Google Ties Employee Bonuses To +1 Success

jfruhlinger writes "Last week Google introduced the +1 button, its attempt to tie its search offerings more closely with users' social networks. Now, a leaked memo reveals that every Google employee will have a stake in the outcome, with bonuses tied to the success or failure of the initiative."

Comments

Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[lxs]

Wait until the banking community hears of the blasphemy! Mammon weeps!

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Hazel Bergeron]

As far as I can tell, this is tying the bonuses of everyone at Google to the efforts of the few people at Google involved in social media crap - in turn coming down to the efforts of the few managers who actually want to push the social media crap. It's the ultimate PHB power trip: you are so insistent that a repeatedly-failing idea is good, while at the same time wanting to acknowledge none of evidence or the responsibility that it isn't, so you declare that everyone else has a stake in it. Then it's everyone's fault: after all, they had financial incentive to succeed - which, as everyone knows, is the reason everyone wants to do anything - so the only reason the plan failed must be because all 24k employees just weren't trying hard enough.

Page (Gates) is an intelligent egomaniac who happened to be in the right place at the right time, carried to success by Schmidt (Ballmer) and a few venture capitalist titans. Now add cowardly to his list of properties.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Kokuyo]

Overreacting much?

Google has a pretty large staff spread across the world. If each one of them can just make one other person aware of the new feature and of those half tell someone else, you've just kickstarted a pretty hefty viral marketing.

Where is the problem with tying part of an employees bonus to the company's success? Isn't that what bonuses are all about? If they're not tied to the company's success, it's called a salary, you know.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Anonymous Coward]

If each one of them can just make one other person aware [...]

ugh.. enough reason to keep away from googlers for a while.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[maxwell demon]

They didn't tie it to the company's success. They tied it to the success of a very specific feature. A feature that I at least won't use (and if it gets obnoxious, I may very well ultimately decide to switch the search engine I use -- the last thing Google wants).

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Hazel Bergeron]

If each one of them can just make one other person aware of the new feature and of those half tell someone else, you've just kickstarted...

...turning your friends into business opportunities, the same socially damaging outcome to hit every pyramid marketing scheme and cult member.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Anonymous Coward]

If each one of them can just make one other person aware of the new feature and of those half tell someone else,

Yea, everybody loves friends who try to push some pyramid-scheme shit on you. That's what friends are for after all: making money off of them and using them for your employer's benefit. Friends of employees are just another company asset.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Kokuyo]

What is your point? The product is one part of Google's overall portfolio and thus its success. It will contribute to ONE PART of the employees' bonuses.

Where's your problem?

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Kokuyo]

Oh come on!

If you're on good terms with a Peugeot dealer, chances are you'll be driving a Peugeot, even if the GM dealer is closer.

Most people think they get better deals from friends. Sometimes they are right, often they're the same and sometimes they're worse. In most cases, though, people feel better going to someone they know. That is not a nefarious scheme, it's human nature.

And besides, Google doesn't want their employees to sell this. There is nothing to sell here. It's a move to get the function more widespread acknowledgement and thus a bigger userbase (to which they custom-tailor ads).

Frankly, I have a very hard time seeing how this is supposed to be Evil (TM).

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Bank bonuses were dependant on results. The more money you shovelled out the window or burned in a furnace, the more you got paid.

This will ruin Google. Bonuses and other goal oriented incentives ruin organisations wholesale.

If you dangle large quantities of money in front of people to get them to do something(or worse threaten to deny them money if they don't), then they will do whatever it takes to meet that goal. This means they will cut corners, engage in risk, change parameters, and generally cheat and game the system in every way possible to meet your target. Eventually, your company or organisation will be utterly ruined, withered from within by your ill advised management practices.

Bonuses are an illegitimate form of compensation on every level. 99% percent of the time, a bonus culture is instituted by management to pay themselves handsomely for wrecking their company.

If you want someone to work, pay them for the job they do, not the targets they meet. Never, ever try to reduce a job to numbers when that's not what it's all about. If you're still not getting quality labour, hire better people, and note you may have to pay to get them.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Hazel Bergeron]

Most people think they get better deals from friends. Sometimes they are right, often they're the same and sometimes they're worse. In most cases, though, people feel better going to someone they know. That is not a nefarious scheme, it's human nature.

It's understandable if a Google employee himself chooses to use Google's social networking crap because he believes that he'll get more money for doing so. But ultimately the success must depend on persuading others outside the company - and it's absolutely nefarious if your "friend" is this Google employee who is taking advantage of your trust and who stands to benefit financially when you follow his advice/example. The ethics of this sort of behaviour has been debated so much in terms of the harm of MLM and cult membership that, if you genuinely are ignorant, ... well, you know how to use Google.

I don't know that this is what Page expects employees to do, but this sort of geek-grass-roots-marketing thing works approximately once - with an "innocent" start-up when the competition is wanting and people are yearning for an alternative, as with the original and still fairly good Google search engine proper. After that you just look like Microsoft with its, "Wow, it was Vista all along - and there was me thinking Vista was a failure!" ads.

Car analogy effort notwithstanding, this is nothing whatever to do with choosing Peugeot because you're on good terms with a Peugeot dealer. A good business relationship which may come from a good underlying personal relationship, while often risky, is not proselytism.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Hazel Bergeron]

Bonus culture has completely ruined service provision in local and national government in England over the past decade. Unfortunately, we are severely lacking an ideology which recognises what you state.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Cwix]

One small part of google's portfolio determines 25% of an employees bonus. I know if I was on a team with something successful like gmail or the search engine, or android that I would be pretty pissed that a quarter of my bonus doesn't rely on my personal achievements. Which I think is the point of bonuses.. that is to award employees, beyond usual compensation, for a job well done.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Jstlook]

Oh come on! If you're on good terms with a Peugeot dealer, chances are you'll be driving a Peugeot, even if the GM dealer is closer. Most people think they get better deals from friends. Sometimes they are right, often they're the same and sometimes they're worse. In most cases, though, people feel better going to someone they know. That is not a nefarious scheme, it's human nature. And besides, Google doesn't want their employees to sell this. There is nothing to sell here. It's a move to get the function more widespread acknowledgement and thus a bigger userbase (to which they custom-tailor ads). Frankly, I have a very hard time seeing how this is supposed to be Evil (TM).

