6 ms·

Hi there. I was a Noogler in 2005 or so, but it sounds like things haven't changed much, at least on that side. Regarding the stuff you're not supposed to talk

by neilk 17y ago

Hi there. I was a Noogler in 2005 or so, but it sounds like things haven't changed much, at least on that side. Regarding the stuff you're not supposed to talk about, there are three stages: 1. Amazement at how it all works; wanting to go run and tell all your friends. 2. Fear that talking about Google's advantages would undermine the company (or your position in it) 3. Recognition that nobody would believe you anyway. By the time you've reached (3) you've come to believe that Google is years ahead of anyone else; you've transferred all loyalties to the company; you accept the idea that you're in an elite of humanity. The reality is that while Googlers are very smart, and sometimes not even narrow, a lot of their intellectual qualities are not innate. Mostly it's due to a very severe work ethic and having had the leisure and wealth to pursue a field with single-minded focus since they were in their early teens. And much of this is mere bravado, or habitual oneupmanship learned from Ivy-league American schools. Don't be intimidated, and try not to abandon all your own intellectual standards in favor of Google's.

amichail 17y ago
Do you think entrepreneurs would be happy there? After all, many compelling ideas would not fair well with Google's data-driven evaluation (at least in the short term).
- elblanco 17y ago
  I think Google tries to use data-driven evaluation as a way to try to minimize the risk of failure seen in many startups. This has a downside too (beyond what I think you are thinking of). Lots of ideas actualize, and though they don't die, they also don't really go anywhere...witness the various non-monetizing products google has out there with fairly minimal user communities -- particularly against the competition.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  There are a bunch of ex-entrepreneurs there, including myself. I think their happiness and success depends upon whether their entrepreneurial ideas align with the sorts of projects that Google would be good at, or whether they're better off striking out on their own again.
  - jlees 17y ago
    And even if you itch to strike out on your own, google is a great place to learn a lot of crazy stuff from a lot of crazy smart people-that's certainly a big part of why i'm here.
- wan23 17y ago
  Once nice thing about Google is the famed 20% time. If you have an idea, you're allowed to work on it roughly one day a week (or almost one week per month). You might hear some people say that it's a myth, or that it's too hard to actually use it. But if you can't manage to exercise a perk that everyone knows about, and that is sanctioned at the highest level, then it probably means you wouldn't have too much luck with your idea outside of Google either, IMO.
btilly 17y ago
#1 sounds very familiar to me. :-) I hope I never reach #3. That sounds like I'd become a kind of person I don't like being.
- neilk 17y ago
  Really? For me it took about a week. It's just a matter of psychology. You still have friends outside the company... but you can't talk about what you're doing. You can't even talk about the perks without becoming deeply annoying. You can't talk about the scale without giving away competitive information, or sounding like you're bragging. So at some level, when it comes to your work life, you start putting up a mask to everyone else, and your only true confidants have to be other Googlers.
  - btilly 17y ago
    I can understand that. However the part that I'm objecting to is By the time you've reached (3) you've come to believe that Google is years ahead of anyone else; you've transferred all loyalties to the company; you accept the idea that you're in an elite of humanity. I have a lot of loyalties outside of Google, and recognize a lot of talent that isn't there. (Some of whom I'd like to get there, but that is another story.) There are also a lot of kinds of valuable talent which I don't think are even particularly well represented at Google. However I'm really enjoying it.
dschobel 17y ago
Alright, I'll bite. We've all worked with really bright individuals before. What magically transformative thing happens when they become the average that would be so incredible and unbelievable to non-googlers? I would describe CS grad school as having "really bright people" as the norm, but while pretty cool, I would never deign to think it as incomprehensible to outsiders or that "nobody would believe [me] anyway". Are you guys just enjoying some hyperbolic kool-aid or is there really some new breed of uber-man filling the halls of Google? What's the big deal (sincerely, not sarcastically)?
- nostrademons 17y ago
  In my experience, Google employees individually are not much smarter or more productive than what you'd find in a top-tier computer science department or successful startup. Google's engineering reputation comes from having 20,000 of them, all with access to the same code & information, similar cultural values, and mostly aligned goals. It's a critical mass problem. One smart person is a useful open-source library. Ten smart people is a successful startup. Twenty thousand smart people is Google. There're certain efficiencies of scale that you can get with twenty thousand employees that are all empowered to work together. You get more specialization, so your UI designer is really good, and your UI engineer is really good, and your toolsmith is really good, and your backend algorithms person is really good, and the whole product benefits from that. You get the cross-pollination of ideas that occurs when smart people get together over food in a relaxed atmosphere. And you get the accumulated infrastructure built from having ten years of really smart people working on hard problems. The network organization tends to eliminate the biggest problem that other tech companies have: scale. Typically, you eventually get a dumb middle manager placed on top of a bunch of smart programmers, and the whole group drops to the level of the weakest link. By empowering people to reach out across the organization to whoever's the best person for the task, regardless of the org chart, you can route around weak links. The organization starts being defined by its best performers instead of its worst performers.
  - dschobel 17y ago
    Interesting, thanks! I'd still like to someday understand what makes Google qualitatively different from other companies. Because I don't think 20k smart engineers necessarily yields a functional company nor is immediate access to the top levels always a good thing (for obvious reasons).

