4 ms·

Wow, I'm surprised that google would work like that. Did they actually tell you that you'd get fired if you were in the bottom 5%? I assume you must have been t

Wow, I'm surprised that google would work like that. Did they actually tell you that you'd get fired if you were in the bottom 5%? I assume you must have been there back in 2005/ 2006 to have seen someone who was an objective underperformer in Q4 2005 but was still allowed to work there. Maybe things have changed since then?

tazzy531 14y ago
As with all mchurch comments, you need to take it with a grain of salt. He was with Google for less than a year and has been extrapolating his short experience into a generalization of the company.
- tptacek 14y ago
  If he's wrong, say he's wrong and how. Comments like this have negative value: they just turn the issue into a soap opera.
  - tunah 14y ago
    The generalizations he's making simply aren't accurate, you wouldn't find half-a-dozen googlers who think he's more right than wrong. I'm not saying that the system doesn't fail in some cases, but consider that anyone so certain of how everything works, after less than six months at a company, is probably overstating his case.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - BarkMore 14y ago
    First, it makes people hate each other. That was not my experience at Google. Not all people turn to hate when learning how they are valued by others. There's certainly disappointment. it encourages people to work on the projects that are most visible, which are not always the most valuable. Some types of work at Google are undervalued, but it's not related to visibility. Third, it creates a general atmosphere of distrust. I think it creates a more pleasant atmosphere. People learn that being an asshole can hurt come review time.
  - codeka 14y ago
    I think the problem is he comes here every couple of weeks and writes almost the exact same rant [1][2][3]. People are tired of point-by-point responses because they know he'll just be back a couple of weeks later and write the exact same thing again. Honestly, I don't know why his comments always seems to get voted up. I assume they're voted up by people who have not read the previous exact-same rants... [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3790656 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3790656 [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3784685 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3784685 [3]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3702761 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3702761
    - jrockway 14y ago
      His comments get upvoted because many readers of HN are looking to hate Google for some reason, and he writes a verbose "damning" description of Google's internal politics that makes Google seem very hate-able. Good writing + what you want to hear = instant upvote. The only way to really refute what mchurch says is to post evidence of his work from when he was at Google, but that's a massive violation of his privacy, so nobody is going to do that. The only thing to do is dismiss his argument with vague statements like, "no, that's not true", which nobody is going to believe when compared to his well-written rants. If you want to know the full mchurch story, I suggest you get a job at Google. Then you will have enough information to decide whether or not mchurch's rants about Google make sense.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        I don't think people want to hate Google; I just think they're attracted by the controversy. It's like the faster-than-light neutrinos. People weren't interested because they hate Einstein, but because it's some apparently new information that contradicts what they previously thought to be true.
        marshray 14y ago
        I'm interested simply because Google seems highly influential in the new-school tech sector management. These collections of anecdotes feed into the folklore wisdom held by managers. C.f. "Why are manholes round?"
  - ori_b 14y ago
    As someone who started at the same time as mchurch, and observed what happened on the google-internal mailing lists, the full story probably shouldn't be shared online without his consent.
- mkramlich 14y ago
  I take everything I read anywhere on the Internet with a grain of salt.

tazzy531 14y ago

As with all mchurch comments, you need to take it with a grain of salt. He was with Google for less than a year and has been extrapolating his short experience into a generalization of the company.

tptacek 14y ago
If he's wrong, say he's wrong and how. Comments like this have negative value: they just turn the issue into a soap opera.
- tunah 14y ago
  The generalizations he's making simply aren't accurate, you wouldn't find half-a-dozen googlers who think he's more right than wrong. I'm not saying that the system doesn't fail in some cases, but consider that anyone so certain of how everything works, after less than six months at a company, is probably overstating his case.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- BarkMore 14y ago
  First, it makes people hate each other. That was not my experience at Google. Not all people turn to hate when learning how they are valued by others. There's certainly disappointment. it encourages people to work on the projects that are most visible, which are not always the most valuable. Some types of work at Google are undervalued, but it's not related to visibility. Third, it creates a general atmosphere of distrust. I think it creates a more pleasant atmosphere. People learn that being an asshole can hurt come review time.
- codeka 14y ago
  I think the problem is he comes here every couple of weeks and writes almost the exact same rant [1][2][3]. People are tired of point-by-point responses because they know he'll just be back a couple of weeks later and write the exact same thing again. Honestly, I don't know why his comments always seems to get voted up. I assume they're voted up by people who have not read the previous exact-same rants... [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3790656 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3790656 [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3784685 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3784685 [3]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3702761 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3702761
  - jrockway 14y ago
    His comments get upvoted because many readers of HN are looking to hate Google for some reason, and he writes a verbose "damning" description of Google's internal politics that makes Google seem very hate-able. Good writing + what you want to hear = instant upvote. The only way to really refute what mchurch says is to post evidence of his work from when he was at Google, but that's a massive violation of his privacy, so nobody is going to do that. The only thing to do is dismiss his argument with vague statements like, "no, that's not true", which nobody is going to believe when compared to his well-written rants. If you want to know the full mchurch story, I suggest you get a job at Google. Then you will have enough information to decide whether or not mchurch's rants about Google make sense.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      I don't think people want to hate Google; I just think they're attracted by the controversy. It's like the faster-than-light neutrinos. People weren't interested because they hate Einstein, but because it's some apparently new information that contradicts what they previously thought to be true.
      - marshray 14y ago
        I'm interested simply because Google seems highly influential in the new-school tech sector management. These collections of anecdotes feed into the folklore wisdom held by managers. C.f. "Why are manholes round?"
- ori_b 14y ago
  As someone who started at the same time as mchurch, and observed what happened on the google-internal mailing lists, the full story probably shouldn't be shared online without his consent.
mkramlich 14y ago
I take everything I read anywhere on the Internet with a grain of salt.