My interpretation that the goal of this bonus program is to make damn sure this feature comes across to the public as a 'Good Thing'. It seems like they hope to chip away every blemish that makes it unappealing. That means they *do* want their employees to sell this, because they want to be able to sell this feature to their advertisers. This is the only thing Google actually *does* sell if I'm not mistaken -- advertising. (sure they might make some money in other departments, but the bottom line is if they didn't advertise, they wouldn't be a household name). There's three things I see are inherently evil about Google pushing this feature like they are:

1) They're directly tying the success (i.e. bonuses) of every individual to the success of one product regardless of whether the product is good or bad.

It's actions like this that make employees realize they're part of a profit-driven enterprise, and not an idea-driven enterprise (of which I used to attribute Google). Most profit-driven enterprises couldn't care whether they sell a goodproduct, as long as it sells. (See Microsoft)

2) They've made a business model around producing 'non-biased' results, and now they're inducing an intentional bias on the results.

Admittedly, they're improving the quality of their results (until the script kiddies and dubious SEOites latch onto a process to induce their bias into the mix, at which point Google's bogging themselves down in micromanaging the results).

3) They're hoping (and probably rightfully so) that the public doesn't mind Google retaining the information necessary to identify each +1.
Personally, I have come to realize that I don't generally like or appreciate businesses taking advantage of my personal information; still, Google is intelligent enough to realize that selling advertising is more profitable than selling this info to someone else. In short, Google's not evil, cause they're smart enough to profit just by playing the game. Everyone else *is* evil because they saw a hack and are exploiting it, and aren't smart enough to figure out how to actually benefit from it.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Schadrach]

Bonuses where I work are actually introduced as a sort of "market adjustment" -- our bonuses are calculated quarterly as a percentage of the profits of the company divided out per man hour across all employees, including salaried employees (who still punch the clock for purposes of calculating their bonus) but excluding upper management. Upper management does not receive a bonus. It's routinely on the order of $3-5/hour, unless we've had an exceptionally good or bad quarter.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[N1AK]

One small part of google's portfolio determines 25% of an employees bonus. I know if I was on a team with something successful like gmail or the search engine, or android that I would be pretty pissed that a quarter of my bonus doesn't rely on my personal achievements.

Google search is the mechanism via which +1 works, if you were on the search team and didn't see how you were in a position to assist then you probably won't earn the full bonus. Guess what, android is a platform for google tools (inc search). Making +1 easier to use and more attractive to users on phones could help. Sometimes, especially outside of base-level roles, your achievement can't be measured purely on individually controlled tasks. Assisting others in your team, creating processes that improve future performance, work as part of cross-departmental teams etc are all valueable contributions.

Do I think 25% bonus for +1 is 'fair' for a hardware architect? No. Do I think Google knows that adding social information to their search results will provide a 'stickier' (one people are less likely to give up) and 'better' (one people will rate more highly) search experience? Yes, and I think they know that they need to get good at this fast. Perhaps it's not for everyone, but I think the vast majority of people will find it brilliant if they search for "Indian, Manchester" and two results their contacts rate highly are highlighted in the result etc.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Hazel Bergeron]

Which is arguably still irrational because an organisation's mission rarely aligns with the short term profit goals of employees/management. Optimum behaviour would be to strip the company and sell off its assets, or as close as possible to that as constraints will allow.

(Hence, again, many recent examples of corporate and public sector plundering.)

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Rie Beam]

Actually, if done right, this might be an interesting exercise in management. Make everyone's bonuses directly correlate to the quality of work of other parts of the business. Make it so that everyone's bonus is dependent on everyone else's work, in various branches, and just sit back and watch everything self-organize...or burn to the ground. Either way, you'd still have your golden parachute...

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[delinear]

I'm not even convinced that this is real - from TFA:

"So much so that, according to Business Insider's Nicholas Carlson, Page last Friday distributed a memo to all employees informing them that 25 percent of their annual bonus in 2011 will depend on the success of Google's social media efforts."

Given that last Friday was April 1st, it seems an odd time to release an announcement that 25% of your bonus will be tied to some trendy new search feature if it's not a joke. Having said that, FB is arguably Google's biggest threat right now so it wouldn't be that unreasonable for them to predict that the social aspects of search are going to be increasingly important in the near future.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[tophermeyer]

But bonuses are never guaranteed. The reason that bonuses exist in the first place is to offer incentive for employees to get behind whatever initiative the company has in a given quarter and is not part of their base salary.

Google could just as easily take away bonuses from the other teams altogether.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[tophermeyer]

You are correct sir.

This strikes me as a really really good way of getting everyone on board with +1 and working to integrate it seamlessly into Google's other services. It dawns on me that this is something that Google already does pretty well. They definitely take a systems approach to deploying new products.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[hey!]

The summary posted here at Slashdot invites us to infer more than the memo in TFA says. It seems to imply that Google employees won't get any annual bonus unless the "+1 Button" feature is a success. What the memo says is is that 1/4 of the bonus will be tied to Google's success in its social media efforts *as a whole*.

You get paid for doing your job. Bonuses are something different. I have doubts about the effectiveness of bonuses, particularly for engineers, but if they do have a function it is to get you thinking, not just about the task at hand, but how it might be tweaked to contribute to the overall success of the company. In a company like Google where engineers have considerable scope for creativity, a bonus policy like this might have some positive effect.

