5 ms·

I wonder if it's when they have trouble hitting their recruiting numbers. There's a popular theory that X is the carrot dangled in front of both current Google

I wonder if it's when they have trouble hitting their recruiting numbers. There's a popular theory that X is the carrot dangled in front of both current Google employees and potential hires-- "Look at this cool stuff you could work on!"-- while in reality they usually get sent to the trenches to squeeze out 0.003% gains in revenue-per-query.

vkou 8y ago
Nobody I have ever worked with at Google has had this carrot dangled under their noses. It certainly wasn't dangled under mine when I was hired. I don't dangle it under the noses of anyone I interview. I think most people with a basic understanding of arithmetic realize that the overwhelming majority of the company does not work in X, and they should not expect to, either. I have zero interest in working in X. The reason hiring is hard is because the interviews have a low pass rate, everyone else is also hiring, and salaries + benefits among top tech firms in an area are fairly similar.
- Y_Y 8y ago
  > The reason hiring is hard is because the interviews have a low pass rate But the pass rate is up to the company. Either the wrong people are being brought in for interviews, or Google is looking for some x-factor that nobody has.
  - TomVDB 8y ago
    If the hiring process is able to identify a good hire whereas just the resume does not (which is a big if, but companies assume that it does), then it totally makes sense to bring in a lot of people to interviews.
  - s2g 8y ago
    The answer is that google doesn't give a shit about false negatives. They know they will get enough people applying several times that they can just toss out qualified people all day. Eventually enough get in.
    - andybak 8y ago
      Unless of course the hiring process has a systemic flaw and there's an entire class of people that are being rejected that could be game changing. (I actually don't have an axe to grind here - it's certainly not related to any obvious grouping - I just wonder if interview and selection might be so deeply flawed that a the occasional random lottery injection might improve the overall result.)
      - rrdharan 8y ago
        There are effectively random lottery injections via acquisition/acquihires. Source: I was/am one.
        s2g 8y ago
        I thought they made people re-interview?
        rrdharan 8y ago
        They do but it’s at least a lighter schedule. I also think the criteria are different. i.e. I believe when evaluating the results it’s more strongly biased to avoid false negatives unlike the regular process which is more about avoiding false positives. Or maybe I just have impostor syndrome, who can say...
  - vkou 8y ago
    The pass rate is indeed up to the company. I never said otherwise. It's a very low rate.
  - endtime 8y ago
    I work for Google and conduct interviews for Google. No magic x-factor, just a good command of data structures and algorithms, plus the ability and stamina to express it in a full day of interviews, plus the luck to have a good night's sleep beforehand, not have an off day, etc.
    - backpropaganda 8y ago
      The strongest factor in my opinion (after pure luck) is the rapport you're able to build with the interviewer. Doing that of course requires doing well in the technical questions, but the end-goal shouldn't be seen as doing well in the questions, but seeming "Googley" to the interviewer. Googleyness in this context tends to include not just whether you did well on the questions, but things like your sense of humor, ability to communicate in a positive and cheerful way, whether you seem mature and responsible, and other such little things the typical techie would like in another person. Interviewers are also human, and they can only do so much to change how they perceive another person. Source: Have interviewed with Google a couple of times, and coached a couple of other people for the same.
      - dmoy 8y ago
        On the flip side, a good interviewer should be building rapport with the interviewee regardless of interview performance. This is especially important for earlier interviews in the day, because you don't want the candidate to get flustered and ruin future interviews. Even better is to use that rapport to then disguise successively large hints into the interviewing process, so the candidate can't obviously tell if they've failed horribly... again to avoid tilting them for future interviews that day. Give them room and time to explore the problem space on their own, but don't let them sit in silence making no progress for 30 minutes making it painfully obvious that something is very wrong. A single bombed interview might not kill the whole packet, so it's best to insulate.
      - endtime 8y ago
        I can't speak for other interviewers, but I barely take this into account. As long as someone isn't actively antisocial (has never happened to me) or unprofessional (has happened once or twice) I file feedback exclusively on technical merit and communication. There have been times where I liked someone and wanted to give them good feedback, but couldn't.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Would you say it's particularly hard to work in Google X, or just a smaller part of the company with fewer headcount requirements?
trhway 8y ago
i can only wonder what kind of sweet deal the employees of the graduating project get to stay with the project and the new company as otherwise being kicked off the mothership can be expected to be a good trigger for job change.
- kdbg 8y ago
  I believe graduating from X doesn't mean they are no longer going to be under Alphabet rather that they've graduated from being a moonshot project under X.company to being their own thing, still under Google/Alphabet and all the benefits that entails. If anything I imagine its a net positive for the team, though I'm not a Googler and don't really know the internal dynamics of the situation.
- pm90 8y ago
  I think many employees would be very interested in their equity compensation...wonder if employees are awarded RSU's in Alphabet or the subsidiaries or ...
  - steve_musk 8y ago
    Alphabet

vkou 8y ago

Nobody I have ever worked with at Google has had this carrot dangled under their noses. It certainly wasn't dangled under mine when I was hired. I don't dangle it under the noses of anyone I interview. I think most people with a basic understanding of arithmetic realize that the overwhelming majority of the company does not work in X, and they should not expect to, either. I have zero interest in working in X. The reason hiring is hard is because the interviews have a low pass rate, everyone else is also hiring, and salaries + benefits among top tech firms in an area are fairly similar.

