Slashdot Mirror


Google's Ten Golden Rules

selvan writes "Newsweek is running an article entitled Google's Ten Golden Rules. The article, by Eric Schmidt and Hal Varian, going into the philosophy behind the company." From the article: "Don't be evil. Much has been written about Google's slogan, but we really try to live by it, particularly in the ranks of management. As in every organization, people are passionate about their views. But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies. We foster to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, not a company full of yes men."

86 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA
    [Eric] Schmidt is CEO of Google. [Hal] Varian is a Berkeley professor and consultant with Google.

    Wow...an article written by Google about how great Google is...the very definition of conflict-of-interest.

    While I'm aware that Slashdot is contractually obligated to post any and all stories about Google that possess even the most infinitesimal amount of positive spin, this seems extreme even here.
    Slashdot: self-adulation for fanboys

    Oh, and Newsweek, shame on you.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  2. Welcome to 5 years ago... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyway... the only golden rule I aknowledge is "He who has the gold, makes the rules"

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Welcome to 5 years ago... by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The "Don't be evil" motto sort of lost the lustre for me when I read about how they fired a new employee that was blogging about his "behind the scenes" Google experiences shortly after being hired.

      Sure, it would be one thing if he was blatantly broadcasting private information (which a new employee probably shouldn't have access to anyway), but as far as I read, he was just kind of enthusiastically gushing about the behind the scenes operation of the great new job he had. Now it's entirely possible that we don't have the "full story", but...

      I know if I had blundered similarly, my boss would've chewed me out a bit, but there's no possibility I'd ever even come close to losing my job over it...

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    2. Re:Welcome to 5 years ago... by Meagermanx · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I had a company, I wouldn't hire bloggers.

    3. Re:Welcome to 5 years ago... by alnjmshntr · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be fair, if you are referring to the "hundred zeroes" blogger (can't find his blogsite now), he did reveal some sensitive forecasts or something iirc - which he then removed from his blog.

      Though it was still kinda harsh/pathetic that he got fired, seemingly just because a bunch of google employees were pissed off by the "new kid" and what he was writing. Maybe vindictiveness is not evil in googleworld.

      --
      If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
    4. Re:Welcome to 5 years ago... by 70Bang · · Score: 2, Funny



      Add this one to your Golden Rule:

      "Life is like a sh%t sandwich: the more bread you have, the less sh%t you have to eat."

    5. Re:Welcome to 5 years ago... by Busy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I might have to borrow that and add it to my own golden rules.

      --
      Think of someone with average intelligence. Now think 1/2 the world is dumber than that guy.
  3. Which company? by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 4, Funny
    But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies.

    I wonder which company they're talking about?

    Throwing chairs...rings a bell.

    Mi...cro...?

    Nope lost it.

    1. Re:Which company? by shbazjinkens · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think my favorite was:

      Let's face it: programmers want to program, they don't want to do their laundry.

      Being in a CS class in college, this really hits home.

    2. Re:Which company? by frenetic3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, that's good, because you're the exact target audience of that article. I'm usually not that cynical but this is pretty blatant: is the message "Google is a doubleplusgood working environment" really _news_, or just a clever press hit and recruiting tool (as are the massages, chefs, yada yada. Ironic too that it's hosted on a Microsoft-owned news site, haha.)

      They need to do _something_ with those billions of dollars :)

      -fren

      --
      "Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
    3. Re:Which company? by chris_mahan · · Score: 2, Funny

      My wife does the laundry. I don't want google to do my laundry.

      See http://laundry.google.com/

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  4. Coral Cache! by markild · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
    Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
    1. Re:Coral Cache! by Frankie70 · · Score: 2, Funny


        Coral Cache link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com.nyud.net:8090/id/10296177 /site/newsweek/


      Please mod parent +5 informative.
      I think BillG is running MSN off his cable modem connection & it's
      sure to get slashdotted.

  5. What? by bwd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does any of this really matter now? The moment they went public, their defining philosophy turned into maximizing profits for their share holders in any way lawfully possible. The share holders now control board votes, not google's lofty ideals.

    1. Re:What? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ye gods. Does this have to come up with each and every time? There *are* companies out there that make a nice profit while still maintaining a high quality of both products and customer service. Making a profit does not not necessarily imply screwing over your customers over. Treating your customers with respect and catering to their wishes to create good word-of-mouth advertising(the best there is) is a perfectly viable business strategy.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:What? by s20451 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it is true that companies must, by law, work in their shareholders' interests. However, this does not mean that the stock price must be maximized from quarter to quarter. There is nothing illegal about taking the long view and realizing that long-term profitability is maximized when the public respects your brand.

      The "shareholder's interest" argument really means that you can't use the company's money to put a new deck on your house. It is not sinister.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    3. Re:What? by KDan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't disagree with your statement, but I think that Google's support of chinese censorship cannot be construed to not be "evil", no matter which way you argue it. It fits right into the old saying, that capitalists would sell the rope that they'll be hung with.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    4. Re:What? by TheKubrix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      did you even look into that financial page that you linked?

      hint: explore who the major holders are........