As for "social media" being crap, this attitude is *precisely* why managers contemplate steps like this. Just because you have good, even unassailable reasons to believe social media is crap doesn't mean it's an unimportant business. It doesn't matter what *you* think or how justified you are when your customers think differently. Google has to consider Facebook as a key competitor. Facebook has moved into product niches that are important to Google. There's advertising, for one. Everyone one uses Google search, but nobody spends the kind of time many people do on Facebook. Facebook is well positioned to move into other areas such as email and cloud services.

What is really a mystery is why Google chose to pull the plug on Wave. It was poorly marketed, that is true, but it was an unique take on social media: actually using it for *doing* things. The one thing Facebook is *not* positioned to do is launch services that people can readily see require *trust*.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Infernal Device]

I'm reminded of the company who offered bonuses to the QA team for every bug found in their code. Suddenly, bugs were being found on a regular basis.

Then someone realized that programmers were getting kickbacks.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[bberens]

The point really lies in the fact that if Google can be a big hit in the social media market it will make not only a lot of money in its social media arm, but its other marketing products can be that much more knowledgeable about the users it serves ads to. That has the potential to make a LOT of money for Google. Also, each Googler is free to spend 20% of their time working on whatever they want, so they could all theoretically pitch in on this project.

Furthermore, at my company a portion of my bonus is based on the entire IT division in my company making budget. Since I'm not a manager who is in control of even the budget for my group I have 0 hope to have any meaningful impact on that portion of my bonus. That's just the way life goes.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[bberens]

Does anyone really work for a company where they have a lot of influence on their bonuses? I've NEVER worked at a company whose bonus structure was based primarily on something I had control over. At best my bonus has been tied to the effectiveness of sales staff. At worst it's making budgets that I, as non-manager, have zero control over.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[hoggoth]

Google social does poorly. Programmer "responsible" finds himself frequently 1) stuffed in a locker, 2) dangled over a toilet and given a "swirly", 3) tripped in the lunchroom, 4) generally ostracized at company gatherings.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[SecurityGuy]

Not overreacting at all. This is a poor implementation of a good idea. It's well known that to be effective bonuses have to be valluable to the employee (I won't work harder for a bottle of bubble bath), credible (if I accomplish something extraordinary for you, you'll actually follow through and give me the reward) and attainable (this thing you want me to do is actually something I -can- do).

They get 3/3 for everyone working on the project. 2/3 for everyone not.

I've been in that position myself, where there was a bonus if we reached certain metrics, like customer satisfaction. Problem? A large fraction of the company was research (me) and never, and I do mean never, dealt with customers. Giving me a bonus because the customer facing side did a good job is a waste of money.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Name a successful and active billionaire who isn't an egomaniac. There are certain levels in the game of life where you don't keep succeeding without extra ordinary efforts. I cannot think of a single successful Silicon Valley startup where they didn't expect 12 hour days at a minimum.

But if you find the lazyboy reclining, unmotivated, cheetos eating, and brilliantly successful CEO/Corp, you let us know so we can unlock the best kept secret of all ages. Jobs? No. Gates? No. Richard Branson? No. Page? No. Kevin Rose? No. Larry Elison? No. Buffet? No.

As they say, don't hate the player, hate the game.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[GooberToo]

Where is the problem with tying part of an employees bonus to the company's success?

None! But that's not what they did! They tied bonuses to a single product, not the successful of the company. One makes sense. The other is typically a power trip with cause to prevent paying out bonuses with the understanding the specific product isn't anywhere as ideal as they outwardly present.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[alostpacket]

Actually bonuses haven't been shown to be all that effective. That well known good idea is a well known fallacy:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[sexconker]

But bonuses are never guaranteed. The reason that bonuses exist in the first place is to offer incentive for employees to get behind whatever initiative the company has in a given quarter and is not part of their base salary.

Google could just as easily take away bonuses from the other teams altogether.

Bonuses are guaranteed when you're a fat cat in the financial sector being bailed out by the taxpayers to the tune of trillions of dollars.
Bonuses are not guaranteed when you're in the education sector and NOT getting bailed out to the tune of mere millions.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[sexconker]

Actually bonuses haven't been shown to be all that effective. That well known good idea is a well known fallacy:

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

I agreed with you until you trotted out a ted talk.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[sexconker]

Bonuses where I work are actually introduced as a sort of "market adjustment" -- our bonuses are calculated quarterly as a percentage of the profits of the company divided out per man hour across all employees, including salaried employees (who still punch the clock for purposes of calculating their bonus) but excluding upper management. Upper management does not receive a bonus. It's routinely on the order of $3-5/hour, unless we've had an exceptionally good or bad quarter.

That's not a bonus.
That's profit sharing.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[gander666]

Welcome to the real world. For the better part of a decade, my bonus was decimated even though my product/BU over performed, but that one of our sister BU's sucked hind tit. I got tired of my 20% variable comp being 0% because a money loser group never got their shit together.

Sadly, this is the new normal. At least at my new job, I have NO bonus, so regardless of how well I do, or don't do, I get the same.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[davester666]

Well, I'll bet all those people are happier than if the bonuses were tied to say, Buzz or Wave...

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[lgw]

A bonus is whatever it wants to be.

Having employee comp tied to the success of the overall business is generally a good plan: if pay automatically falls in hard times, you can lay off fewer people.

The key is to seek jobs where your bonus and the CEOs bonus get exactly the same multiplier - so all the cheating is in your favor. Avoid jobs where the CEO can get a larger bonus by finding a way to screw you on your bonus, because he will.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[JustSomeProgrammer]

but only if they work on it on their own time because their normal project work isn't going to change. I've had this type of thing before. It always sucks.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[tophermeyer]

Fortunate then that at least a Google they have some portion of their time dedicated to their own projects. I imagine it's a LOT more difficult at places that don't make similar allowances.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Darinbob]

Except this is nothing new. Companies quite often give bonus objectives that you have little chance of influencing. Ie, you're working on product A and the company wants to tie bonuses to the success of product B. Or the goals are based on how many new sales are achieved, even if you have no direct control over the process.

