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

Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

dailytech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

#41

Post by nkohari »

tdavis wrote: post #12

It must just be me, but if I had a job at Google I wouldn't leave it to go work at a place like Facebook. All they have going for them is mass adoption which doesn't mean much without a worthwhile monetization strategy which they've yet to find. Work for a high-flying tech company with more perks than anybody, 20% of my time to work on whatever I want and a proven method for generating massive income or jump ship to…

The only reason I'd leave Google for Facebook is for the options -- if Facebook can wait to implode until after it finds a successful exit at their ridiculous valuation.

Re: Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

#42

Post by nkohari »

LPTS wrote: post #3

It must be a fine line to walk between finding hyper-intelligent people, meeting their intense need for self actualization, and mostly employing them in the soul numbing work of selling ads.

Hey, isn't selling ads what Web 2.0 is all about? :)

Re: Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

#43

Post by Tichy »

pg wrote: post #40
Tichy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"constant and noble battle" Oh come on, give me a break. Google is a commercial company. They are in it for the money, like everybody else.

Not all companies are in it for the money to precisely the same extent.

Google of course already has money in abundance at the moment. It won't last forever, though.

I don't see any altruistic actions on the part of Google, would welcome some pointers? I think the founders started some welfare organization with their money, but I mean Google itself.

Note: I have nothing against people getting paid for making the world a better place. But payment should be enough, it doesn't have to be a "noble battle" on top of that. Also Google has enough money to pay it's developers enough to make the battle worthwhile, noble cause or not.

Re: Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

#44

Post by Tichy »

gojomo wrote: post #19
LPTS wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it's a bit of a cheap shot. I don't think it's inaccurate. There is no doubt the ad system is valuable. There is no doubt that creating the advertising systems google uses would be an intellectual challenge. But people don't want to see ads. This work is mostly the work of deciding how to best trick people into being distracted by text they don't want to see in the first place. The better the ad people do the…

Well-matched non-obnoxious ads don't make people worse off and aren't a 'trick'. For example, for many Google queries, the paid results are more interesting to me than the natural results. Since ad revenue makes other content possible, the better ad people do their jobs, the better off audiences are. If only dumb and ineffective people worked on ad systems, we'd lose a lot of quality web content. Not all work has to…

"for many Google queries, the paid results are more interesting to me than the natural results"

Which is kind of ironic, given that Google wants to be the best search engine. Yet their ads engine seems to be better than the search engine?

Re: Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

#46

Post by rms »

Tichy wrote: post #44
gojomo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well-matched non-obnoxious ads don't make people worse off and aren't a 'trick'. For example, for many Google queries, the paid results are more interesting to me than the natural results. Since ad revenue makes other content possible, the better ad people do their jobs, the better off audiences are. If only dumb and ineffective people worked on ad systems, we'd lose a lot of quality web content. Not all work has to…

"for many Google queries, the paid results are more interesting to me than the natural results" Which is kind of ironic, given that Google wants to be the best search engine. Yet their ads engine seems to be better than the search engine?

The paid results are only particularly useful to me when I want to buy something because the ads are always commercial compared to the often non-commercial results.

Re: Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

#47

Post by gojomo »

Tichy wrote: post #38
gojomo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This criticism -- that genius is being wasted on "soul numbing" ad work -- strikes me as an inaccurate cheap shot. First, because most of the brain power at Google isn't devoted to the ad systems, but to the services that attract an audience. Don't you think their most "hyper-intelligent people" are engaged in the constant and noble battle to continue improving search, for an ever-changing internet and against the ef…

"constant and noble battle" Oh come on, give me a break. Google is a commercial company. They are in it for the money, like everybody else.

Google looks at the web and tries to make money. A phisher or scammer looks at the web and tries to make money. Does that make them equivalent?

You can be motivated by money but still be engaged in a noble pursuit.

Newspapers are published by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle to report the truth, even though many other entities work hard to get falsehoods reported.

Pharmaceuticals are developed by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle against disease.

The point of my grandparent comment is that the brainpower Google uses for its core service -- improving search -- is engaged in an honorable, beneficial activity. It's a hard problem, they're working against other profit-motivated malicious actors, and we all get a throwoff benefit from Google's work, even if we never click an ad.

That the activity also makes them money, or even was primarily motivated by making money, doesn't change that.

Re: Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

#48

Post by gojomo »

rms wrote: post #46
Tichy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"for many Google queries, the paid results are more interesting to me than the natural results" Which is kind of ironic, given that Google wants to be the best search engine. Yet their ads engine seems to be better than the search engine?

The paid results are only particularly useful to me when I want to buy something because the ads are always commercial compared to the often non-commercial results.

Exactly -- both the 'natural' and paid listings are informational, but for different reasons. Even when I find the paid listings more useful, I wouldn't call them 'better' than the natural results -- just interesting along another dimension.

Re: Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

#49

Post by Tichy »

gojomo wrote: post #47
Tichy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"constant and noble battle" Oh come on, give me a break. Google is a commercial company. They are in it for the money, like everybody else.

Google looks at the web and tries to make money. A phisher or scammer looks at the web and tries to make money. Does that make them equivalent? You can be motivated by money but still be engaged in a noble pursuit. Newspapers are published by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle to report the truth, even though many other entities work hard to get falsehoods reported. Pharmaceuticals are developed by f…

Your examples only prove the point: newspapers in a noble battle for the truth? Pharmaceutical companies in a noble battle against disease? No offence, but I think you need some reality checks. Not saying that newspapers don't hit upon the truth occasionally, or that pharmaceuticals don't cure the odd disease. But to quote a physician I once talked to: "I wouldn't be surprised if the cure against HIV is already lying in some drawer and not being published, because it has no benefits for the pharmaceutical companies". Or try reading an actual newspaper (not Hacker News) for a couple of days, then reconsider your opinion. It's very obvious that all they care about is making money, and perhaps they get the odd ego boost out of manipulating public opinion to their whims.

I didn't mean this as a hardcore left wing or whatever paranoid comment (at least I don't consider myself any of those things). Maybe it is just because I am a foreign speaker that "noble" simply doesn't sound right to me. Noble is more than just beneficial in my book, I guess it also involves making sacrifices and stuff.

Again I want to stress that I have nothing whatsoever against people reaping benefits of their work. I just took issue with the label "noble", that's all.

Edit: if you could point me to a newspaper that is really fighting a noble battle for the truth, I would be delighted to hear about it. I might actually start reading it.

Re: Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving

#50

Post by LogicHoleFlaw »

ambition wrote: post #24

I think of job satisfaction as a function with weighted attributes. There's a "perks at work" attribute, a money attribute, an attribute for how much you like your team, how many weekly hours the work culture demands of you, how much you like your boss, whether the work is meaningful and related to your life goals, the opportunities to advance in the company and to grow as a person, whether you can live in a location…

I wonder how Google compares to SAS in job satisfaction? SAS is famously high in employee perks and retention, and is extremely family-friendly.
Post reply on HN