    5. Re:What? by way2trivial · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG
      % of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 35%
      % of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 38%
      Number of Institutions Holding Shares: 341

      insiders, 5%'s and institutions- none of those categories have any interest but in keeping the status quo..
      unlease there is actual belief of serious mis-management, institutional & mutual fund holders want stability, not strife.
      and they have 73% of the company....
      what I find more interesting, is how unbalanced the major insiders are as to ownership.

      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/81/5092.html senior VP with control of 117,075 shares
      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/67/3807.html president with control of 198,604 shares
      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/80/5092.html president with control of 231,124 shares
      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/20/976.html officer with control of 286,566 shares
      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/66/5444.html V-presdnt with control of 315,032 shares

      total 1,148,401 directly held by the top 5 guys in the company.
          but look who has the most.....

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    6. Re:What? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 3, Informative

      like it or not, when you're an international business you have to deal with the local laws of the country you do business in. No matter how much you or me may dislike its practices, the chinese government is the chinese government, and if folks want to get rid of it or change its policies that's going to be up to the chinese people, not to Google.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    7. Re:What? by loucura! · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is not sinister.

      Unless, perhaps, you're a left-handed stock-holder.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    8. Re:What? by chris_mahan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's why we're saying that Google is no longer "Do No Evil", but "make MORE money".

      If Google wants to compete internationally, Google will have the pleasure to deal with governments who condone torture, condone political, religious, and ethnic repression. Google will have to deal with organized crime and government official corruption.

      I know people in the oil industry. They don't claim not to be evil. They do claim (and they do) to get a lot of money for their shareholders.

      And let me tell you about shareholders: They don't give a flying fuck if your company is responsible for child labor in third world countries or for polluting on a mass scale, or for propping up despotic governments. As long as the dividends keep coming in.

      Don't like it? Tough. That's the way the world works.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    9. Re:What? by evildogeye · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, because Google should take on one of the most powerful governments in the world, while everyone else in America keeps on using cheap Chinese labor to improve their quality of life, happy to ignore the lack of civil rights in China. Personally, I think it would be more evil to deprive more than a billion people of the Google search engine!

    10. Re:What? by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is it evil? Just because you don't believe in a validity of a certain way of governing (attempting to strictly control information) doesn't mean that it's evil.

      I'll accept that--while I personally may find the entire concept of communism (or at least the way it's actually been implemented thus far) to be "evil," I understand that others may disagree. After all, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" does indeed sound like a wonderful way to live, if impractical.

      However, when discussing the Chinese government in particular, I think just about any reasonable person would agree that "evil" fits the bill. Here's a good example of why.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    11. Re:What? by farble1670 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Making a profit does not not necessarily imply screwing over your customers over.

      i don't think anyone said that. the point is, for a public company, the goal is to maximize profits, period. if the company's actions happen to match some philosophy, well that's nice, but it's only a side affect. if you have any doubt, read this as reported by slashdot some months or so ago.

  6. History Repeats by ehaggis · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe somewhere around 1550 B.C., a gentleman by the name of Moses received 10 rules from the CEO of the universe. Unfortunately the were not followed to closely. Time has a way of washing away convictions and ideals. I applaud Google for their intent, but I would wager these lofty goals will settle to reality when the bottom dollar hits the road.

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
    1. Re:History Repeats by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There are people who follow the original Ten Commandments and there are people who don't. Those who have faith, generally do. Those who have none, generally do not.

      Bullshit. I have no faith (i.e. I don't believe in a god) but you don't see me running around having sex with boys, convincing people to give me their life savings, having extra-marital affairs (ok, I'm not married so that doesn't count), murdering my family and so on. I highly doubt you'd find many people who don't have faith who don't follow the underpinnings of the 10 commandments.

      Just because one doesn't believe in a god doesn't mean that they don't follow the basic rules. Nor does it follow that people who do have faith follow the rules. Your broad generalization isn't valid.

      For the record, all the acts I indicated above were and are being done by people of faith. Not just one faith either.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:History Repeats by Animats · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but Commandment 1 was about market share maintenance.

  7. Rule number 11 by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    11) Having fricking huge piles of cash so you can actually afford to do 1-10.

    1. Re:Rule number 11 by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you so sure that 1-10 aren't why they have huge piles of cash?

    2. Re:Rule number 11 by AceJohnny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because Google exists in a capitalist environment.

      Remember, capitalism is the economic system that's based on greed. It is the opposite of socialism, which is based on responsability and generosity. Guess which one worked out best?
      Capitalism is also pretty resistant to other negative human traits, like laziness. A lazy entity in a capitalist environment will soon be left out in the cold...

      Don't kid yourselves, rules 1-10 AREN'T what brought google it's huge piles of cash. And now that they're publicly traded, I won't bet on the rules' longetivity. Ben & Jerry's also had some very nice rules of work. They ended up being bought by Unilever, the anti-thesis of their rules of work. Do you think they still follow all their rules?

      Google is succesful, thus they can afford these rules, it's not the other way around.

      --
      Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
  8. Eat your own dog food. by markild · · Score: 2, Funny

    From TFA: For example, one of the reasons for Gmail's success is that it was beta tested within the company for many months.

    Not only do they, as they said in this article, eat they own dog food, but they make us do it.

    Beta 1, Google Inc, Beta 2, The World!!

