Tips for Noogler Engineers (Noogler = New at Google) | Hacker News Reader

Tips for Noogler Engineers (Noogler = New at Google)

piaw.blogspot.com

182 pointsbtilly83 comments

I love the ending line:

> Finally, if you get fed up of working for a big company, consider joining a startup.

This one posting probably did more damage to google hiring from the HN ranks than all the others that I've seen to date. With friends like that who needs enemies.

To be fair, Piaw sells a book all about how to get a job at a startup (http://books.piaw.net/guide/index.html). The progression he describes in the article ("fed up working for a big company" -> startup) is probably his own as well.

I know several established engineers at Google. One recently invited me to tour the GooglePlex. My host did express some frustrations, but I don't believe that the blog post presents an unbiased view of life at Google.

Yes. However the poster is just describing, honestly, what life in the trenches at a big company is like. It shouldn't be a surprise that Google is this way now. Large organizations behave in certain ways because of human nature, and GOOG is no exception.

Actually I found myself thinking "that's not so bad..."

That must be the most depressing thing I read in quite a while.

Agreed... it's supposedly one of the few remaining companies that actually respect engineers, but this post pretty much comes out and says otherwise in bold, flashing letters.

"(Exception: War-room firefighting. Google loves those, and loves heroic performances from people in war-rooms)"

The whole "war room" concept in IT has always bothered me -- it's what managers do when they have a crisis that they don't know how to deal with. It's usually a crisis that they could have avoided if they'd actually done their own job in the first place. War rooms are also invariably where the worst of the developers end up -- at Disney the war room period was one of our most product weeks as a result. Of course, the folks who got rewarded were the ones in the war room, even though their primary contribution was to strut around in front of a bunch of executives while the rest of the team got project work done and the operations team had already figured out what went wrong.

Haha, yeah, where I work whenever there is a crisis, the "Tiger Team" swings into action.

No you're not tigers. You're a bunch of middle-aged middle-managers in a medium sized IT organization. No-one thinks you look like a helicopter pilot with your stupid Bluetooth headset. Grow the fuck up!

And said crisis is something that was probably caused by their poor decision making in the first place. Umm hello McFly, cutting 50% of the features to save 5% of the budget is not a bargain...

Keep in mind that management wants things that are good for Google. You care about what's good for you

This isn't true either. A manager wants what's good for his or her career 10x more than an engineer does. As I have said before, the only people who become managers are those who want to, which implies they want it more than doing engineering. If they convince you it's "for the good of the company" well that's just a tactic to get you to put their interest ahead of your own.

Not that companies don't need management. But don't get starry-eyed about it.

It doesn't seem that the post paints Google as being disrespectful to engineers. If it is unfriendly to engineers, then it is unfriendly to everyone.

Some points here:

The key point that starts off #1 is more or less a side effect of any company where you hire folks who have a need for stability in their life. The unpredictability that he refers to is little different than how startups need to pivot. The only difference is that at a big company, it's management's job to hide that from the masses, and there's a limit to how well that can be handled.

Now as startup folks, you may find this abhorrent, or as big-company peons, you may still find this abhorrent, but all the organizations I've seen, from 200-man high school volunteer clubs all the way up to multi-billion dollar corporations, all of them have to deal with this. It's just that a tiny startup where people feel like they're on the same boat and have the emotional fortitude to handle it, then it may be better to be direct and honest.

The no-interviews bit is mildly troubling, but every engineer who's thought about company culture has probably come to this question eventually: if it's not to one's own benefit to interview engineers, then doesn't it seem likely that interviews would devolve into intellectual hazing sessions?

Points #3 and #4 are typical at any company larger than about one or two hundred. My hypothesis is that once you have more than 3 layers of management, the folks at the top who've been there and know what they're doing can't help your direct manager when he needs it. And again, as I see it, this is little different from how startup folks have to go through the process of finding the right company, the right founding team, and so on. People want to go to a big company and think that it will suddenly all be magical but of course there is no shortcut for the biggest challenges in life.

