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

Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 300 posts

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#191

Post by kelukelugames »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #142
kelukelugames wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just last week Victoria Lease resigned after months of sexual harassment without any consequence for the perpetrators. I find this hard to believe because if you are smart enough to work at Google then you should be smart enough to know your rights. If the harassment is persistent and comes from multiple perpetrators then she can build a timeline to show HR, a lawyer, or the EEOC.

Please educate yourself on these issues. Your claim ignores reams of historical experience on why people choose not to report abuse. Even if someone knows their rights, there are many possible reasons for not reporting abuse. Finally smart != informed, so this is quite a leap to base an argument on.

I was advocating for people to stand up and implying the original poster is spreading rumors but guess people assumed I was victim blaming. Probably should have phrased things differently.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#192

Post by jnbiche »

Kiro wrote: post #14

I don't understand the problem. Was he expecting a $100m acquisition and was upset it was only $2m? Feels like an overly aggressive reaction to something most people would only dream of.

>Was he expecting a $100m acquisition and was upset it was only $2m?

There's absolutely no evidence that $2 million was ever on offer. What they wanted all along was for him to come in for an interview for a job...which he may have flubbed even if he had acquiesced. Lots of bright developers "flub" Google interviews.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#193

Post by fecak »

dreamweapon wrote: post #189
fecak wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a recruiter, I'd be curious to hear what tricks were played to get you to interview. I'm an independent, so when I speak to people there is never anything ambiguous about our discussions (my clients are not looking to acquire your product if you have one). Is it possible that Google liked your product and subsequently thought you might be a good hire, but didn't like your product as a potential acquisition? That i…

Is it possible that Google liked your product and subsequently thought you might be a good hire, but didn't like your product as a potential acquisition? That is where I think the difference lies. Were you contacted as "I'm from Google and we are interested in you", or "I'm from Google and we are interested in your product"? That is a big difference. If you look at the opening emails from the two Googlers (X and Y) t…

Again, if you read my comment and the parent comment, I am specifically addressing the parent comment (written by MCRed, just so we're all clear here), and I am responding to his/her anecdote about Google recruiters.

The emails you are referring to pertain to the linked article, and have nothing to do with my comment here.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#194

Post by divegeek »

nostrademons wrote: post #178
birdmanjeremy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually really enjoyed the interview process with Google. It was expeditious and respectful. It was, however, clear they are not used to taking "No" for an answer, and that's when things got a little uncomfortable.

My own interview process was pretty delightful (which is a good part of why I ended up working there), but when I have referred friends or even been an interviewer, I've seen stuff that's so sloppy and disrespectful that I started adopting a "friends don't refer friends to work at Google" policy. I suspect it may've been because I was hired at the bottom of the 2009 recession, right around when they fired all the tem…

I interviewed in late 2010 and was hired in early 2011. I had a great experience. Other than the long delay between interview and offer, of course. It may be relevant that I didn't interview in MTV.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#195

Post by lordnacho »

iliis wrote: post #188
czbond wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a separate, off topic note, I'm looking to move to Germany from the states (CTO of two prior 'smaller' startups). Where would you look for positions? I'm a damn good engineer - but I can't NOT lead - and all I'm seeing thus far are junior/senior dev positions.

If Switzerland is also an option, we're a small company developing RF-ICs and -modules currently looking for a CEO/CTO. If you are interested in high-frequency electronics, firmware development and a bit of management drop me an email at s.bryner/axsem.com!

Hi, I live in Switzerland, have 10 years experience as a CTO, and I'm looking for something new. Where in CH are you? Mind if I email you?

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#196

Post by derefr »

sanderjd wrote: post #137
ovulator wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What's wrong with this country? Can't a man walk down the street without being offered a job!?"

