entire market is targetted at some average consumer, like tv ads, not at the niche markets like me. Google has apparently worked out that I might be interested in buying cameras, but I do not buy them based on adverts. The brands that I respect have characteristics that adv…

You buy advertised products, and you likely "remember" advertised products that you've seen alongside content, on TV, etc. Advertising doesn't require conscious recognition to be effective, and it's very, very difficult to avoid exposure to things that might qualify as advertisement. There's actually a great deal of advertising related research out there, which might make sense when you consider just how much money i…

No I dont buy advertised products. Except razorblades. I really do not buy mass market consumer products in general. Oh I bought an iphone, not because of the adverts though.

I have read a lot on advertising, it is very interesting. I simply do not buy the types of product that are advertised, and I am geeky about the stuff I do buy. If advertising was aimed at me it might work, but it is not, that was the point I was making, and why I think many geeky people are averse to advertising.

My views on German engineering are from time spent in Germany, and reading.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#113

Post by mrkurt »

justincormack wrote: post #109
mrkurt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you leave your house, you're exposed to advertising. How do you even know about Whole Foods? Amazon's entire site can be broadly categorized as advertising, some bits of it more easily than others. Companies pay for placement at retailers like Whole Foods and labels are generally exercises in advertising. Sometimes they're hilariously named, like the "No Ads" sunscreen I remember seeing a long time ago.

Redefining everything as advertising does not work. I heard of Whole Foods through word of mouth which is not advertising in general. Sure placement can be.

I could very well be wrong, but I doubt you heard enough through word of mouth to get you in to the store. You need quite a bit of information at a pretty specific time to go to a grocery store you haven't been to before, everything from location to a serendipitous follow up thought for "I need groceries today".

Assuming you did end up there without seeing/hearing any advertising, you went in and bought products with "advertising" stamped on the front of them, right? Even store brand products have labels that feature a message the store would like you to consider. Otherwise we'd just buy things in brown cardboard boxes and stamped burlap sacks like the good ol' days.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#115

Post by tuxidomasx »

There is a common sentiment in this thread that advertising is something we should accept willingly for the privilege of enjoying a free or discounted service. while that may reflect the current reality of the situation, indifference towards the current model doesnt promote innovation and change. Am i doomed to see banner ads and interstitials for the rest of my life? I rather like the idea of being ad-averse if it means there is an increased incentive to find an alternative way to monetize on the web

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#116

Post by aristus »

scubaguy wrote: post #73
aristus wrote: post #8

I happen to work for Facebook, and a large fraction of my friends and family are expatriates. A place to easily keep in touch, share photos of kids, chat with abuelita, all that boring stuff, directly improves our quality of life. When I recommend Linux for my friends, the top two "programs" they care about are Skype and Facebook. After that, maybe Youtube. As for the ads, yes, that's a source of revenue. If that is…

Does Facebook have standards on what kind of ads are served? Does Facebook try to connect people with ads that are relevant? Somehow even if you are trying to _do the right thing_, the author still can't fathom why you'd sink so low as to work for Facebook.

I think that's the point of disagreement. Advertising is often inane and wasteful, but in my opinion it's not fundamentally evil.

If we serve more relevant ads resulting in clicks/sales/etc, we get more revenue. We get happier advertisers, and give users access to things they demonstrably want. There is a clear alignment of incentives to have good standards and to try to square that circle. There are other "crosswinds" which make this task hard, but also (to me) a very interesting optimization problem.

People can (and should) complain when we fail to do it right. But to assume the worst, or to write off the entire industry because we make money from advertising, leaves no room for a meaningful discussion.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#117

Post by jleader »

Cue Lloyd Dobler: "I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that."

(from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098258/quotes?qt=qt0367508, or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEgu7jdc_fs).

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#118

Post by justincormack »

mrkurt wrote: post #113
justincormack wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redefining everything as advertising does not work. I heard of Whole Foods through word of mouth which is not advertising in general. Sure placement can be.

I could very well be wrong, but I doubt you heard enough through word of mouth to get you in to the store. You need quite a bit of information at a pretty specific time to go to a grocery store you haven't been to before, everything from location to a serendipitous follow up thought for "I need groceries today". Assuming you did end up there without seeing/hearing any advertising, you went in and bought products with…

As far as I know I have never seen a Whole Foods advert. Not sure they advertise here (uk). I spend a fair amount of time finding new grocery shops in the area.

Considering all labelling to be advertising is, as above, overextension of a reasonable definition. Although I do buy stuff out of cardboard boxes and sacks too.

Re: Why I'd never work for Google, Twitter, or Facebook

#120

Post by cpeterso »

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #47

I'm not a practicing Buddhist but one of the principles of the Noble Eightfold path is the idea of 'right livelihood'. Which essentially means that you should avoid making a living doing something which does harm to other living things. One of the listed livelihoods to avoid is being in the business of making weapons. This really struck home when I was working for a company doing a lot of DARPA work. I had previously…

I used to work for a university supercomputer center, which (surprise, surprise) ran weapon simulations. I agree with you, though some DARPA research to "kill people better" does good by reducing collateral damage.
Post reply on HN