    --
    Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
    Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
  9. Do no evil... by pmike_bauer · · Score: 3, Informative
    --
    I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    1. Re:Do no evil... by pmike_bauer · · Score: 2, Informative

      In all fairness, Google claims that these blocked links would be inaccessible anyway. However, I think this contributes to the deception in that someone in China won't even know what news is being blocked. Insidious.

      --
      I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
  10. elegance by DarkClown · · Score: 2

    I wish more desgin folks would take a cue from google's main search page at www.google.com and get the net back to a more simplicity/focus on content approach to delivering information.
    Interesting article - I believe the management really are smoking their own stuff, from what I've experienced from dealing with googles people.
    I just hope they don't get too spread thin and have trouble with upkeeping excellence with their various product.
    what is their slogan, anyway?

  11. Don't Be Evil?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't get why Google has to yammer on and on about "don't be evil". That would say to me that they think most companies are evil, and google has to be different and say that all the time.

    The fact is that the vast majority of businesses aren't evil, Microsoft included. They might do some bad things, but no reasonable person could say they are overall evil. Now Enron, and Worldcom could be considered evil, but there are the rare exceptions in American society, not the rule.

    I like google, but sometimes they are a little full of themselves. They are bright and smart people, maybe too smart for their own good. For all people talk about Microsoft and Apple's arrogance, Google has got a pretty big head for a company not even 10 years old.

  12. Rule #11 by Frankie70 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies.

    Thou shalt not be bitchy about competitors.

  13. "Pack Them In" by jkauzlar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    We all like to know what the most successful and innovative companies in recent years is telling its employees (or itself). Also, their list is a proposed manual of how to manage "knowledge workers." This could apply to hundreds of companies.

    Also, I take issue with the "Pack them in" criterium. What I like most about my job right now is the space I get. Email, instant-message, radio, etc, make "packing them in" a reality for any company with these technologies. I'd like to be able to fart at my desk or turn on a stereo and not have anybody make a fuss about it.

    I think they're trying to justify sticking their employees two-per-cubicle for lack of floor space.

    1. Re:"Pack Them In" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      > Also, I take issue with the "Pack them in" criterium. What I like most about my job right now is the space I get. Email, instant-message, radio, etc, make "packing them in" a reality for any company with these technologies. I'd like to be able to fart at my desk or turn on a stereo and not have anybody make a fuss about it.

      I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a second here.

      I'll bet that most of us posting to this thread are doing so from single cubicles or (if we're lucky) offices. How many of us would do so from a shared cubicle?

      If your cubemate is the kind of guy who'll accept you reading and posting to Slashdot, you're obviously getting along very well -- well enough to be very productive together.

      If you're worried he'll rat you out to management for spending half the day on Slashdot -- or if he's the kind of guy who'll spend half his day downloading goat pr0n -- then sharing cubicles is a net win for you, him, and the company, because you've both got nothing else to do in each other's presence but work. (Or learn how to get along with each other and become as co-productive as the cubemates in the paragraph above this one.)

      Some of the most productive days I've had have been days when teh Intarweb was down. There was nothing to do but work. And when the work was done, there was nothing to do but stuff I'd originally planned to do tomorrow. When tomorrow's work was done, there was nothing to do but think up new things to make my work life easier.

      Combine the self-reinforcing mechanism of always having a peer looking over your shoulder, with Google's policy that 20% of everyone's time is supposed to be spent fiddling around on your own pet projects, and some very interesting things might happen.

    2. Re:"Pack Them In" by jkauzlar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah, but not everybody needs somebody looking over their shoulder. The suggestion that I won't do my job well without peer pressure is insulting to my work ethic.

      It's nine o'clock here in Seattle right now. After my coffee sets in and my brain wakes up, I will do the job of three men, if required. While doing this, I will crank up my stereo, sing along if I want to, take a cigarette break whenever I feel like it, and have a dignified sense of independence and self-empowerment. And my job will get done very well.

    3. Re:"Pack Them In" by drdewm · · Score: 3, Informative

      I just came from a place (TrippLite) that treats it's employees this way stacking them and packing them. Except for a select pamperd few TrippLite treats people like disposable napkins and the empoloyees know it and do the minimal amount of work to get by and the product shows it with huge return rates and customer dissatisfaction. Now the place I'm currently at treats people with respect and except for a select few people excel and try to do what's best for the company. The work loads and output from people are much better and higher. It's not just the lack of space but a general disregard for dignity which people can sense when you stack them like logs and have double standards.

    4. Re:"Pack Them In" by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The suggestion that I won't do my job well without peer pressure is insulting to my work ethic.
      It's nine o'clock here in Seattle right now. After my coffee sets in and my brain wakes up, I will


      Go on to slashdot and post about how great your work ethic is.
      I'd tell you to go back to work, but I'll follow my own advice instead, good day.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:"Pack Them In" by anotherzeb · · Score: 3, Funny

      I will do the job of three men, if required

      Groucho, Harpo and Chico?
       

      --
      Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
    6. Re:"Pack Them In" by susano_otter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm just saying I can relax better in my own space.

      Fair enough, and so can I. My question is, how much of this is habituation with what is actually a second-rate work process?

      I mean, what if "only works well alone and in silence" is an evolutionary dead-end? What if, in the long run, people who become habituated to working in physical proximity to each other, and companies that become adept at building teams that enhance each team member's cognition under those conditions, will be more productive and more successful?

