4 ms·

> There are several shockingly inappropriate things in this article. In particular, the PR person at Amazon is saying that they would have shared employee's per

> There are several shockingly inappropriate things in this article. In particular, the PR person at Amazon is saying that they would have shared employee's personal records (including evaluations) as well as other employee's termination conditions (which I consider unrelated to their quotes). Yep. Additionally, its pretty clear Carney was hired as a political PR wrangler for the sole purpose of cleaning up messes like this and this is the best he can do. If it was someone inexperienced, I'd assume this was just an error in judgement. However, with Carney's experience, is pretty clear this is the best spin that could be put to paper ... and that really says something. Their only option is to attack the character of the people involved in the articles about Amazon. They have no data, no evidence of any kind beyond "These are bad people". For a data driven company, it shows they either failed to collect related data and/or that data shows the article was accurate despite the poor choice of sources. > (By the way, the tool that the Times suggests is institutional encouragement to anonymously stab people in the back is rarely used and, when it is, most feedback is positive. Also, it’s not anonymous. The reporters knew that and dropped some qualifying language deep in the story after painting a picture that was far more entertaining than accurate.) Yeah, I'll believe if you if you were able to quantify it. The fact you didn't even try to provide data for this claim causes me call bullshit. > We decided to participate by sharing much of what Ms. Kantor asked for, yet the article she specifically said they were not writing became the article that we all read. And, despite our months-long participation, we were given no opportunity to see, respond to, or help fact-check the “stack of negative anecdotes” that they ultimately used. Then provide data, rather than anecdotes of your own that show you in an even more negative light among the privacy minded?

serge2k 11y ago
> For a data driven company, it shows they either failed to collect related data and/or that data shows the article was accurate despite the poor choice of sources. They do an annual survey of SDEs, and they do release that data internally (aggregated/anonymously). SO they do have data. The problem is if they release data taht says "Oh well X% of our engineers are happy with the company" Then when happens when someone says why not (X+Y)? It's data without comparisons to give better context.
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > They do an annual survey of SDEs, and they do release that data internally (aggregated/anonymously). SO they do have data. The problem is if they release data taht says "Oh well X% of our engineers are happy with the company" Then when happens when someone says why not (X+Y)? If they can show a clear majority are happy with their jobs, that is the strongest argument they have. It also shows the articles claiming otherwise are in error. There is always going to be someone who complains but data is more valuable than "well, all these people are malcontents or misquoted".
  - srtjstjsj 11y ago
    It's not an election. "Clear majority" is an extremely low bar for "job satisfaction", especially when you consider that over the years, the happy portion vote every year, while many of the unhappy people depart.
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      Then what bar would you set? I'd be happy with a low bar. My guess is it isn't even hitting that low bar.
  - vkou 11y ago
    If they can show that a clear majority are happy with their jobs, all that demonstrates is survivorship bias. Given their churn rate, this is not a good thing.

serge2k 11y ago

> For a data driven company, it shows they either failed to collect related data and/or that data shows the article was accurate despite the poor choice of sources. They do an annual survey of SDEs, and they do release that data internally (aggregated/anonymously). SO they do have data. The problem is if they release data taht says "Oh well X% of our engineers are happy with the company" Then when happens when someone says why not (X+Y)? It's data without comparisons to give better context.

fweespeech 11y ago
> They do an annual survey of SDEs, and they do release that data internally (aggregated/anonymously). SO they do have data. The problem is if they release data taht says "Oh well X% of our engineers are happy with the company" Then when happens when someone says why not (X+Y)? If they can show a clear majority are happy with their jobs, that is the strongest argument they have. It also shows the articles claiming otherwise are in error. There is always going to be someone who complains but data is more valuable than "well, all these people are malcontents or misquoted".
- srtjstjsj 11y ago
  It's not an election. "Clear majority" is an extremely low bar for "job satisfaction", especially when you consider that over the years, the happy portion vote every year, while many of the unhappy people depart.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    Then what bar would you set? I'd be happy with a low bar. My guess is it isn't even hitting that low bar.
- vkou 11y ago
  If they can show that a clear majority are happy with their jobs, all that demonstrates is survivorship bias. Given their churn rate, this is not a good thing.