The thinking I suspect is that there may be some very indirect ways to help the goals. Ie, the janitors help out customer satisfaction by making a nicer working environment for developers so that they enjoy their jobs more, they then create products with fewer bugs and procrastinate less on maintenance, etc.

Bonuses are rarely big enough though to really affect anyone below the executive level. It's just an HR exercise to try and discourage subjectivity and have a more objective (if sometimes illogical) metrics system for employee compensation.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[thetoadwarrior]

Some people feel they're owed a bonus. They don't understand the concept of a bonus and that's why these people don't deserve a bonus.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[thetoadwarrior]

Awww boo hoo, go fuck off to Bing if it's that hard to avoid a feature on Google that isn't obtrusive.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[Mr. Foogle]

As far as I can tell, this is tying the bonuses of everyone at Google to the efforts of the few people at Google involved in social media crap

Isn't this the way it works for most people?

I work in IT in manufacturing. Our bonus monies are tied to how well the company does, which in turn depends on a whole lot of things, all of them out of my control: marketing, the economy, the bond market and, ultimately, how well the guys in manufacturing are slapping together widgets today.

Re:Wait what? Bonuses depending on results?

[SecurityGuy]

I actually like TED and Dan Pink quite a bit, but all these studies share a common fault.

They don't reflect the real work world at all. The real work world is not a series of a couple minute puzzles for trivial money. I will grant results like those are interesting, but it's imperative to test them against the real circumstances we're dealing with.

Personally, I am motivated by rewards. I do work harder when I know there's a carrot (a raise, a real shot at a promotion, interesting or challenging work). I also know when those things are clearly not available, I redirect my efforts to places I will get a reward.

He totally missed on Encarta vs Wikipedia. "Well compensated managers" is the norm. Well compensated based on results, or just well compensated? I suspect the latter.

Re:Rating search results

[Seumas]

If a result is that good, I'm just going to add it to my pinboard.in account. I couldn't care less about clicking on a button to help people I don't even know when they search for something in the future.

Re:Rating search results

[Svippy]

Sounds like someone doesn't want Google employees to get their bonuses. And by 'someone', I mean everyone.

So long as its a group thing

[JR0cket]

If everyone at Google is incentivised to push successful features out, then perhaps it will help keep them focused on projects that deliver real value to their customers. Lets hope this is not taken too far and starts to stifle innovation at Google though. Thank you

Re:So long as its a group thing

[Anonymous Coward]

So they know what features are successful before they're out?

Re:So long as its a group thing

[mcvos]

Yes, because management decided so.

Welcome to business.

[0100010001010011]

This is how my company, and I imagine many others, do bonuses. They're not givens.

Every year HQ releases the metric/equation for our bonus. Sometimes it's company wide. Sometimes it's division wide.

For example: (Round numbers, not real)
No one gets a bonus unless we hit a $0.50 dividend.
After that. For every $0.01 above $.50, we get that much as a 'multiplier'.

So as a salary grade 10. I get 10% of my annual salary as my bonus. Multiplied by the multiplier. I earn $50,000 year. We hit $1.20 dividend. That means I get 50k*.10*1.20 = $6000 bonus.

It's not like the +1 button is their entire metric, but I'm sure it plays a role. Unless +1 hits 10% of market usage AND some other things happen, then the bonuses are given.

Re:Welcome to business.

[karnal]

Actually, wouldn't that be 50k*.10*.7 = 3500? (Given you get .01% for every cent OVER 50 cents?)

I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Mouldy]

"...every Google employee..." -- Really?

If the projects I was working on at Google had absolutely nothing at all to do with +1, I'd be pretty pissed if my bonus was riding on whether or not somebody else's project did well.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[mcvos]

I think this is Google's way of saying that everybody is now working on this. Figure out how to make it relevant to what you are doing.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Hazel Bergeron]

Sounds like a pathological reimplementation of Apple's "steer your cadre of elite engineers to one thing" approach.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I think this is Google's way of saying that everybody is now working on this. Figure out how to make it relevant to what you are doing.

And by "working on this" they mean "wildly clicking on every +1 link they see".

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[pmontra]

Some (most?) of the people working there know they are not working on this +1 thing. Maybe they can make it somewhat relevant to their job, maybe not. I don't want to make guesses about Google's case but that very thing happened to me in a company I was working for years ago. The bonuses were linked to 3 or 4 goals that made sense for the long term success of the company but that were under the control of very different subsets of the employees. One of them could be somewhat linked to what I was doing but there was no chance I could help at achieving the other ones. It was demotivational and it didn't benefit our appreciation of the management and of the company. Furthermore, if one of those goals looks difficult to achieve employees get the impression that is a way for the company to save money at the end of the year. That's also very demotivational.

By the way, everybody understands what a Like is but with +1... I'm adding 1 unit of what? They could have reused the thumbs up and down of youtube or copied the rating system of Slashdot. I'm looking forward to a -5 Spamindexing, on a scale from -5 to -1.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[thegarbz]

Small scale thinking. Bonuses should depend on a how well a company does. If you exceed expectations you get a bonus. If anything this is an indication of the direction that Google wishes to head. It is clear they are not content with being a search king or a mobile king. The CEO has just defined success as breaking into social networks, and the employees will be rewarded if the company is successful.

It's the same everywhere. Where I work our bonuses currently ride on no lost time injuries. We have a big problem with safety on site currently. But WTF do I have to do with lost time injuries? I work in an office in front of a computer! But yet when I'm walking around I tend to take notice of things, manhole covers not closed properly, fence railings in disrepair. Now that I have a stake in injuries I report things that are wrong. The system works, sometimes.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[O( inf)]

Figure out how to make it relevant to what you are doing.