      All the colloborative software in the world is no substitute for regular human contact. Rather, it inserts several layers of indirection and buffering where direct contact may actually be more desireable.

      Like I said, I don't doubt you work better in private. but what if this is actually a bad habit, rather than a good one? Google seems to be attributing the value of its employee contributions in part to their assumption that it's a bad habit. Given the success of Google employee contributions, I'm willing to take wait-and-see approach.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    7. Re:"Pack Them In" by susano_otter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think Google avoids this problem to a great extent by applying some of Joel's other principles: Namely, that "Class A" people hire other "Class A" people; and Google actively involves the workers themselves in the decision to hire their teammates.

      I'd imagine there's a very low incidence "being interrupted by stupid questions" and a very high incidence "of greatness feeding greatness in a positive feedback loop".

      Where most companies end up hiring a bunch of mediocre programmers and giving each of them enough personal space to make it as far as they can on their own, Google seems to be incredibly strict about hiring only the best, and making sure that they'll be a good fit for their team before signing them on.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  14. knowledge workers by altoz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What interested me was how they treat "knowledge workers".

    Their principles can be summed up like this:

    1. Pay them based on what they produce, not how many hours they're in the office.
    2. Get out of their way whenever possible.
    3. Keep them informed
    4. Let teams make decisions, not some arrogant-but-stupid manager

    I say that's the sort of thing that makes me want to work there.

    1. Re:knowledge workers by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The downside is that employers like Google expect you to love your job. If you do, good for you. But sometimes you will have other things that you need to do, but the nagging feeling that you're supposed to love your job and express that love by working your ass off will always come up, and you will feel like you're not doing enough for the great ideals of the Company.

      It its own way, that's a worse kind of pressure than Dilbert-style companies have, because it's ideological pressure. You can pretty much predict what a PHB wants - he wants you to do your job, make him look good, and, even though you might have to work overtime until you find a better job, it ends when you go home. If you're supposed to drink the kool-aid and live/breathe the company 'values', then the company is not just trying to take over your time, but your mind, and I for one would rather work a few extra hours at crunch time.

    2. Re:knowledge workers by drix · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wow, someone else finally gets that. I work in the Bay Area, I'm 23, lots of people I know works at Apple, Google, Pixar etc. Yes they are "great" places to work in the sense that my office doesn't have a volleyball court/laundromat/sumo stable/whatever. But everyone loses sight of the fact that the end goal of all these enticements is simply to get you to stay at work. That's it. To me, this melding of your personal and work lives is the most evil thing of all, and Google is king of it. I don't have $10 million in options sitting around, but I'm out the door most days at 5:00:00.00pm and I have lots of shit going on outside of work. Most of my microserf friends do not.

      --

      I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
    3. Re:knowledge workers by SuperQ · · Score: 2

      Note: I work at Google.

      The issue of how many hours you work is up to the person working. I think the point people miss is that places like Google attract work-a-holics. The whole of the Bay Area is like that. Personaly, I'm not that type. I go home at a reasonable hour and don't normaly check my work mail off-hours. Some days are exceptions, but that's normal for what I do at any work place. I don't think providing an atmosphere for work-a-holics to be happy is evil. Google is a good place to work, even if you're not a stary-eyed fan of the company.

  15. Google / ? by Soko · · Score: 5, Funny

    One of our not-so-secret weapons is our ideas mailing list: a companywide suggestion box where people can post ideas ranging from parking procedures to the next killer app. The software allows for everyone to comment on and rate ideas, permitting the best ideas to percolate to the top.

    So, Google uses a Slash like moderation system? Imagine being able to moderate a PHB (-1, Talking out of Your ASS), or a colleague (-1, Clueless Luser). And moderating the CEO (-100, Evil - Fuck Shareholder Value, This is Wrong!) to keep them to thier word.

    That would be cool.

    Soko

    --
    "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  16. The chair story - truth or fiction? by TheNucleon · · Score: 5, Funny
    As anyone who reads past "Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying..." might recall, Ballmer denies the chair throwing incident. The fact that someone is accused of something doesn't make it true. Yes, Slashdotters, even if it is Steve Ballmer :-)

    If accusations are automatically true, then I accuse all Slashdot readers of being pathetic geeks with no life.

    Hey, wait a minute...

    --
    My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
  17. Pack them in by Billosaur · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Almost every project at Google is a team project, and teams have to communicate. The best way to make communication easy is to put team members within a few feet of each other. The result is that virtually everyone at Google shares an office. This way, when a programmer needs to confer with a colleague, there is immediate access: no telephone tag, no e-mail delay, no waiting for a reply. Of course, there are many conference rooms that people can use for detailed discussion so that they don't disturb their office mates. Even the CEO shared an office at Google for several months after he arrived. Sitting next to a knowledgeable employee was an incredibly effective educational experience.

    Someday I would like to find the person who came up with this concept and shoot them in the head. I find nothing enhances my productivity more than having to listen to other people's meaningless personal phone conversations or conference calls that have nothing to do with what I'm working on, the assorted smells and sounds the human body makes that are not pleasant, the incesant pinging and chiming of IMs and email alerts, not to mention having my personal business available to anyone who wishes to stare over my shoulder.

