4 ms·

Something like 5 out of the first 16 comments on this post were all from accounts (1 each) created under 1 hour ago. Weird.

mythz 12y ago
and they're all anti-Google, something smells.
- onokyomo 12y ago
  They're not anti-Google for crying out loud. It's the same thing as saying you're afraid of heights. No they're not. They're afraid of falling. Not anti-Google/Heights They're anti-Exploitation/Falling
ChuckMcM 12y ago
It isn't surprising. There are lots of reasons why people are unwilling to put their "primary" HN account at risk when they want to say something which can be used against them (or simply down voted into oblivion). When I worked at Google I was very careful about what I said outside of Google, there is very little the company doesn't know about its employees. Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibration scores and that translates into real money. So when folks want to contribute to the conversation in some way (either to support, attack, or deflect it seems) but don't want to do so openly, the new accounts come out. One motivation for having a 24 hr waiting period on posting is to mitigate that, but sometimes folks do bring good data under an extra layer of anonymity.
- pmiller2 12y ago
  > Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibration scores and that translates into real money. Wow. Did you actually see first hand anyone who was punished by Google for things said outside the workplace? And did this extend to topics other than Google?
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Seconded. Could you elaborate on how "being a trouble maker" affected calibration scores?
  - yuhong 12y ago
    I remember some of michaelochurch's comments that mentioned Steve Yegge at Google: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5017446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5017446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4462217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4462217
    - kllrnohj 12y ago
      Who, you will note, did NOT get in trouble for his public stuff according to michaelochurch's posts.
      - yuhong 12y ago
        Yes, but michaelochurch's point was about why.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    What motivation could you imagine I would have in order to ruin someone's day? Ask Laszlo.
- jmillikin 12y ago
  > Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your > calibration scores and that translates into real money. Based on the successful career progressions of several well-known troublemakers at Google, I believe this statement is not currently accurate (if it ever was).
  - Pacabel 12y ago
    Can you name some names?
    - nostrademons 12y ago
      I was far from a model employee at Google - I continued to post on HN, I would challenge executives as to whether their actions were really in the best interests of users, and I would raise complaints I heard about elsewhere internally - and I don't feel like it hurt my career progression at all. I was promoted during my time there, and I largely got my pick of projects. When my old manager left the department, he told me that one of the things he and his superiors had really valued about me was my willingness to call things out that weren't working. I do think that there's a right way and a wrong way to criticize your organization. As Ben Horowitz says, "Come from the right place." When I would say something negative about Google it's because I want it to be the best company it could be, and I'd often raise complaints internally rather than externally because that's where the decision-makers are. And if you want to be taken seriously, you also need to buckle down and contribute, and listen to considerations you may not have thought of. My manager said once that the folks who get fired are those who "Complain too much and contribute too little", and I can think of some prominent personalities on Hacker News who fit that description. Complain and contribute and you do fine.
- stock_toaster 12y ago
  Ah. That makes quite a bit of sense given what you said. Thanks for sharing that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that google keeps tabs that thoroughly on employees -- but it still feels disappointing to hear it.

mythz 12y ago

and they're all anti-Google, something smells.

onokyomo 12y ago
They're not anti-Google for crying out loud. It's the same thing as saying you're afraid of heights. No they're not. They're afraid of falling. Not anti-Google/Heights They're anti-Exploitation/Falling

ChuckMcM 12y ago

It isn't surprising. There are lots of reasons why people are unwilling to put their "primary" HN account at risk when they want to say something which can be used against them (or simply down voted into oblivion). When I worked at Google I was very careful about what I said outside of Google, there is very little the company doesn't know about its employees. Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibration scores and that translates into real money. So when folks want to contribute to the conversation in some way (either to support, attack, or deflect it seems) but don't want to do so openly, the new accounts come out. One motivation for having a 24 hr waiting period on posting is to mitigate that, but sometimes folks do bring good data under an extra layer of anonymity.

pmiller2 12y ago
> Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your calibration scores and that translates into real money. Wow. Did you actually see first hand anyone who was punished by Google for things said outside the workplace? And did this extend to topics other than Google?
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Seconded. Could you elaborate on how "being a trouble maker" affected calibration scores?
- yuhong 12y ago
  I remember some of michaelochurch's comments that mentioned Steve Yegge at Google: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5017446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5017446 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4462217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4462217
  - kllrnohj 12y ago
    Who, you will note, did NOT get in trouble for his public stuff according to michaelochurch's posts.
    - yuhong 12y ago
      Yes, but michaelochurch's point was about why.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  What motivation could you imagine I would have in order to ruin someone's day? Ask Laszlo.
jmillikin 12y ago
> Being a trouble maker always looked bad on your > calibration scores and that translates into real money. Based on the successful career progressions of several well-known troublemakers at Google, I believe this statement is not currently accurate (if it ever was).
- Pacabel 12y ago
  Can you name some names?
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    I was far from a model employee at Google - I continued to post on HN, I would challenge executives as to whether their actions were really in the best interests of users, and I would raise complaints I heard about elsewhere internally - and I don't feel like it hurt my career progression at all. I was promoted during my time there, and I largely got my pick of projects. When my old manager left the department, he told me that one of the things he and his superiors had really valued about me was my willingness to call things out that weren't working. I do think that there's a right way and a wrong way to criticize your organization. As Ben Horowitz says, "Come from the right place." When I would say something negative about Google it's because I want it to be the best company it could be, and I'd often raise complaints internally rather than externally because that's where the decision-makers are. And if you want to be taken seriously, you also need to buckle down and contribute, and listen to considerations you may not have thought of. My manager said once that the folks who get fired are those who "Complain too much and contribute too little", and I can think of some prominent personalities on Hacker News who fit that description. Complain and contribute and you do fine.
stock_toaster 12y ago
Ah. That makes quite a bit of sense given what you said. Thanks for sharing that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that google keeps tabs that thoroughly on employees -- but it still feels disappointing to hear it.