4 ms·
Twenty percent time is great, and obviously it has paid off nicely for Google. But was anyone else taken aback that the Times would run this? It's a bit...puf
by karzeem 19y ago
Twenty percent time is great, and obviously it has paid off nicely for Google. But was anyone else taken aback that the Times would run this? It's a bit...puff piece-ish. It's good, obviously, to report on good ideas that companies have pioneered. It's just a little irresponsible to let an employee of one of those companies write the report. It reads a lot like a press release.
- bootload 19y ago"... By BHARAT MEDIRATTA; as told to JULIE BICK .... Bharat Mediratta is a software engineer at Google. ..." If you read carefully the NY TImes writer was Julie Bick who most likely from the byline at the top of the article. The story teller does work at google. But it it probably the best plain language description of the 20% rule I've read. "... It's a bit...puff piece-ish. ..." Could be viewed this way but it's a first-hand story from a google engineer.
- karzeem 19y agoThe byline is inconclusive, and Mediratta doesn't use the first-person until about a third of the way through the article--the first time it's clear that we're hearing from an insider. Anyone who reads the whole article will realize by the end that the author works at Google. The thing that annoyed me was that this article differs in no way whatsoever from what you'd hear in a Google recruitment video. When a publication wants to tell its readers about something--even if that thing is good--there is an obligation to explore the issue. Literally letting your subject write the story is an abdication of that responsibility.
- bootload 19y ago"... The thing that annoyed me was that this article differs in no way whatsoever from what you'd hear in a Google recruitment video ..." True, that made me laugh. "... When a publication wants to tell its readers about something--even if that thing is good--there is an obligation to explore the issue. Literally letting your subject write the story is an abdication of that responsibility ..." Good point. Maybe you are right. Maybe it is a submarine ( http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html ) because I found the same post over on the Monster job section of the NY Times ~ http://jobmarket.nytimes.com/pages/jobs/ http://jobmarket.nytimes.com/pages/jobs/ captured here ~ http://flickr.com/photos/bootload/1685017453/ http://flickr.com/photos/bootload/1685017453/
- deleted 19y ago[deleted]
- karzeem 19y agoHmm, good eye. I wonder if they'll respond to the question you sent them.
- bootload 19y ago"... I wonder if they'll respond to the question you sent them. ..." They have. A copy of the email text can be found here ~ http://flickr.com/photos/bootload/1685662827/ http://flickr.com/photos/bootload/1685662827/ Here's the response: Thank you for contacting NYTimes.com. This article was published in the NYTimes.com Job Market section. Article is by Bharat Mediratta; as told to Julie Bick. The Job Market section is essentially equivalent to a help wanted section of a paper. Regards, Eric Winston NYTimes .com Customer Service www.nytimes.com/help A sub I guess. Thanks karzeem for being so critical. I'll be restricting the urls next time to tech or the main page of NYT. So another way to check for Submarines is to check both the location of the article in the paper (ie: is it in Tech, news or Jobs) and if the format, layout and bylines smell "funny".
- karzeem 19y agoI think it was a good submission, so you did the right thing by posting it here. It sparked some good discussion.
- bootload 19y agoSent a quick email to NYT to see what the story behind this is ~ http://flickr.com/photos/bootload/1685662827/ http://flickr.com/photos/bootload/1685662827/ See what the response is.