4 ms·

I find it always somewhat odd when a person with only superficial knowledge about a topic (e.g. "Google", "Apple" etc) claims to be able to spot their "Real Pro

by vog 16y ago

I find it always somewhat odd when a person with only superficial knowledge about a topic (e.g. "Google", "Apple" etc) claims to be able to spot their "Real Problem" or their "Biggest Issue". While the article might be a well-reasoned guess, it is still just a guess, based on a very small number of facts. I could have taken the article seriously if it had been written by a former employee, or by someone who actually interviewed people working at Google. But that way, the title seems to be just link bait. Nothing against link bait, but above all, the essential purpose of a title is to reflect the content, isn't it? "My personal quick guess about a problem at Google: GTD" would have been a more honest title. It wouldn't be as sensational, but it would at least reflect the real substance of the article.

2arrs2ells 16y ago
Supporting evidence for the author's thesis: "So we’re adding a new process to our existing review system, in which every engineering project leader will be required to maintain a privacy design document for each initiative they are working on. This document will record how user data is handled and will be reviewed regularly by managers, as well as by an independent internal audit team." This sounds awfully like the dreaded reviews (security, perf, globalization, internationalization, accessibility, etc.) at MSFT that gobbled up the time of PMs + devs. That's not to say that Google shouldn't have privacy design docs, just that they're an unfortunate consequence of scale. Quote from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/creating-stronger-privacy-controls.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/creating-stronger-pri...
- vog 16y ago
  In how far does this affect the criticism? Even if GTD was a real issue with Google, how will the author know that they don't have much bigger issues?
jerf 16y ago
It is not unheard of for an outsider to clearly see the structural problems that an insider can not. Though, if this is a Google that can not Get Things Done I'd love (or possibly hate) to see one that can. Shutting down Wave, which was an interesting idea backed by what appeared to be horrifying code and a horrifying protocol, doesn't exactly strike me as proof of an inability to get things done. They did it, it "sucked" (for suitable values of sucked), and they got the decision to pull it down after a reasonable market testing period done, from what I saw.
- vog 16y ago
  for an outsider to clearly see the structural problems that an insider can not. This is usually only possible if the outsider obtained a lot of knowledge from the insiders, which is exactly what's missing in the article. Also, while (sufficiently informed) outsiders may be able to spot problems, it is very improbable that they can spot "the biggest" problem, let alone reliably determining whether they did so. Claiming to be able to do that is boastful and nothing else.

by vog 16y ago

2arrs2ells 16y ago

Supporting evidence for the author's thesis: "So we’re adding a new process to our existing review system, in which every engineering project leader will be required to maintain a privacy design document for each initiative they are working on. This document will record how user data is handled and will be reviewed regularly by managers, as well as by an independent internal audit team." This sounds awfully like the dreaded reviews (security, perf, globalization, internationalization, accessibility, etc.) at MSFT that gobbled up the time of PMs + devs. That's not to say that Google shouldn't have privacy design docs, just that they're an unfortunate consequence of scale. Quote from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/creating-stronger-privacy-controls.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/creating-stronger-pri...

vog 16y ago
In how far does this affect the criticism? Even if GTD was a real issue with Google, how will the author know that they don't have much bigger issues?

jerf 16y ago

It is not unheard of for an outsider to clearly see the structural problems that an insider can not. Though, if this is a Google that can not Get Things Done I'd love (or possibly hate) to see one that can. Shutting down Wave, which was an interesting idea backed by what appeared to be horrifying code and a horrifying protocol, doesn't exactly strike me as proof of an inability to get things done. They did it, it "sucked" (for suitable values of sucked), and they got the decision to pull it down after a reasonable market testing period done, from what I saw.

vog 16y ago
for an outsider to clearly see the structural problems that an insider can not. This is usually only possible if the outsider obtained a lot of knowledge from the insiders, which is exactly what's missing in the article. Also, while (sufficiently informed) outsiders may be able to spot problems, it is very improbable that they can spot "the biggest" problem, let alone reliably determining whether they did so. Claiming to be able to do that is boastful and nothing else.