    Oh to have an office! And if I needed a co-worker's help and/or advice and they won't return emails/phone calls, I would simply get my butt out of my chair, go to their cubicle, grab them by the lapels (or goatee if there are no lapels) and tell them we need to have a little chat. There's nothing like the personal approach! And then I could return to my office, close the door, crank the Rush, and get back to doing what I'm supposed to be doing, which is coding.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Pack them in by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Preach on, brother Billosaur!

      I have the same "colocation" attitude where I work that I fight endlessly.

      "We're networked!" says I. "You can instantly contact another person with any of five different methods. If they are out of touch for some reason, then they probably wouldn't have been in whatever densely packed cubicle farm into which you want to stuff eneryone. The occasional brainstorm/info sharing meeting is sufficient. We don't sit and hold hands and sing as we design. Grrrrrr!" At that point I usually start frothing and someone calls the company nurse for a sedative.

      I have said, in no uncertain terms, I *will* barricade myself in my office with the South facing windows and lovely view if they try to move me, and I will start tossing out dead laptops until my demands are met.

    2. Re:Pack them in by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I work on contracts for 5 years already (5 years of perm before that drove me to this life :) so I have worked in 6 places in these 5 years (contracts come and go) and I think generally it is not a bad idea to put people on the same project into the same room.

      Now having said that I think there are certain things that should be considered before doing that. First: if people on the project hate each-other this will not help matters.

      Second: do not cram people into small rooms with no windows. It's horrible for morale. The best thing apparently is to have a large room with windows and if the room gets too crowded, split the team into 2 rooms in close proximity.

      Third: one of the projects I worked on was pure eXtreme. I hated the paradigm but liked the process they used for unit tests/cvs merges/deployment and online documentation. But I still think eXtreme is a waste of time and money for very large very long projects. To get a person familiar with the project you may put him(her) together with someone who has been there for a while now for a few days. More than that is a total waste.

      Fourth: it appears that in rooms like this eventually there will be music played on the background. First: don't make it loud, second: don't make it loud. Besides, not everyone likes the same stuff and listenning to Dido's White Flag for 9 hours can really drive you mad.

      Fifth: No food that smells should be allowed in rooms like this, period.

  18. "Don't be evil"??? by iion_tichy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Riiight... I know collecting data always only ever works out in favour of the individual that has been monitored. Lovely stuff like advertising tailored to your needs etc.

    How on earth does Google want to be not evil, when every single thing they do is designed to collect as much data about people as possible (and that includes "free WLAN for everybody" - monitor surfing habits at the root has to be Google's wet dream)? I think they would have to make a VERY directed effort to avoid being evil.

    1. Re:"Don't be evil"??? by ljw1004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree entirely. Google is an advertising firm. It's sole purpose is to collect data about us and show us more advertising. That's evil from the ground up.

      I think they advertise THEMSELVES so well that collectively the internet community has the wool pulled over its eyes.

    2. Re:"Don't be evil"??? by Asmor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Collecting information is not evil. Not inherently evil, not even a little bit evil. It's not even very easy to find evil things to do with information.

      That said, it certainly is possible to do evil with gathered information, which is why privacy is so important. The difference is, Google seems to have a lot of trust and faith placed in it.

  19. Agile Google by under_score · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lots of what they are doing is in line with the Agile Work Axioms and agile practices. For example:

    • Cater to their every need -> Eliminate Waste
    • Pack them in, Data drive decisions, Communicate effectively -> Maximize Communication
    • Encourage creativity -> We are Creators, Empower the Team
    • Strive to reach consensus -> Self-Organizing Team, Trust is the Foundation
    • Don't be evil -> Trust is the Foundation
    • Data drive decisions -> Reality is Perceived
  20. How DOES Google Keep It Up? by Ted+Holmes · · Score: 2, Interesting
    OK, here's a dump.

    This company is spooky in it's rate of innovation. Even, as the article points out, in it's management strategy as well.

    Google, being the most popular search engine on the planet is privilege to the tiniest emerging trends, harvested by our searches. Our collective secrets. So they know quite a bit about what we want.

    Rumors are that Google is considering Riya another spookily intelligent beta photo service that will probably put Flickr to shame while spark spin-off revolutions impossible to predict.

    Oh, yeah, and aren't they supposed to come out with Google Calendar today?

    Technology commoditizes everything and Google leverages IT extremely well.

    Starting with the commoditization of information, Google's stated mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.

    Perhaps next we will see the commoditization of the world's knowledge, followed by our collective intelligence.

    I don't know if Google will be the entity to do that, but the trajectory seems clear to me with Google setting the pace.

    I recently finished an article called: Technology, Computers and Innovation: Why Everything is Speeding Up exploring what's behind the accelerating rate of innovation in technology. Even though the rate of worldwide technological acceleration is astounding, it seems Google is still strides ahead. ~ted

  21. No, you're wrong by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Informative
    The moment they went public, their defining philosophy turned into maximizing profits for their share holders

    That's wrong, or at least, the premise is incorrect. A publicly traded corporation is only required to abide by what their SEC paperwork says. For most companies, that does mean maximizing profits. But that's not an absolute rule.

