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

No, I still don't want to work for Google

infotrope.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 410 posts

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#341

Post by hessenwolf »

michaelochurch wrote: post #238
wisty wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 20% time can easily destroy your career. Most managers view it either as a waste of time or a flight risk. So at Google, you're job isn't to make Google more successful, but to make your manager look good.

Yes, which doesn't make Google any worse than most companies, but does mean it has regressed into the meaningless, incoherent, parochial grey glop that is standard corporate working life.

You know, I work for a 122 year old > 100,000 employee megacorp, and it is not so bad. It takes longer to do things, and you have to work around a lot of problems, but the vastness of the problems and systems has some appeal.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#342

Post by nostrademons »

neilk wrote: post #330
bane wrote: post #148

Like many people I have issues with Google. But let's not be silly about things I'd still love to work there. Not out of any particular fanboyism, but because I've worked at plenty of places that are not Google, and the normal day-to-day in a place like a large defense contractor are categorically worse than even the worst nightmare scenario I've ever heard about working at Google.

I think almost anything is better than a giant defense contractor. I had a friend who worked at the place she called "the bomb factory" (in a completely innocuous IT role) and her stories were universally depressing.

I have a friend who worked at General Dynamics for about 5 years and really enjoyed it. At least up until all the people he respected and liked working with quit.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#345

Post by ilf10 »

nostrademons wrote: post #322
mattdeboard wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting perspective. But like you said, at this point in my career I want to know how to do all this stuff. Thankfully I'm in a position where I get/have to do basically everything, so I'm getting very broad experience. There are specific areas where I want to focus -- search, data analysis, infrastructure -- and my next job I'll probably be looking for a focus in one or more of those areas (each of which Google…

Again, YMMV. I was hired as a UI SWE, told my manager (repeatedly) that I wanted to do more backend algorithmic work, eventually refused to do any more UI work, then taught myself enough about Google Search's backend systems that I became known as a full-stack engineer that knows everything. It probably delayed my promotion by about a year, but it was worth it, and it's not like anyone stopped me. I'm now doing basic…

At google, you are thrust into a new environment, you are but a naked noogler, and your past a distant memory. Old, young, female, male, fat, skinny, likes sports, hates sports, prefers sushi, blah de dah, shut the hell up, no one gives a shit. It doesn't matter until you have proven yourself.

A lot of problems come from when nooglers expect the world to do their bidding, but have nothing to show for it. At the end of the day, profit matters, lines of code matter, cleaning up and maintaining code matter, how much you help your coworkers matter, these things lead to you creating new features, these things matter and increase profitability, but you wouldn't know which new shit to add if you didn't earn your licks. Do your job, then improve things around you while doing your job, then we talk.

Before I came to google, I was very successful, making kick ass fast, scalable systems, doing the job of many people, bringing glory to my managers but not to me.. Didn't matter though because for years I studied coding from what I would call masters, taking my licks, being humble and learning from anyone and anything. I didn't mention my past to my new team members at google.. Some of them ridiculed me at the first site of any minor bug I introduced, but inside I laughed like an insane hobo. The years of shit code I have refactored, bugs that drove me insane because they had to be fixed and no one else wanted or could tackle them.. I endured, so with a silent knowing I set out to rip apart the hearts of my naysayers with a blood curdling smile.

Now I'm being promoted while those who ridiculed me are not, they in fact respect me and head my advice, usually because when they don't, they get ridiculed when their code is the source of design problems.

What you did before google matters, not in how much you boast about it, but in that it gives you the skills to rise above the rest. Otherwise, you're just a blowhard talking about the olden' days that no one gives a shit about.

In that way, I have found that google is a meritocracy, with people challenging each other, making everyone better, and it's something I never got at a previous employer. Before google, employers just took advantage of me. So, yeah, I would defend google to the death and recommend it to anyone who isn't a whining wimp.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#346

Post by icelancer »

vidarh wrote: post #86
varelse wrote: post #28

I worked at Google for a short stint. I found the tech interview easy and I wasn't asked anything particularly ridiculous. I received a job offer shortly thereafter and accepted. As someone who regularly interviews prospective engineers at my current gig, I see no problem with expecting candidates to arrive prepared to answer algorithm questions or questions about their strongest programming language. Ditto for someo…

If Googles interviews had seemed to be remotely reasonable, I'm sure the people complaining would have been fewer. As it is, they seems very much to have the attitude that it doesn't matter if they weed out tons of great candidates as long as they weed out the bozos too. I once went through technical phone screening with them for a management position, and was bizarrely asked lots of probing questions about unix file…

Yegge has explicitly said that Google sucks at hiring people.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#347

Post by LaRakel »

bmelton wrote: post #114
LaRakel wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do interpret what you wrote as a slightly less sensitive version of "If you don't like it, then leave," type of comment. That type of comment is doesn't say anything, there's no real argument in it. It's simply dismissing criticism. You can dismiss any criticism whatsoever using it. The sweeping "if you don't like it leave" doesn't really work. There's good reasons to use a platform despite deficiencies, no platfor…

To frame the discussion differently, I disagree with Paypal's recent mandatory arbitration clause, but I have reasons to use Paypal despite it; Namely, I have a few accounts that I pay for that only offer Paypal as a payment option. As of this morning, I have sent emails to each of those account holders asking whether or not they have alternate payment methods available, as I will be canceling my Paypal account short…

Whether or not you keep using a service, it's good to voice your opinion on bad policy, because every so often a company listens to its users.

Besides marketshare, bad press has an impact as well. Leaving a service is NOT the only way of protest.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#348

Post by jessedhillon »

baruch wrote: post #335
jessedhillon wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your mentality typical of Google hiring practices? As long as we're going by anecdotal evidence here, nothing you've said here rings true. I've found great engineers by chatting with them -- if you can't separate a great, well-accomplished engineer from a faker by talking with him/her at length about their previous work, then IMHO the problem is with you, not them. You said it best -- the process you describe abov…

I don't quite support your position and am more in line with the parent one. It may be possible to find the "truly great" by a nice discussion but for those that are good and above it isn't so easy to separate them from the good talkers without some deeper technical discussion that gets started by an innocent technical question. The question is used to weed out the complete bozos and the deeper discussion to understa…

If the question were simply, am I going to go to company X or not, then sure let's do the bozo test to your satisfation.

However, most candidates are going to have several options, and perhaps 7 or more opportunities that they want to chase down. In light of that, and considering that companies like Google want the person with 7+ opportunities chasing him/her, why grind them down by putting them through such an impersonal process? IMO it shows a complete lack of respect or understanding of the position the candidate is in.

If you are the only one who says "great talent should be willing to jump through my hoops" then it's not a problem. The problem is when everyone wants you to jump through their pop quiz, which is what happens when smaller companies see the leaders of their industries institute these bullshit procedures.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#349

Post by vidarh »

ori_b wrote: post #241
xenen wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I never would have expected Google's perf management to be as bad as what I've read here - Glassdoor reviews all sound so peachy.

Take what Michael Church says with a grain of salt. I was around to observe his threads on the eng-misc mailing list while he was still at Google. Without his consent, I'd rather not say what went on, but I would advise you to get your information elsewhere.

I find it quite disconcerting when people write comments like this. If you're not willing to share what was said, so that we can judge whether or not it supports your veiled allegations, then don't make the allegations. It is in bad taste, and reflects badly on you.

I know it can be hard to resist talking if you believe you have inside information, but giving "warnings" like this without sharing details that are directly relevant to the claims he made in effect boils down to nothing more than an ad hominem supported by appeals to authority about the reasons for his claims.

Post reply on HN