81–90 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I've spent the last 5 minutes trying to figure out what the oft-referenced acronym meant.
Seriously. I didn't know what they called it, but if it was an idea coming from Google, then it's a really stupid name. Even Google autocompletes it to "spyware" and it starts with SPY. Come on.
Guys, unless you're actually a player, save yourself the headache and don't get caught up in this little valley tiff. I think SPYW is dumb, but google is trying something to improve search results, it happens to use data that they have on the user. I don't think they need permission from everyone in the valley with a sign-in service they can't crawl before they're allowed to make changes that are meant to improve sea…
“Most portals show their own content above content elsewhere on the web. We feel that’s a conflict of interest, analogous to taking money for search results. Their search engine doesn’t necessarily provide the best results; it provides the portal’s results. Google conscientiously tries to stay away from that. We want to get you out of Google and to the right place as fast as possible. It’s a very different model.” -L…
Of course, this is troubling in an entirely different manner. But at least Larry isn't a hypocrite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: have there been any success stories of ex-Googlers starting their own companies? I've been under the impression that the few that have had successful exits were bought by Google itself, mostly as talent acquisitions.
Big success takes longer to be visible since early acquisitions are typically small. I think weatherbill is doing very well, and there are quite a few promising yc companies started by former Googlers (such as optimizely). And of course 2/3 of the Twitter founders were previously at Google. I might also mention FriendFeed :)
This all makes no never-mind to me, as I'm going to turn that right off (you can do that, right?). I prefer to evaluate on my own what information is relevant and what isn't. Happy accidents, you know. Did Google ever announce what the rationale for this is, from a revenue perspective? Is a link with content that a person is likely to recognize also likely to generate extra revenue?
Yes. Settings icon ( ⚙ ), then Search Settings, then Do not use personal results.
Leaders should lead with a unique style. Their way. Larry's playing catchup with Facebook while thinking he can be Steve Jobs, and that, together with guarding the cents by removing the little things that made life @Google awesome (bagels anyone?) has led to low morale among the workforce. Geeks with low morale don't get shit done. They don't innovate. They don't create. Google staff aren't code monkeys, they're not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Most portals show their own content above content elsewhere on the web. We feel that’s a conflict of interest, analogous to taking money for search results. Their search engine doesn’t necessarily provide the best results; it provides the portal’s results. Google conscientiously tries to stay away from that. We want to get you out of Google and to the right place as fast as possible. It’s a very different model.” -L…
They are not straying, they are pivoting.
Am I the only one that thinks SPYW is the right direction? We have seen that rankings were increasingly being gamed. Algorithmic search is a never ending arms race. SPYW aligns with what google has been trying to do for a while, provide results that are relevant and worthwhile to the user. If my mom searches for digital cameras , she would rather have a link to something written on G+ by someone in her circle than a…
Ideally wouldn't it find the best result? G+ and farm.* seem equally likely to be poor. I did an image search for something like Empire State Building and my G+ results showed first. The results sucked.
My main point was without something like +1 they are in a never ending arms race, they needed to disrupt that cycle of tweeks and return to status-quo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: have there been any success stories of ex-Googlers starting their own companies? I've been under the impression that the few that have had successful exits were bought by Google itself, mostly as talent acquisitions.
Twitter and Foursquare are fairly prominent examples, though in both cases the founders were people who became Google employees when their previous startups were acquired. Among startups we've funded, I know at least Greplin, Optimizely, Appjet, and ReMail have/had founders who previously worked at Google. I'm sure there are at least that many more, but I don't remember where most of the people we funded worked befor…
I guess Biz Stone came directly from Google to found Twitter.
Given Google's size and the quality of the people who go in there, I'd have expected dozens if not hundreds of companies to be spawned by ex-Googlers.
I often wonder if certain companies simply produce more founders because of culture, money or simply bias in who they hire. PayPal is the classic example of a company that pumped out a good number of successful founders, but I can't identify any particular characteristic of that particular company that might have caused it.
I'd love to see some analytics about where the most successful or prolific founders come from.
Leaders should lead with a unique style. Their way. Larry's playing catchup with Facebook while thinking he can be Steve Jobs, and that, together with guarding the cents by removing the little things that made life @Google awesome (bagels anyone?) has led to low morale among the workforce. Geeks with low morale don't get shit done. They don't innovate. They don't create. Google staff aren't code monkeys, they're not…
Waiting for options/grants to vest, you mean?