    In Google's SEC filings, and in most of its public statements, it says they won't be evil. Any investor in the company is assumed to have read those filings and public comments. Caveat emptor.

    An accountant will tell you that "profit" is a somewhat artificial result. A complex set of corporate books allows you to attribute money to expenses, investment in future growth, savings for future tax liability, or whatever. Some companies choose to pay dividends, others choose to buy back their own stock. They have a range of options, as long as they cover themselves in their SEC filings.

    They do have to play by the rules, but maximizing profit isn't necessarily one of them, and it doesn't have to mean maximizing quarterly profit.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  22. Google is like the Beatles by Ankou · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh ya see now Google has done it, 10 Golden Rules = 10 Commandments, I get it. Next thing you will hear is how Google is more popular than Jesus ... oh wait

  23. serously. come on. This is a front pager? by CDPatten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Such a line of crap. "don't be evil" "tolerance"? "respect"? Kind of like the respect they have for the authors who have asked them not to scan their work, ya, they aren't evil at all. Ya its not evil just going ahead, ignoring the IP creators, just because "you know what's best for them" or to make some money. Yep, they aren't evil at all.

    Seriously the media loves google and that is the only reason the stock is so inflated. If we didn't know better you'd think they weren't the one with site traffic behind aol, yahoo, and msn, by ten of millions of visitors. Its similar to apple, by all the good press and constant front page articles you'd think they'd have more then a few percentage points of the desktop market, but nope.

    This at the end of the day is why all the predictions that Microsoft is going to fail "the next time around" never come true. Why that crowd is always dumbfounded that MS does so well time and time again. At some point you have to stop believing your won FUD and Fluff pieces and try to get the facts.

    Google's stock is going to cr4ash like the dot.com bubble. The only question is whether or not YOU will get your money out before or after it tanks.

  24. Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is actually a fairly standard article format: they asked the head of a succesful company to write an article on what he thinks makes that company succesful. It's not meant to be an in-depth analysis, just a highlight of what they think is important/different about their company.

    It gives some idea of how the management thinks of the company, and what they try to work on. Sure, it's a fluff piece, the equivilent of the society column for businesses, but it's a moderately useful fluff peice. And it can help some people, espcially if you want to understand how Google thinks about itself.

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.
  25. 11, 12, 13... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    11. Only hire Ivy League grads.
    12. Make a reference to Stanford in the first five minutes of every conversation.
    13. Require hefty formal academic credentials for positions that are mostly clerical, administrative, or customer service. Because we're cool, like NeXT was.
    14. Use the "W" hotel for conferences; it impresses the kids.
    15. Eric Schmidt can lead us. After all, Sun did so well. And Novell, under his leadership. Plus, he looks like "Jimmy James" from News Radio.
    16. Search! Don't sort! DON'T SORT! Do it OUR WAY! We are SMARTER THAN YOU! In fact, you can't even sign up for this.

    1. Re:11, 12, 13... by castoridae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, 11-14 are not bad rules to build a successful company. Reworded a bit, you get this:

      11/13. Only hire the best. (Obviously this doesn't directly translate to best == Ivy League grads, although they probably are better than average)
      12. Use your credentializers (i.e. Stanford) - this is marketing 101.
      14. Whether you're selling a product or a company, go for the glitz & glam. Pretty pixels sell software. Fancy hotels sell companies. Yes, the world shouldn't be this way, but it is.

  26. get over yourself plz by tehwebguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's not like it was a trick, the article starts off, "At google, we think..."

    --
    -- lol pwned
  27. Re:Like acedamia but a real job by Zorandler · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Reading between the lines...it's clear that Google isn't much different from any other high-tech company. The reason they want to provide everything to their employees is to keep them there all day and night to toil for Google. Seems much like M$....they provide everything on campus...so why leave?? Oh and by the way, while you're here...might as well put in another few hours coding...

    Bread and Circus....keep them fed and entertained and you can make them do anything!! Hoo ha haaaaaaa!

  28. Ten is the new seven. by xactuary · · Score: 2, Funny
    From TFA: What follows are seven key principles we use to make knowledge workers most effective.

    Seven,WTF? Is editing evil?

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
  29. Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. by JohnBaleshiski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Wow...an article written by Google about how great Google is...the very definition of conflict-of-interest.

    Your grasp on marketing is outstanding. :) Seriously, no offense meant but that's what every successful company does. "We're great and here is why..." Would you buy from a company that said "We are not great?" Didn't think so.

  30. Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. by Suburbanpride · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Google, like Apple, happens to do a lot of interesting things and deserves some attention for that. I'll avoid bitching about ./ here.

    In this case all my annoyance is at Newsweek. the state of mainstream journalism in this country is pretty bad, and they don't need to be turing over their pages to corperate PR folks. How about taking the CEOs talking points and then going into the workplace and see them actually being implemented? Ask the average employee about the quality of the food in the cafeteria. Do a little work.

    This isn't wuite as bad as the news orginizations who did nothing but repeat the Bush administration's lies in the lead up to war, but its the exact same concept.

    --
    sorry 'bout the mess...
  31. put your money where your mouth is by Danzigism · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Google is fucking fantastic.. its hilarious hearing so many little tools complain about Google.. cmon.. its quite obvious they are the BEST at what they do.. the best search engine, the best advertisement deals, hell, they'll even give YOU money for putting some ads up on your blog.. let us not forget all the amazing software they have released as well.. Google Earth being one of those things..

