7 ms·
Google employees on Reddit answers questions.
- angusgr 16y agoI hate myself for being such a grammar nazi, I really do. "Google employees on Reddit answer questions" collapses in a heap
- pavs 16y agoBeen awake for 21 hours, going to sleep soon. Sorry. Also, english is not my first language, but that not really an excuse, just lazy writing. (not sure if the above sentences makes any sense either.)
- apsurd 16y agomaybe: "Google employees discuss what working at Google is really like (via Reddit)"
- SkyMarshal 16y agoOr, Google employees answer questions at Reddit.
- angusgr 16y agoFair call, no need to apologise really. I'm glad I didn't have to learn English as a second language, explaining English idioms to non-native speakers is one of the hardest things I've ever tried to do. :).
- ErrantX 16y agoUmmm. It's a perfectly ok sentence :) stylistically bad, perhaps.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- tome 16y agoNo, the original is "Google employees on Reddit answers questions"
- ErrantX 16y agoYeh apologies. I misread earlier.
- yason 16y agoangusgr's or the original? At least the original is wrong: plural subject combined with a singular verb.
- ErrantX 16y agoYes, I read angusgr's post and didn't spot that the original had an extra s :) My comment relates to angusgr's statement (which I now assume was a suggestion?)
- axod 16y ago"Googles employees ons reddits answers questions"?
- lionhearted 16y ago> I hate myself for being such a grammar nazi, I really do. You'll make more money, be productive, and have a happier life if you just process the information and shrug. The point of language is to communicate, not to obey grammar. That sentence isn't pretty, but you get all the information - google employees, on reddit, answering questions. Most of the wealthiest people I know use bad grammar because the extra 10% of time to clear it up doesn't add as much value as doing more stuff. Sure, edit carefully if it's going to be something timeless or very important, but some people are being cool and answering questions random strangers on the internet ask them.
- hcho 16y agoOr develop a piece of software(a Firefox extension?) which will fix bad grammar and raise to fame among grammar nazis. Scratching your own itch versus learning to live with it.
- angusgr 16y agoYou're entirely right. Which is why I really did hate myself a bit for posting it. I normally notice bad grammar (especially small errors like this), move on, and don't think again about it. Sometimes, though, the urge is too strong. I do always notice, though. My mum is a former English teacher, and I have a history degree as well as a CS one. After you spend enough time editing text in your native language, it becomes second nature to notice errors and want to correct them. I accept it as the price for being able to write easily and clearly myself, without consciously worrying about grammar. In my opinion, this is a useful skill when you're a programmer. Plus I kind of like proof editing (when it's invited.) The one thing that surprised me about your reply was the choice of 'money' as the metric that I can maximise by suppressing the habit. That has certainly never occurred to me. The thinking behind it seems interesting on a few levels. (NB: The nature of this post, and the fact I had a few glasses of wine over dinner, mean that there is bound to be at least one grammatical error in this reply. Doh!)
- lionhearted 16y ago> You're entirely right. Which is why I really did hate myself a bit for posting it. I normally notice bad grammar (especially small errors like this), move on, and don't think again about it. Sometimes, though, the urge is too strong. I'm with you, I understand. I've got a heavy reading/writing background, so I notice too and used to be pedantic about it. Letting it go was huge for me, which is why I'm such an advocate of not caring about grammar. It really isn't so important to most people as long as you're communicating effectively. > and I have a history degree as well as a CS one. Ah, cool, I love history. Hey - want to recommend me a random history book or two you like? Obscure is cool, mainstream is cool too. I'm reading Julia Cartwright's "Baldissare Castiglione" right now - really wonderful reading. It's out of copyright and free here, really wonderful reading if you like that era: http://www.archive.org/details/baldassarecastig02cartuoft http://www.archive.org/details/baldassarecastig02cartuoft > The one thing that surprised me about your reply was the choice of 'money' as the metric that I can maximise by suppressing the habit. That has certainly never occurred to me. The thinking behind it seems interesting on a few levels. Well, it's the most concrete, but I mentioned producing more and being happier too. Have you read Stephen King's "On Writing"? It's worth checking out. The first half about his life is a mixed bag, but his writing advice has some really excellent points in it. The thing that's interesting to me about King is that so much of his work is trash - I mean, really bad and cliche. "Oh, the overbearing mother just did something morally wrong to try to protect her weak son - I wonder if the son is going to die in an ironic way for that?" But it doesn't matter, because King comes up with interesting premises and writes things that are interesting. He's not a master of language most of the time, but he sells books. And in a literary dogfight, I'd take The Stand straight up versus 95% of the works from "serious writers." King produces - he gets stuff out the door. Sometimes it's cliche, sometimes his grammar or structure sucks, but you know what? It doesn't matter, because he delivers stories that people want to buy and read. So King is getting stuff out the door that people wants. It's made him more wealthy, able to create and produce, and from reading his autobiography he seems a lot happier now with money than he did when he was struggling. Making grammar not very important as long as you're understood - the reason you do it is so you can put your attention on what people really want. Almost nobody wants grammar, they want the message to get across. I intentionally break grammar rules a lot with commas and dashes in inappropriate ways - it's the fastest way for me to write something that can be understood. Grammar be damned if it's getting in the way of speed or communication or what we really want. > ...mean that there is bound to be at least one grammatical error in this reply. Doh! See, that's the beauty of it - I understood you so I don't care! :) Now if you have a free minute, I would be much obliged if you'd recommend a couple favorite history books of yours. :) Cheers and best wishes.
