28 ms·

A nice manifestation of the idea "What we can measure we can fix." See also: http://arewefastyet.com/ http://arewefastyet.com/

by enneff 15y ago

exDM69 15y ago
Our engineering team's motto is "if you measure it, it will improve".
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  The funny thing is that it's almost true by default. The mere fact of measuring something is often enough to drive improvements. A couple of years ago, I installed the RunKeeper app on my phone and started tracking how long it took me to walk places. Over the course of a few months, my walking speed increased from a pokey 5 km/h (3mph) to 8 km/h (5 mph). I didn't install the app with the goal of walking faster; it just happened as a side-effect of regular feedback on how fast I was walking.
  - decadentcactus 15y ago
    Same here, with eating. Simply writing down and calculating what I was eating ended up with me eating more (which I'm aiming for). Now measure all the things?
    - patrickyeon 15y ago
      Seems to be the idea behind http://quantifiedself.com http://quantifiedself.com (in case you haven't heard of it before).
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
    - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
      My understanding of the Hawthorne effect is that it is a temporary increase in performance due to the subject's awareness of being studied. I stopped using RunKeeper over a year ago but my default walking speed has remained much higher than it was when I started measuring it.
    - jaylevitt 15y ago
      Except the Hawthorne effect is poorly studied, probably doesn't exist as its own effect, and is useful only as a metaphor for this very "What we measure we can fix" effect.
- hrktb 15y ago
  The corrolary would be "Think twice about what you want to measure"
- adrianhoward 15y ago
  Which is true. You do, however, have to be very careful that the "it" that is being improved is really the same as the "it" that's being measured. I've lost count of the times that I've seen a well intended metric end up driving exactly the wrong sort of behaviour. (For example: I recently sat through an excellent lunch time rant from somebody whose boss is prioritising shorter simple-to-implement stories over longer ones with a higher business value, because their team is having their efficiency judged by the cycle time (length of time between story-in and story-out)).
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    Just in case you haven't already read the lesswrong essay on optimization by proxy: http://lesswrong.com/lw/28r/is_google_paperclipping_the_web_the_perils_of/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/28r/is_google_paperclipping_the_web_...
mmahemoff 15y ago
Also: http://areweprettyyet.com/ http://areweprettyyet.com/ https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/AreWeFunYet https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/AreWeFunYet http://areweplayingyet.org/ http://areweplayingyet.org/ (from SoundCloud) The irony (or maybe that's the point) of using this meme is that you'll never get to the end of the rainbow. A browser's work is never done.
- oddthink 15y ago
  They still have a way to go to hit "pretty." Sadly, it's a lot harder to measure than "fast" or "slim". I wish I had the language to describe why Safari's font rendering is so much better than Firefox's; it's "visually obvious", but I just don't have the vocabulary or expertise to analyze.
  - morsch 15y ago
    There are many articles about Safari's font rendering, here is one: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html I think it's more accurate to say that it's different, whether or not it is better seems to be a matter of preference and priorities.
    - dchest 15y ago
      I think the parent is talking about the difference in rendering between Firefox and Safari on OS X, not between Windows and OS X.
      - oddthink 15y ago
        Yes, that was strictly on OS X. I would think that Firefox and Safari would be rendering fonts in the same way, but Safari somehow looks better. I last compared only a few days ago. When I get back home, I can try again and see if I can get more analytic about what the difference is, but, as I said, part of the problem with this kind of aesthetic/design judgement is that I don't have the vocabulary to analyze it.
gkoberger 15y ago
(Mostly) full list of all of them: http://arewemetayet.com/ http://arewemetayet.com/

A nice manifestation of the idea "What we can measure we can fix." See also: http://arewefastyet.com/ http://arewefastyet.com/

by enneff 15y ago

A nice manifestation of the idea "What we can measure we can fix." See also: http://arewefastyet.com/ http://arewefastyet.com/

exDM69 15y ago

Our engineering team's motto is "if you measure it, it will improve".

RyanMcGreal 15y ago
The funny thing is that it's almost true by default. The mere fact of measuring something is often enough to drive improvements. A couple of years ago, I installed the RunKeeper app on my phone and started tracking how long it took me to walk places. Over the course of a few months, my walking speed increased from a pokey 5 km/h (3mph) to 8 km/h (5 mph). I didn't install the app with the goal of walking faster; it just happened as a side-effect of regular feedback on how fast I was walking.
- decadentcactus 15y ago
  Same here, with eating. Simply writing down and calculating what I was eating ended up with me eating more (which I'm aiming for). Now measure all the things?
  - patrickyeon 15y ago
    Seems to be the idea behind http://quantifiedself.com http://quantifiedself.com (in case you haven't heard of it before).
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    My understanding of the Hawthorne effect is that it is a temporary increase in performance due to the subject's awareness of being studied. I stopped using RunKeeper over a year ago but my default walking speed has remained much higher than it was when I started measuring it.
  - jaylevitt 15y ago
    Except the Hawthorne effect is poorly studied, probably doesn't exist as its own effect, and is useful only as a metaphor for this very "What we measure we can fix" effect.
hrktb 15y ago
The corrolary would be "Think twice about what you want to measure"
adrianhoward 15y ago
Which is true. You do, however, have to be very careful that the "it" that is being improved is really the same as the "it" that's being measured. I've lost count of the times that I've seen a well intended metric end up driving exactly the wrong sort of behaviour. (For example: I recently sat through an excellent lunch time rant from somebody whose boss is prioritising shorter simple-to-implement stories over longer ones with a higher business value, because their team is having their efficiency judged by the cycle time (length of time between story-in and story-out)).
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  Just in case you haven't already read the lesswrong essay on optimization by proxy: http://lesswrong.com/lw/28r/is_google_paperclipping_the_web_the_perils_of/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/28r/is_google_paperclipping_the_web_...

mmahemoff 15y ago

Also: http://areweprettyyet.com/ http://areweprettyyet.com/ https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/AreWeFunYet https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/AreWeFunYet http://areweplayingyet.org/ http://areweplayingyet.org/ (from SoundCloud) The irony (or maybe that's the point) of using this meme is that you'll never get to the end of the rainbow. A browser's work is never done.

oddthink 15y ago
They still have a way to go to hit "pretty." Sadly, it's a lot harder to measure than "fast" or "slim". I wish I had the language to describe why Safari's font rendering is so much better than Firefox's; it's "visually obvious", but I just don't have the vocabulary or expertise to analyze.
- morsch 15y ago
  There are many articles about Safari's font rendering, here is one: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html I think it's more accurate to say that it's different, whether or not it is better seems to be a matter of preference and priorities.
  - dchest 15y ago
    I think the parent is talking about the difference in rendering between Firefox and Safari on OS X, not between Windows and OS X.
    - oddthink 15y ago
      Yes, that was strictly on OS X. I would think that Firefox and Safari would be rendering fonts in the same way, but Safari somehow looks better. I last compared only a few days ago. When I get back home, I can try again and see if I can get more analytic about what the difference is, but, as I said, part of the problem with this kind of aesthetic/design judgement is that I don't have the vocabulary to analyze it.

gkoberger 15y ago

(Mostly) full list of all of them: http://arewemetayet.com/ http://arewemetayet.com/