Let me guess, you're an MBA.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[he-sk]

They could have ... copied the rating system of Slashdot.

Are you serious? Slashdot has the worst rating system ever devised on the internet. The "word" choices are extremely limited. Good mod options outweigh the bad mod options. You can only rate when Slashcode allows you to. You cannot rate and comment in the same article. You cannot rate a comment if it's already maxed out.

Did I miss anything?

Anyway, if you strip away the stupid descriptions, the upmods are reduced to a simple "+1".

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Seumas]

I think they already realized that it's going to fail, so tying bonuses to a metric that they're certain won't succeed is a way to avoid paying bonuses.

Okay, I think we can assume that's not true. But it's conspiratorial and this is Slashdot, so . . .

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[delinear]

You're right that it's often demotional but is a pretty standard operating procedure. A lot of companies have bonus schemes related to sales or profits which don't make sense for a reasonable subset of employees. If you're working in the IT department you might have gone way above and beyond the call of duty keeping everything up and running through some particular crisis and, just because some people in some other department failed to sell X items, you don't get a bonus. For many companies it still makes sense because, if you fail to sell X number of items, you might not be able to afford to pay a bonus to your employees, but it really is incredibly demoralising when you have put in some real effort and lose out through no fault of your own. Companies would gain more goodwill by just treating their employees with a little more respect the whole time not just tying that to an annual monetary goal that can be missed.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Raenex]

Slashdot has the worst rating system ever devised on the internet.

It's actually one of the better ones.

The "word" choices are extremely limited.

The only category I really care about is "funny", because those I subtract 6 from.

You can only rate when Slashcode allows you to.

Look at sites like Reddit, where anybody can thumbs up or down on any comment. It's completely groupthink, and you don't get well stated, insightful, differing opinions both being modded up. There's also the problem of sockpuppet accounts and rigging to the voting.

I do wish Slashdot was more liberal in it's vote allocation. Something like allowing 3 mod points per day for any established user would be nice. I'd also like for a downvote to cost 3 mod points, to help reduce groupthink.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[hoggoth]

1. Calculate potential middle-management bonus based on +1 clicks.
2. Hire mechanical turks in third world countries to click on +1 clicks.
3. Profit.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Jeng]

"Good mod options outweigh the bad mod options"

There is no "this is just plain wrong" option for a reason, because you need to post and explain why it is wrong. If you can't reply and state why it is wrong, then don't mod it.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[bigstrat2003]

Which is in turn a stupid policy set by management who is apparently too ignorant to understand that simply because project A is their baby, doesn't mean that all projects are suddenly related to it.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[he-sk]

The only category I really care about is "funny", because those I subtract 6 from.

That's interesting, because I mainly read the Slashdot discussions for comic relief. To each his own, I guess.

Look at sites like Reddit, where anybody can thumbs up or down on any comment. It's completely groupthink, and you don't get well stated, insightful, differing opinions both being modded up. There's also the problem of sockpuppet accounts and rigging to the voting.

I don't know about Reddit, but I find the top comments on Youtube are usually worth it. They also use thumbs up/down. And I don't care about sockpuppets or vote-rigging in that context.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[he-sk]

The problem is that you can't post and mod. That alone encourages downmodding, because you can't upmod a post in one thread and then reply with your criticism in another. Stupid.

Oh, I forgot: Overrated and Underrated. Their meaning is completely ambiguous and Underrated is basically a stand-in for "I don't like what you said."

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Raenex]

YouTube shows the top two comments. Yeah, those top two are often informative, but YouTube comments don't come anywhere close to a serious discussion site.

What's cool about Slashdot is that when I browse at 3 or above, I'll usually get some nice back and forth views on the current topic. On sites like YouTube or Reddit, even if somebody has a good argument they'll get modded to oblivion (and sometimes even marked as spam).

Of course, if all you want is comic relief or to read the prevailing groupthink, then the above doesn't matter to you.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[tomhudson]

No, it's more like:

1. Calculate potential middle-management bonus based on +1 clicks.
2. Write a bot to click on +1 clicks.
3. Profit.

This will be just one more opportunity for spammers to try to get their stuff in your face.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Jeng]

"The problem is that you can't post and mod. That alone encourages downmodding, because you can't upmod a post in one thread and then reply with your criticism in another."

I'm sorry, you are not making sense, so rather than mod you down I am replying to you.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Jeng]

"Something like allowing 3 mod points per day for any established user would be nice. I'd also like for a downvote to cost 3 mod points, to help reduce groupthink."

Not sure about you but I get mod points at 15 points a whack, sometimes twice a week.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[n7ytd]

This. The last place I worked had a bonus structure tied at three levels: personal, departmental, and company-wide. It wasn't 33.3% at each level, but the idea was to tie the company's overall performance to your piece of the pie.

At my current company, the structure is: "Bonus? Work is its own reward, heathen!"

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Raenex]

Not sure about you but I get mod points at 15 points a whack, sometimes twice a week.

This is entirely the problem, it varies extremely. Some users never get mod points. Some users get them all the time and far too many of them. Lately I've been getting 5 mod points now and then. I've had 10 and occasionally 15 before.

There's just no consistency. It'd be nice if every established user got 3 every day that expired that day. I hate it when I don't feel like moderating and have mod points, and vice versa. I hate the enormous inequity in the system.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[NoSig]

The idea is to get you pissed at the +1 people in particular if they don't perform. It's collective punishment of the whole company to pressure the +1 group.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[he-sk]

Read the FAQ.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[Jeng]

"Read the FAQ"

I have, it's quite a good read actually. It's nice that they included why the moderation system is as it is and what was attempted before.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[thegarbz]

"Bonus? Work is its own reward, heathen!"

Expect to be rewarded twice as much next year!