Y_Y 8y ago
> The reason hiring is hard is because the interviews have a low pass rate But the pass rate is up to the company. Either the wrong people are being brought in for interviews, or Google is looking for some x-factor that nobody has.
- TomVDB 8y ago
  If the hiring process is able to identify a good hire whereas just the resume does not (which is a big if, but companies assume that it does), then it totally makes sense to bring in a lot of people to interviews.
- s2g 8y ago
  The answer is that google doesn't give a shit about false negatives. They know they will get enough people applying several times that they can just toss out qualified people all day. Eventually enough get in.
  - andybak 8y ago
    Unless of course the hiring process has a systemic flaw and there's an entire class of people that are being rejected that could be game changing. (I actually don't have an axe to grind here - it's certainly not related to any obvious grouping - I just wonder if interview and selection might be so deeply flawed that a the occasional random lottery injection might improve the overall result.)
    - rrdharan 8y ago
      There are effectively random lottery injections via acquisition/acquihires. Source: I was/am one.
      - s2g 8y ago
        I thought they made people re-interview?
        rrdharan 8y ago
        They do but it’s at least a lighter schedule. I also think the criteria are different. i.e. I believe when evaluating the results it’s more strongly biased to avoid false negatives unlike the regular process which is more about avoiding false positives. Or maybe I just have impostor syndrome, who can say...
- vkou 8y ago
  The pass rate is indeed up to the company. I never said otherwise. It's a very low rate.
- endtime 8y ago
  I work for Google and conduct interviews for Google. No magic x-factor, just a good command of data structures and algorithms, plus the ability and stamina to express it in a full day of interviews, plus the luck to have a good night's sleep beforehand, not have an off day, etc.
  - backpropaganda 8y ago
    The strongest factor in my opinion (after pure luck) is the rapport you're able to build with the interviewer. Doing that of course requires doing well in the technical questions, but the end-goal shouldn't be seen as doing well in the questions, but seeming "Googley" to the interviewer. Googleyness in this context tends to include not just whether you did well on the questions, but things like your sense of humor, ability to communicate in a positive and cheerful way, whether you seem mature and responsible, and other such little things the typical techie would like in another person. Interviewers are also human, and they can only do so much to change how they perceive another person. Source: Have interviewed with Google a couple of times, and coached a couple of other people for the same.
    - dmoy 8y ago
      On the flip side, a good interviewer should be building rapport with the interviewee regardless of interview performance. This is especially important for earlier interviews in the day, because you don't want the candidate to get flustered and ruin future interviews. Even better is to use that rapport to then disguise successively large hints into the interviewing process, so the candidate can't obviously tell if they've failed horribly... again to avoid tilting them for future interviews that day. Give them room and time to explore the problem space on their own, but don't let them sit in silence making no progress for 30 minutes making it painfully obvious that something is very wrong. A single bombed interview might not kill the whole packet, so it's best to insulate.
    - endtime 8y ago
      I can't speak for other interviewers, but I barely take this into account. As long as someone isn't actively antisocial (has never happened to me) or unprofessional (has happened once or twice) I file feedback exclusively on technical merit and communication. There have been times where I liked someone and wanted to give them good feedback, but couldn't.
throwawaymath 8y ago
Would you say it's particularly hard to work in Google X, or just a smaller part of the company with fewer headcount requirements?

trhway 8y ago

i can only wonder what kind of sweet deal the employees of the graduating project get to stay with the project and the new company as otherwise being kicked off the mothership can be expected to be a good trigger for job change.

kdbg 8y ago
I believe graduating from X doesn't mean they are no longer going to be under Alphabet rather that they've graduated from being a moonshot project under X.company to being their own thing, still under Google/Alphabet and all the benefits that entails. If anything I imagine its a net positive for the team, though I'm not a Googler and don't really know the internal dynamics of the situation.
pm90 8y ago
I think many employees would be very interested in their equity compensation...wonder if employees are awarded RSU's in Alphabet or the subsidiaries or ...
- steve_musk 8y ago
  Alphabet