    And even the Google Toolbar.. personally, it was the first "good" toolbars that actually worked, and blocked popups.. granted, ya don't even need it nowadays, but still, it was a major help 2 years ago.. if you're critical about Google, you obviously must know something that we don't.. you probably read too much in to Google vs MS politics.. screw it man.. the most important thing is, that their products kick ass.. if Google runs their entire world one day, I'll gladly let them.. because I know they'll do a great job.. and the best job..

    --
    *plays the Apogee theme song music*
  32. Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. by bastardadmin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really? This is not being presented as news; it is clearly by Google about Google. I see no reason why Newsweek should be ashamed.
    If this had been in Harvard Business Review, no one would have batted an eye.

  33. It is, indeed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
  34. fuck google by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i swear, the more i hear about google, the more they sound like the borg from star trek: "resistance is futile" and all that

    of course i'll be modded into obvlivion for saying this, it goes agains the mindless slashot cliques: "google good, microsoft baaad" say the slashdot sheeple

    read the comment again. it's a stupid manifesto of corporate life. the point is, IT'S STILL SOUL SUCKING CORPORATE LIFE

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  35. BullSh*t by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google's top rule "Don't Be Evil" only applies if its not in their best interest to be evil.

    Look at the whole searching printed material fiasco they have gotten themselves into. They just went ahead and started making pages of printed material available online, without regard for the authors and publishers of those works. If Google truely WASN'T EVIL, then they would have sat down with the publishing industry, conveyed what they were trying to do, and work with the industry to create a solution that all would be happy with.

    Communicate effectively? Only if you make them millions. My website was suddenly blocked from using Google's Ads. I was simply experimenting with them, figuring out how to get them into my webpage before it went live. Google claims that I was creating invalid click counts and barred my website from their program. When I tried to contact them to ask them to verify their decision and to explain how they felt I was violating their policy, they simply responded by sending me a link to their policy. When I felt I did not violate their policy, I was basically ignored from that point forward.\

    Hire by committee. I know exactly how this works. First step, write a test to see if you know your stuff. While this may sound like a great concept in hiring practices, in truth their are many brilliant programmers out their that may not know exactly how to write a template C++ class or other trivial menial programming concepts. But, in reality, they have created astounding and well conceived application solutions from an almost intrinsic and intuitive knowledge of programming. Score badly on that test and you won't be talking to anyone else at Google, period. On the flip side, hiring people that score well on those tests mean they studied just before the test, or have enough book smarts to remember countless meaningless trivial tidbits, and then wonder why they can't program themselves out of a box or have one ounce of creativity.

    Strive to reach consensus. The "many are smarter then the individual" myth. I don't know, its been my experience that the collective IQ of all society is 0. The larger the group of people involved in making the decision, the dumber the outcome. Look at US politics. George Bush elected a second time? Look at Candian Politics. Jean Cretien Liberal's lasted 13 years? This is because humans can't communicate effectively in a group and any important decision making gets lots in endless meetings, debates and discussions which starts to cloud the obvious decision. If this is how Google is doing business, then it explains why projects like GMail have been in a perpetual beta for over 2 years and they are falling behind other more innovative web mail solutions.

    I don't like Google, period. They are quickly becoming a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none company creating knee jerk reactionary services and spreading themselves out too thin. The bubble will burst once Google can no longer higher enough staff to work in each of the many many projects they have on the go. Eventually, as I said with Gmail falling behind Yahoo and other more innovative web email server solutions, Google will start to see the quality of those services suffer as users strive to find other more focused solutions by companies not interested in dominating the entire web experience.

    Google is out to ensure that you have to pass through them to get anything done on the web. Anybody not realizing how monopolistic and dominating their goals are probably thinks Microsoft is a nice benevolent company creating good products. The only people that believe this tripe are Wall Street investors throwing billions at a company that really isn't doing anything other then organizing data other people have created.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  36. Enron's motto by Kevbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Back in the day, Ken Lay, CEO of Enron, used to tout Enron's internal policy of always taking the moral high ground and that all its employees exhibited the highest ethical standards, even going so far as to say that Enron set the bar when it came to business ethics. Shocking to think that we cannot always trust what the heads of corporations tell us.

    --
    In Vino Veritas
    1. Re:Enron's motto by Syberghost · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now, let's be fair; he may not have been incorrect when he said Enron set the bar for business ethics.

  37. Being happy is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But everyone loses sight of the fact that the end goal of all these enticements is simply to get you to stay at work. That's it.

    But on the other hand, the way they get you to stay at work is by making you genuinely want to stay at work because it's enjoyable. I really don't think that's evil--if it works, you are happy; if it doesn't then you don't have incentive to stay later than your work requires, and you go home.

    I work at one of the companies in your list, and I know people in both camps, and I haven't seen any negative repercussions for the people who don't spend their leisure time at work. They still get their work done, and management recognizes and respects that. Mileage may vary from group to group or company to company of course, but that's certainly the way it is all around me.

    1. Re:Being happy is good by GoCats1999 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But on the other hand, the way they get you to stay at work is by making you genuinely want to stay at work because it's enjoyable. I really don't think that's evil--if it works, you are happy; if it doesn't then you don't have incentive to stay later than your work requires, and you go home.