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[thegarbz]

Why do you tie "How well the company does" to "quarterly profits" straight away. This is a clear cut case where bonuses are tied to long term strategy. If the company does well with the +1 feature then it's a step into social networking and a platform for future expansion in the area.

Re:I wouldn't want to be working there now

[thegarbz]

This is a failure of the chain of management. Each person's goals in the chain should be tied directly to the person above them. An example (pulled out of my arse) say an industrial plant has a problem with leaks. The plant manager's goal is to reduce the frequency of leaks. The maintenance manager's goals are therefore to reduce the backlog of maintenance, and increase the relevance of maintenance, and the maintenance staff therefore get the mission to complete their jobs more effectively and efficiently though better processes etc. Bonuses can be tied to each of these objectives to meet the company goals with incentives for better management.

This is a somewhat idealistic scenario though. I agree many companies seem to get this wrong where a plant manager may have a goal of reducing leaks, while the maintenance manager below them has a goal of reducing cost. I've actually seen this a lot and it would match your scenario of people working their asses off for nothing because goals aren't aligned.

The only thing that can fix this problem is getting rid of protection and golden parachutes for managers who can't fucking manage.

Re:Rating search results

[bjourne]

No they aren't. But internet marketers and other seo-people will to try and push their sites to the top. Then they will also try and enlist ordinary users help by placing +1 buttons on their pages and some will even go so far as to incentivise users for clicking on the buttons. Or having stupid interstitial pages with +1 buttons on them that users have to click to get to the real content.

Re:Rating search results

[mcvos]

I'm more interested in a -1 rating. It sucks when my search results are filled with useless crap, copies of the same question without an answer, malware sites, etc. I'd love to rate those down.

It's like betting for a craps dealer

[DNS-and-BIND]

I like playing craps, whenever I'm in a jurisdiction that allows gambling. It's a very social game, and you don't need to bet a lot of money to have several hours of fun at almost fair odds (and get free drinks, the real secret to being a low, low, low roller). One thing I frequently saw was players betting a large amount, and then throwing in a dollar or two "for the dealer to play along". I never really thought much of it until I read some forum while in search of the elusive $2 pass line bet + 10x odds instead of the crappy $10 pass line bet + 4/5/6 odds offered by most Strip casinos. The craps dealers on the forum hated when players would make them "play along". Why? Because the player had already decided to spend the money to tip the dealers, and now the player is gambling with their money. This Google thing strikes me as the same thing - some high roller thinks it's a great idea and a lot of fun without ever actually asking the beneficiary if it's what they want. Scratch that, without even thinking to ask the beneficiary if it's what they want.

Re:It's like betting for a craps dealer

[heathen_01]

Why? Because the player had already decided to spend the money to tip the dealers, and now the player is gambling with their money.

I disagree, you're offering money with a condition attached. The dealers (& employees) could always refuse the money if they don't like the conditions.

Car analogy: You're offered a loan for a car and then complain that you have to spend the money on a car.

Re:It's like betting for a craps dealer

[Anomalyst]

another craps afficianado here (check crapsfest.com and/or diceinstitute.com for others of us. I personally feel its good form to (when I remember) put a dollar down on top of my passline bet offset to one-side of my chip(s) when I get the dice on and loudly announce "dealers on the line! Player controlled.". The announcement serves to a) ensure the boxcritter knows that a dealer bet is on the table. b) to hopefully encourage other players to do the same (not as successful a strategy as I would hope). The player control (indicated by the top+offset placement) allows me to tell the dealer to "pay yourself and keep yourself up" to allow them to participate in any streak. or parley it, if I am really hot. Otherwise (with the dealer bet placed beside your bet) they sweep it into the toke box on a win, of course the house gets it on a come-out craps or seven-out. If I am not "on", I will hand in a tokes. A good rule of thumb, regardless of whether you hand it in ("one for the boys") or make a bet on their behalf, do it during the play. Doing it when you leave is nice, but now you've left the table, it wont get you any leverage. It's no guarantee, but a consistent toke can sometimes get you some slack on tn those questionable rolls. With one die leaning against a chip stack. If the dealers are on the line and they have a choice of calling it a seven-out or not, what do you think will most probably happen.
See you at the table!

Re:It's like betting for a craps dealer

[SPrintF]

Thank you. That was a very interesting post about craps. While I'm not a gambler myself, I find gambling stories fascinating.

just stick to being Google

[hardtofindanick]

Many social experiments Google ran have failed -buzz and wave comes to mind first- and yet they still keep pushing. People don't go to Google for interacting. Google means business, Facebook and Twitter do not.

This also reminds me of Microsoft's efforts to force themselves into others' more lucrative turfs and looking pathetic in the process. Google should just stick to being Google instead of immitating others.

They are also doing the bonus adjustments wrong. It should be the other way around: If successful extra +25%, otherwise, regular bonus. After all success means (apparently for them) entrance to another market.

Re:just stick to being Google

[An Anonymous Coward]

Many social experiments Google ran have failed -buzz and wave comes to mind first- and yet they still keep pushing. People don't go to Google for interacting. Google means business, Facebook and Twitter do not.

This also reminds me of Microsoft's efforts to force themselves into others' more lucrative turfs and looking pathetic in the process.

You mean like when Microsoft pushed into consoles? I'll grant you the original Xbox wasn't that strong, but you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer that doesn't have an Xbox 360. Maybe Microsoft isn't as pathetic as you think.

Google should just stick to being Google instead of immitating others.

If Google just sticks to what they're doing, they'll just stagnate and ultimately fall behind. Trying to enter other markets is how these companies grow themselves. Sure there's going to be failures, but you can't have success if you're not even trying.

They are also doing the bonus adjustments wrong. It should be the other way around: If successful extra +25%, otherwise, regular bonus. After all success means (apparently for them) entrance to another market.