by neilk 17y ago

amichail 17y ago

Do you think entrepreneurs would be happy there? After all, many compelling ideas would not fair well with Google's data-driven evaluation (at least in the short term).

elblanco 17y ago
I think Google tries to use data-driven evaluation as a way to try to minimize the risk of failure seen in many startups. This has a downside too (beyond what I think you are thinking of). Lots of ideas actualize, and though they don't die, they also don't really go anywhere...witness the various non-monetizing products google has out there with fairly minimal user communities -- particularly against the competition.
nostrademons 17y ago
There are a bunch of ex-entrepreneurs there, including myself. I think their happiness and success depends upon whether their entrepreneurial ideas align with the sorts of projects that Google would be good at, or whether they're better off striking out on their own again.
- jlees 17y ago
  And even if you itch to strike out on your own, google is a great place to learn a lot of crazy stuff from a lot of crazy smart people-that's certainly a big part of why i'm here.
wan23 17y ago
Once nice thing about Google is the famed 20% time. If you have an idea, you're allowed to work on it roughly one day a week (or almost one week per month). You might hear some people say that it's a myth, or that it's too hard to actually use it. But if you can't manage to exercise a perk that everyone knows about, and that is sanctioned at the highest level, then it probably means you wouldn't have too much luck with your idea outside of Google either, IMO.

btilly 17y ago

#1 sounds very familiar to me. :-) I hope I never reach #3. That sounds like I'd become a kind of person I don't like being.

neilk 17y ago
Really? For me it took about a week. It's just a matter of psychology. You still have friends outside the company... but you can't talk about what you're doing. You can't even talk about the perks without becoming deeply annoying. You can't talk about the scale without giving away competitive information, or sounding like you're bragging. So at some level, when it comes to your work life, you start putting up a mask to everyone else, and your only true confidants have to be other Googlers.
- btilly 17y ago
  I can understand that. However the part that I'm objecting to is By the time you've reached (3) you've come to believe that Google is years ahead of anyone else; you've transferred all loyalties to the company; you accept the idea that you're in an elite of humanity. I have a lot of loyalties outside of Google, and recognize a lot of talent that isn't there. (Some of whom I'd like to get there, but that is another story.) There are also a lot of kinds of valuable talent which I don't think are even particularly well represented at Google. However I'm really enjoying it.

dschobel 17y ago

Alright, I'll bite. We've all worked with really bright individuals before. What magically transformative thing happens when they become the average that would be so incredible and unbelievable to non-googlers? I would describe CS grad school as having "really bright people" as the norm, but while pretty cool, I would never deign to think it as incomprehensible to outsiders or that "nobody would believe [me] anyway". Are you guys just enjoying some hyperbolic kool-aid or is there really some new breed of uber-man filling the halls of Google? What's the big deal (sincerely, not sarcastically)?

nostrademons 17y ago
In my experience, Google employees individually are not much smarter or more productive than what you'd find in a top-tier computer science department or successful startup. Google's engineering reputation comes from having 20,000 of them, all with access to the same code & information, similar cultural values, and mostly aligned goals. It's a critical mass problem. One smart person is a useful open-source library. Ten smart people is a successful startup. Twenty thousand smart people is Google. There're certain efficiencies of scale that you can get with twenty thousand employees that are all empowered to work together. You get more specialization, so your UI designer is really good, and your UI engineer is really good, and your toolsmith is really good, and your backend algorithms person is really good, and the whole product benefits from that. You get the cross-pollination of ideas that occurs when smart people get together over food in a relaxed atmosphere. And you get the accumulated infrastructure built from having ten years of really smart people working on hard problems. The network organization tends to eliminate the biggest problem that other tech companies have: scale. Typically, you eventually get a dumb middle manager placed on top of a bunch of smart programmers, and the whole group drops to the level of the weakest link. By empowering people to reach out across the organization to whoever's the best person for the task, regardless of the org chart, you can route around weak links. The organization starts being defined by its best performers instead of its worst performers.
- dschobel 17y ago
  Interesting, thanks! I'd still like to someday understand what makes Google qualitatively different from other companies. Because I don't think 20k smart engineers necessarily yields a functional company nor is immediate access to the top levels always a good thing (for obvious reasons).