      What is the average amount of hours people spend at Google (or any of the other companies on the list)? Not knowing the specifics of Google's work culture, let's just assume people work on average from 9:30 to 7:30 every day (e.g. 10 hr days) on average, and then of course, maybe 15+ hour days during "crunch time".

      My question to you is, if Google DIDN'T offer all those "benefits" to working there, would those hours go down... and go down considerably? If so, then you could make the logical conclusion that these "benefits" *are* in fact causing people to work longer.

      I, too, used to work at one of these companies -- and i found myself at work 10, 11 hours a day regularly, and 16+ (one day even 20) hours during crunch time -- because I was totally bought into the culture; Because the company loves me so much to give me such a "fun" work environment with such "great" people to work with who all love their jobs, I must love my job too, or there must be something wrong with me. No, this wasn't pressure being applied to me by management or other coworkers, this was subconscious, psychological pressure I applied to myself simply because of the environment that was created by all these "benefits". Over the years, as I finally have some perspective to look back at my time there, I have realized that it's a self-serving environment that only feeds itself, which is what makes it so addicting, and to be honest, successful at getting employees to stay late and "love" doing so.

  38. Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. by ccharles · · Score: 2

    No shit.

    It's not presented as an impartial article. In fact, if you actually *read* the article, it is made very clear that the article comes from inside Google.

    Writing about yourself isn't /always/ bad.

  39. Re:Which one is John? by Ankou · · Score: 3, Funny

    I believe Ringo would be MSN

  40. The evil side of business by AlpineR · · Score: 2, Interesting
    An interesting movie on this subject is The Corporation (trailer). It argues that businesses exhibit many of the characteristics that define a psychopath:
    • Pathological lying
    • Conning/manipulative
    • Lack of remorse or guilt
    • Lack of realistic, long-term plans
    • Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
  41. Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. by be-fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Congratulations on missing the point. This isn't an article on how great Google is. This is an article by somebody in Google management trying to explain how Google handles its employees, and why it has been sucessful. For somebody managing a small company, emulating some of these things might be interesting. I know gang interviews will be a new concept to at least a few people. We used them where I used to work, and they're a blast. It's easy for a canidate to convince management that he knows the engineering, its less easy for him to convince his potential coworkers.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  42. I like 'em all except pack 'em in by Wansu · · Score: 2, Funny



    I particularly like "Hire by Committee". This tends to weed out those individuals with work disrupting character flaws.

    I don't like "Pack 'em in". Individual offices are much better. Phone tag and emails are not that big a problem. The practice of setting up "war rooms" or "pack 'em in" is done to indimidate workers. The way to get out of one of these bullpens is to eat Mexican food, chili or perhaps Indian food and cut rank farts until they beg you to move.
     

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  43. Self-fulfilling prophecy! by Proteus · · Score: 2, Funny

    As I write this, the above is rated (Score:2, Funny). Because of this rating, the post is amusing, but would not be otherwise.

    I 3 self-fulfilling prophecies!

    --
    We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
  44. Mission Statements. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The following are some examples of mission statements from real enterprises. . .

    Mary Kay Cosmetics: "To give unlimited opportunity to women."
    Right. And they do this by adding their weight to the ceaseless hammering of women through the media with the message, "Your natural body state is Ugly. You will be Unloved and Unhappy unless you use our Products." Oooh. Feel the power.

    Merck: "To preserve and improve human life."
    One word: "Vioxx".

    Well, maybe a second word, "Thimerosal" (Mercury) in their various vaccines, including their flu shot.

    Wal-Mart: "To give ordinary folk the chance to buy the same thing as rich people."
    Selling out the West to the Chinese might kill the economy altogether, which will certainly mean that the rich and the poor might share the same bread lines. Sort of a weird way to level the playing field if you ask me, but what do I know. . ?

    Interestingly, another of Wal-Mart's mission statements was, "Become a $125 billion company by the year 2000". Ah. Greed; the very spirit of altruism! No conflict there, boy!

    Walt Disney: "To make people happy."

    Why does that send a chill up my spine? How about, "Offer happiness"? Or at least, offer media which some might find uplifting. In any case, I can't help but recall the episode where Disney security staff held the body of a boy who drowned on one of their rides under water until the park closed so that nobody would have their, "happiness" (or their PR) spoiled by the unpleasant aspect of a dead boy being returned to grieving parents before closing time. How about, "Disney: Where ignorance is bliss, and enforced."

    McDonald's: "McDonald's vision is to be the world's best quick service restaurant experience. Being the best means providing outstanding quality, service, cleanliness, and value, so that we make every customer in every restaurant smile."

    Another nice-sounding mission statement from a company which helps kill Americans with toxic food and destroys millions of acres of rainforest globally to do it. Cool.

    So, is Google evil?

    Spiderman said it best; "With great power. . ." I use Google's search engine all the time. Their potential to reshape the world, as with all of the above corporate giants, is certainly there. And so is the corporate culture which allows amoral activities to rule their actions. So evil or not, I think a healthy amount of skepticism and observation and keeping brushed up on alternatives is very wise. --Because mission statements alone don't keep people honest.


    -FL