Ok, what exactly does the word "bonus" mean to you? If it was just a given that you were going to get a bonus, why not just include it in the regular salary? While I'll grant you that a bonus should be tied directly into the success of the product you're working on, I don't know what Google's internal structure is like. It's possible that everyone actually does have some stake in the success of the +1 feature.

Re:just stick to being Google

[omnichad]

I don't remember exactly how, but I'm pretty sure that Google knows my Twitter handle and who I'm friends with on Facebook. They collect a lot of data. Remember, at worst this is crowdsourced info like Wikipedia, except with only algorithms - not editors - to filter out the bad posts. People in your social circle are weighted higher. If you use gmail, then they have all your contacts and know if any of those are google accounts. I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out, but I can still see the possibility of paid clicks much like paid Twitter "get me 1,000 followers" services.

Re:just stick to being Google

[Tintivilus]

Ok, what exactly does the word "bonus" mean to you? If it was just a given that you were going to get a bonus, why not just include it in the regular salary?

Bonuses in the US are "incentive pay". They're an aware based on success, and most companies define success as meeting their goals, so it's perfectly logical for a company to say to have a baseline bonus policy in addition to salary, and modify that bonus up or down for exceeding or falling short of the stated goals. It's both the carrot and the stick.

Re:Rating search results

[ludwigf]

I'm more interested in a -1 rating. It sucks when my search results are filled with useless crap, copies of the same question without an answer, malware sites, etc. I'd love to rate those down.

I would like a -1 as well. The number of +1 is not as meaningful as the ratio of negative/positive votes. They should have just reused the known thumbs used on youtube. For complains about useless crap there are other channels though:

For maleware and spam pages there is google's spam reporting page and if you're using chrome there is a plugin by google that adds a "report as spam" shortcut to any search result. As the plugin is trivial I am positive something similar exists for other brothers.

Also there is the feedback link on every search page and the option to hide domains that bug you most (see here).

I'm not sure Google get it this time either

[Jugalator]

I'm kind of surprised how Google has kept failing when trying to become a social network. You'd think they'd have everything. The by far largest search engine to market their network on, a crapload of Google accounts already, and most importantly - lots of smart people that are used to designing stuff for the web.

And yet, I'm not sure they get it this time either. I think Ars Technica put it best so far:

Given the size of the Internet, limiting the crowd that is able to sort through it for you to your circle of friends doesn't seem like the best solution. In the same vein, the assumption that Google users only have contacts whose opinion they respect may be a little off-base. The service could prove useful if you have a cadre of impeccably tasteful friends, but we hope this isn't meant to be the magic bullet for Google's increasingly SEO-burdened results.

Re:I'm not sure Google get it this time either

[Quince alPillan]

I think you're making the assumption that a lot of people go to Google for anything other than searching. Sure, a lot of people use Gmail or their other services, but a lot of other people don't for whatever reason. If you're not a part of the Google ecosystem, and only use Google because of what they do best - search - all of their attempts at social networking look like "me too" shoved in your face that you really may not want.

Re:Rating search results

[dkf]

For maleware and spam pages

I used to get a lot of spam about wares for males. Especially dodgy "pharmaceuticals".

Dont Like or -1 button?

[polyp2000]

Where are the "Dont Like" or "-1" buttons ?

I totally understand why such a thing is not prevalent. Surely - in terms of data mining peoples tastes and interests a "Dont Like" button would be very useful too.

Suppose some company catches on that I am interested in computers - I dont neccessarily want them sending me info about Windows or OSX so i might want to be able to know that I "Dont Like" those topics.

Also , a friend of mine on FB the other day posted an item about a crime that had been committed in his neighbourhood and people were "Liking" it. That doesnt work in my mind. Someone gets stabbed and people "Like" it ? whats the world coming too ?

Nick

Re:Dont Like or -1 button?

[pmontra]

I bet that it's a misunderstanding. If liking or thumbs up are the only ways to express appreciation for reporting the crime, people will use them even if they might be misunderstood as liking the crime itself. Unfortunately FB doesn't have a "Thank you for reporting" button. That's what Infomative is about here on /.

Re:Dont Like or -1 button?

[kill-1]

What we need is an antisocial network where you don't have friends but enemies and can only dislike things.

Re:Dont Like or -1 button?

[omnichad]

I thought they already had an experimental feature like that - each result has an X on it and you can click that X to keep it from ever showing up in your own search results again. Pretty harsh, yes - that will probably be aggregated against the +1's at some point.

Re:Dont Like or -1 button?

[SomePgmr]

Entirely accurate interpretation, I'd say. Also, a "don't like" button has all kinds of problems of interpretation in and of itself. Simply put, negative tagging is trickier.

"Do you dislike that I posted this to facebook, or what I posted, or what it's about, or... what?"

Where one positive option keeps things relatively simple. It covers everything: "I saw and acknowledge this post", "I'm pleased with the content" to "I also am a fan", "Like that you gave us a heads-up", "this was funny", etc. None of these are dangerous, because everyone assumes whatever is most appropriate with a vague, positive tag.

Smells like panic

[Paradise Pete]

This is not a good way to conduct a business. It has the odor of panic to it, and it's a good way to drive away your best people. It's almost like a multi-level marketing scheme - "Sign up enough of your friends and relatives and you'll get a big bonus! Surely everyone knows at least ten people they can sign up! If you sign up ten and they each sign up ten and each of those signs up ten and it'll be coming in so fast you won't even have time count your money!"

And what's really bad is that even when Google eventually retracts the memo (which they are certain to do), they still can't "unsay" it. the taint of it will linger, and CVs are already getting dusted off.

Didn't this video say that $$ is not a motivation?

[rolfwind]

At least, once financial well-being is established?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Instead, it's supposed to be independence, recognition, and other such things?

Pyramid Marketing + Cult = Google

[RobotRunAmok]

...turning your friends into business opportunities, the same socially damaging outcome to hit every pyramid marketing scheme and cult member.