- huherto 16y agoI appreciate the correction and you did it in a courteous manner. I am not native speaker and I was a little confused by the mistake. Bad grammar can mislead those of us that are learning. Also, it is understood that everybody makes mistakes and it is not a critique on the person that made the mistake.
- minus1 16y agoSomeone mentions the bonuses Google gives for successful launches. Isn't this generally considered a bad way to motivate "knowledge workers"? Anyone on the inside have any thoughts?
- andreyf 16y agoI'm trying to answer your question, but it seems a little vague. In general, I'd say this a good rule of thumb that doesn't apply in Google's culture/implementation of cash awards. To be more specific, I'd have to speculate about why such policy would be "generally considered a bad way to motivate". Maybe it would be better if you gave some specific reasons, instead?
- _delirium 16y agoI'm not the original poster, but he/she might be referring to reports like this one: http://www.management-issues.com/2006/8/24/research/bonuses-fail-to-motivate-workers-or-improve-performance.asp http://www.management-issues.com/2006/8/24/research/bonuses-... There's an absolutely gigantic literature in management, economics, and other areas on pros/cons of bonuses and specific bonus schemes in all sorts of contexts, though, so I'm not sure it's fair to say there's any consensus on them being considered bad for knowledge workers. My recollection is that there are some arguments about it coming from an intrinsic/extrinsic motivation perspective, arguing that knowledge workers are most motivated intrinsically (because they like the job, find it engaging, like problem-solving, etc.), and that extrinsic motivation like bonuses might not help, or might even harm motivation (there's evidence from some psych studies that the presence of extrinsic rewards can reduce previously existing intrinsic motivation).
- andreyf 16y ago63 per cent felt their bonus scheme was ineffective in improving workplace performance The Founders' Awards aren't really a "bonus scheme", but more like a Nobel Prize (which may or may not be a good way to motivate "knowledge workers"). Regarding intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, I can't help but feel it's oversimplifying things: where does social recognition fall? I'd need to think a bit about it before having a coherent answer.
- dotBen 16y agoI don't have a Reddit account as I've never found the inclination to be part of that community, but the two thoughts on the topic I would raise here (which pertain to engineering jobs): 1) For all the perks (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/clz1m/google_employees_on_reddit_fire_up_your_throwaway/c0tiv76 http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/clz1m/google_empl...) I believe I can 'buy' them myself for <$10,000 year (expensive lunches, gym membership, pay someone to wash my clothes, etc). Given that Google only pays average wages, this means that so long as I am working somewhere that is paying me over $10k above average salary, then I'm doing better than a Googler. 2) On bonuses, Google will give several $million to key folks who were instrumental in the success of high-profile google products (eg Google Maps folks walked away with several $million each). Don't forget, though, that unlike a startup the tax situation on that is probably rough - normal income rather than capital gains. I guess both of the above indicate that, for me at my stage in my career, money considerations are a key part of where I place myself as a resource over 'cool place to work' - which is a reason I don't work for Google.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- swombat 16y agoAgreed, but worth noting that a lot of places that pay more than average also suck your soul away in the bargain. That's of course not true of all places, but banks, for example, tend to be a whole lot less fun to work at than Google. The "is it a fun job" factor should not be underestimated (unless you really just care about money, which is the case for some people - and I'm not saying this as a negative).
- dotBen 16y agoSure, there are banks et al that suck your soul away. But I've managed to keep successful career in Silicon Valley/SF with startups and SME-sized internet companies doing interesting things. My point is there is a a lot of middle ground between the insular world of Google with it's average pay and the suckage of banks.
- 16y ago
- philjackson 16y agoSo it's high quality fudge that's the key to poaching a Googler...
- jacquesm 16y agoIt would be great if google employees would simply answer questions on google, but it seems that if there is one thing that google really sucks at it is communicating with their customers. Especially adsense suffers from a total lack of attention on behalf of google, I can't recall a single time when I tried contacting them that I actually got a relevant and timely answer. If I did get an answer it usually was some totally non-related cut-and-paste stuff. Invariably followed by a 'how did we do' email asking for some kind of biscuit. Incredible.
- jmcnevin 16y agoMaybe a bit off topic, but every time I read a thread like this, it leaves me wondering why people in the US are so reticent to discuss actual solid numbers regarding how much money they make, but do everything to dance around real figures, even if posting anonymously. When it comes to discussing salaries, suddenly everyone becomes a politician. I lived in Bulgaria for two years, and it was pretty common there for people to ask, straight up, "How much money do you make?" They'd seem genuinely perplexed if I didn't want to answer. Granted, Bulgaria's economic situation is pretty different than the US's, but there was something about those frank exchanges that made me wonder why we do what we do. Any thoughts?
- ahlatimer 16y agoI would imagine a lot of Googlers have it written in their contract that they aren't supposed to talk about how much money they make. I know most of the companies I've worked for have at least had it in the employee handbook. Personally, I was okay with divulging that information even when I was working for places that told me not to. I figure if a company is willing to fire or sue me over telling someone else how much they pay me, I wouldn't want to work there anyway. It seems like such a trivial bit of information.