Yeah all the comments on here about being tricked into job interviews just seem so crazy to me. Is google really so desperate to interview people? I've always heard they get tons of applications and that it's incredibly difficult (and time consuming) to get an offer after an interview with them, so why would they be going through all of this trouble to get people in the funnel? I'm really not sure what to make of it…

Maybe the top of the funnel is the easiest part to optimize in a data-driven fashion, so it's what Google has ended up optimizing. And it's probably to their deficit; it seems to me that the only thing widening your funnel at the top ever gets you is more unqualified leads.

When I hire, I don't think about trying to find more people to interview. Instead, I think about designing the interviewing process such that it's short, simple, and fun for the person being interviewed—because the people who I most want, have the least time and patience for me and the most alternatives, so I have to make choosing to "try my job on" as easy as possible.

When I do this, word spreads (both among those who get hired, and those who don't) that "you may as well go and see if you like them, it's not too much of a hassle" and the result is far more inbound (qualified!) leads, and far less friction in outbound lead-gen.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#197

Post by Kiro »

tlrobinson wrote: post #179

Googler #1 doesn’t do M&A for [Famous Named Googler]. She’s just a recruiter for Googler #2, whom she knew from the outset. This seems like a risky tactic. [Famous Named Googler] probably doesn't like [low level recruiters] misrepresenting their relationship with him/her.

Yes, which is why I don't think it's true.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#198

Post by iliis »

lordnacho wrote: post #195
iliis wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Switzerland is also an option, we're a small company developing RF-ICs and -modules currently looking for a CEO/CTO. If you are interested in high-frequency electronics, firmware development and a bit of management drop me an email at s.bryner/axsem.com!

Hi, I live in Switzerland, have 10 years experience as a CTO, and I'm looking for something new. Where in CH are you? Mind if I email you?

Sure, send me a message :) We're in Dübendorf, near Zürich.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#199

Post by derefr »

Retra wrote: post #173
boomzilla wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually goes both ways. In fact, some start-up people welcome this kind of approaches, because they can turn around and show potential investors/employees that "we are validated by Big Names at Google, come and join us". Hell, I've seen this first hand and it was not even an email, just a passing compliment from some reasonably "big name". So it's all a game, don't hate the players, hate the rules. It makes it ha…

>So it's all a game, don't hate the players, hate the rules. There are no rules. Trying to paint this turd with catchy slogans isn't helpful either.

You're thinking of "rules" as in externally-imposed rules. The parent is using "rules" in the sense of social contracts and market incentives: best-practices that emerge from the game-theoretic equilibria between players.

For example, "don't start a nuclear war" isn't an explicit rule by some world government, but it does seem to be a rule all the world-leaders are implicitly following. For another, "don't appear to be physically weak in prison" is a "rule" that everybody knows, despite no single authority enforcing it. The environment itself—made up of the other players and their incentives—enforce it, through their self-interested reactions.

Re: Hi, It’s Google Corporate Development

#200

Post by bsder »

jseliger wrote: post #90
MCRed wrote: post #41

For a period I was heavily recruited by google. Their recruiters tried a great many variations of attempts to trick me into interviewing for a job. It seems weird that they would do this, because pretty soon, it would become obvious that it was a job interview and nothing more. Maybe there are a lot of talented engineers out there who are doing startups but aren't really committed to them and google manages via the f…

manages via the fame of its name [. . .] What I experienced was less heinous but had the same elements- misrepresentation, name dropping I think the original author should name everyone involved. I understand why he didn't, but people can only get away with this shit because they do it anonymously and no one talks to each other. This is a much less extreme example, but years ago my former landlord threatened to kill…

> I wrote a post about what happened using his real name.

Be careful giving this advice.

This only worked because A) (minor) you filed a police report and B) (major) he didn't have enough money to drag you through a serious defamation lawsuit.

If he decided to drag you through a defamation lawsuit, you would likely have lost because you wouldn't have had enough resources to defend aggressively.

It's good to out bad actors, but do make sure that you aren't putting yourself in a vulnerable situtation.

Post reply on HN