5 ms·
> Employees always figure out how to abuse productivity metrics. If people can abuse your productivity metric, then it's a bad measure of productivity - not a
by yhoneycomb 6y ago
> Employees always figure out how to abuse productivity metrics.
If people can abuse your productivity metric, then it's a bad measure of productivity - not a fault of the worker.
- jessaustin 6y agoParent agrees, and further observes that all measures of productivity are "bad".
- yhoneycomb 6y agoParent does not agree, if parent agreed, then parent would not have used the word "abuse", which implies that the worker is the one at fault. There are many nuances to the English language that are difficult for non-native speakers to pick up.
- montenegrohugo 6y ago> There are many nuances to the English language that are difficult for non-native speakers to pick up. Being condescending is bad, but being condescending whilst also being clearly wrong is doubly so. Get out.
- t-writescode 6y agoEnglish as first language speaker here. Your comment at the end was rude. And I think you’re wrong. I think your parent post agrees with you. Not every conversation includes the requisite specificity of language to make declarations of perfect understanding of original writer’s intent. We will need OP to confirm.
- xupybd 6y agoI think the parent comment reads like it was written by a native speaker. I don't see how the term abuse means that the parent doesn't agree?
- ponker 6y agoIs there a word for the pedantry of an uninformed idiot?
- jessaustin 6y agoI nominate parent: "honeycombing".
- 37ruudueuej 6y agoStrongly disagree, by definition it's the abuse that compromises the metric not the abusability. The distinction is important because it means that with a large and rapid enough rotation of obfuscated targets you can find out what you need while mitigating the bulk of intentional metric abuse.