This is Google's sweet spot. Surprised they haven't hit on this earlier.

Purpose?

[Rie Beam]

So Google, with its pretty sweet database of what people are searching for all over the Internet, feels the need to inject bias and conflicting opinions into the matter?

Part of Google's success was -removing- the personal opinions of those doing the searching, favoring what they ultimately searched for over what they felt was good. This gives much crisper results than simply asking people, "So, what do you like?", since for some unusual reason, people always seem to like glitchy porn sites and random advertisement-filled linkholes.

Deja Vu

[billstclair]

Reminds me of a certain fruit-logo company, who hired a soft-drink marketer as CEO in the nineties. He tied employee profit sharing to market share, instead of, well, profits. Nearly ran the company into the ground. Until the wunderkind who made the mistake of enticing the soft-drink marketer returned and realized that no matter your market share, if you're profitable, you get to stay in business.

been through this, all your morale are us

[jsprenkle]

When it fails the employees will start finger pointing at other employees. Great way to destroy your company. Bad idea.

-1

[w0mprat]

Also reads as if your staff don't succeed with this they will be denied money. It's just not worded like that.

Re:word choices limited

[TaoPhoenix]

+1 Archaeopteryx.

Re:Rating search results

[19061969]

+1 on your +1 to the -1. If we could get rid of all the crap from all the crappy websites with crappy business plans, the world would be a better place (probably even for the owners of the crappy sites).

Great idea!

[Jane Q. Public]

And next year I'll tie my employees' benefits to how often I get oral sex.

Why not? It's logically tied to most of my employees' jobs just as much as most of Google's employees' jobs are tied to the +1.

Bonuses?

[crashumbc]

Must be nice, most companies don't give bonuses. i got one about for years ago ( a 50 dollar "gas" card) whoopie...

Who cares how their determining how they give them, at least their giving them...

 

Google social networking efforts doomed to fail

[Elfez]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Until Google stop insisting on users of their social networking products also use gmail for email those products are going nowhere.

Very few people are going to be willing to switch their primary mail account or go through the hassle of redirecting/checking mail in gmail as a secondary account. This is probably doubly true when said products are deeply average.

Re:Google social networking efforts doomed to fail

[omnichad]

Have you not ever created a Google account without creating a Gmail account? They've allowed this for YEARS. You can create a Google Account with any email address. Even Google Voice and Google Talk work without Gmail, despite all their integration features.

Re:Rating search results

[omnichad]

Don't forget that Google also knows your social circle if you've given them enough info. They'll certainly weight +1 by your friends and the people you follow on Twitter at a higher level than evil +1's. I was about to say that this is more a crowd-sourcing feature than a social feature, but this is really the thing that makes it more a social thing.

Re:I can guess what will happen

[omnichad]

You have to be logged in to +1 something.

Re:word choices limited

[hoggoth]

+1 cromulent

Re:social networks

[TapeCutter]

1984 appears to be happening right now

Nah, it's not 1984 until someone ties a rat to your face.

Mandatory Wally comment

[lwriemen]

"I'm gonna write me a new minivan this afternoon!" (self-clicking +1 button)
Of course, the +1 button is just a side-note to the larger social-networking goal, but management mandates of intellectual property are always doomed to produce poor results. If a person or group of people within Google could produce the next Facebook, why would they give it to Google?

social media

[aahpandasrun]

There's nothing wrong with social media. Google is just completely doing it wrong. They're trying to re-create what other sites already have in place instead of doing something new and innovative. Google should already get the hint that people don't want to create google profiles and re-friend each other after what happened with buzz. Adding a +1 button to recommend cool sites to friends won't want to make people buy into google's social network. People are fine with using facebook and twitter for that. Also, haven't sites like stumble upon and delicious been doing this for years? Does anyone have any common sense at google these days?

Re:Rating search results

[sexconker]

This is just like the page rank buttons via the old Google toolbar.
They took it away because users weren't using it, and advertisers/SEOs were.

+1 will be the same.

Google's result quality will continue to spiral downward.

Aim higher

[micahjc]

They should aim for +11!

Re:I can guess what will happen

[uniquename72]

So they'd need an email account or 2, then? Something tells me the average Google employee could figure out how to get around that (admittedly tall) obstacle.

"dubious SEOites"

[tomhudson]

dubious SEOites

The proper term is "SEOdomites," you ignorant clod :-p

If they don't also include a "-1" button, it's just as lame as FaceBork.

And if they *do* include a "-1" button, it's STILL just as lame. Imagine giving everyone mod points. Now make it so that SOEdomites have a financial interest in gaming this feature. Welcome to the reality of antisocial networks.

This guarantees spam

[Animats]

Well, now we know that "+1" isn't about search quality.

Most ad clicks come from a tiny percentage of users. 85% of ad clicks come from 8% of users. Worse, from an advertiser perspective, the heavy clickers don't buy much. Also, ad click-through dropped 50% from 2007 to 2011. Only losers click on ads now.

"+1" is likely to have similar demographics. If it's important to you for your friends to know that you like some product, you probably have no life. Or you're a spambot. As an approach to social networking, it seems rather lame. Wave and Buzz were at least original.

As someone who tracks search spam, I've been underwhelmed by Google in the last six months. The Google Places merge into web search last October, and the subsequent heavy spamming of recommendations, should have taught them that "social signals" are very easily spammed.

Levy's new book "In the Plex", about Google, just came out. I recommend it if you need to understand Google.

The success of all of Google *is* tied to +1

[ESarge]

Google and Facebook are in one big battle - and it's going to get worse.

They're both ad platforms and Facebook is competing very, very well with Google. Google's continued failure to get social networking going is an enormous strategic problem.

So, yes, tieing everybody's bonuses to this is appropriate.

That is why

[watergeus]

there is no -1 button.