Good points. I don't think interiews ever became hazing rituals. What happened instead was that a lot of folks got burned out on interviewing, and because interviewing was never taken seriously as a priority, interview training was outsourced to an outsider. That led to a number of travesties.

It also leads to bad interviewers.

Like the one I had for my Google phone interview earlier this year... when he asked me to code up a simple sorting implementation (an array with an empty slot, and you can't use extra memory) the FIRST thing I described was a swap method that took the two indexes to swap, as well as the index for the blank. (I also at that point mentioned saving the location of the index in order to avoid having to scan for it for every swap). Two minutes later when I said we would simply swap two items, he asked me how, and I ended up describing the swap function AGAIN. And he also didn't understand the part about remembering the location of the blank, he brought it up in the performance analysis -- even though I'd mentioned saving it in a class variable already, I had to explain it yet again.

I didn't get a call back and I didn't expect one, but I was sorely disappointed with the quality of the interviewer, so I can't say that not getting a call back was much of a disappointment after that.

Given Google's attitude towards perpetual betas, I'm curious if their "war rooms" are more to solve immediate problems (show-stopping bugs, security issues, etc) rather than attempts to "fix" late projects.

Google's attitude toward perpetual betas extends to perpetual war rooms. Almost every feature that you'd recognize from the last three years was developed in a war room. The visual redesign was a war room (well, war cubicle). Real-time search was a war room. The search options panel was a war room. SearchWiki was a war room. The bar across the top was a war room. Pac Man wasn't a war room, but almost all the folks involved were in war rooms and avoiding the war at the time.

Basically, it's just putting all the developers involved on a project in a room together and giving them a clear goal (launching). Other firms might call this "Agile" or even just "development". Heck, still others would call this a "startup".

"We've always been at war with Eurasia..."

What's a war room? Google, ironically, was of no help.

Google's results are fairly decent if you give it a little disambiguation help, though there's still a lot of room for improvement:

http://www.google.com/search?q=war+room+software+development

From the Joel-on-Software thread:

http://www.ns.umich.edu/Releases/2000/Dec00/r120600a.html

Thanks!

Get everyone who's working on a big problem together in one room.

It raises the question: if this works, why not do it all the time?

...which is basically what Google (and several other software companies) does. That's why I say that some people simply call it "development".

We have a... well, some random dolt with a VP or director or some similarly overinflated title, but no meaningful role who explained that you should use "agile" method when: 1) You don't have time for planning 2) You don't have time for design 3) You don't have time for documentation 4) Requirements are changing

Which to me meant, "You use Agile(tm) methods when your project has already failed."

If you do it all the time, then people start to recognize it for what it really is: a sweat shop.

It usually also means that the people in the war room are only working on that problem, and that they are working extremely long hours.

In other organizations this is called a "death march".

That's usually what "war rooms" are for, in my experience. Something goes wrong, and to provide the illusion that everyone's on top of things, some managers set up a "war room" where they can "triage" problems and come up with an emergency solution.

The problem is that they usually use the same approach without the phrase "war room" to create the original product, which lead to the problem they're now trying to solve in the first place.

> one of the few remaining companies that actually respect engineers

I'd look at it more as a cyclical thing than as a "dying breed". Google itself, after all, is barely more than 10 years old... New ones will come and go.

This is the kind of thing I had to deal with at Stanford. Same "rainbows and unicorns" outward appearance, but...

Erm, what do you mean? As a student? grad student? faculty? I don't understand how you would need to deal with issues like performance reviews and management as a student. (I can see the distractions part, though.)

From a dean I spoke to: "We felt that, under the circumstances, we couldn't afford the luxury of a fair trial."

Agree, it feels very disturbing. Although what he is describing is pretty much life in the real world. This is what is called "Playing the game". Idealistic persons will probably have the hardest time with this. To you I tell you to create your own startup. Google is already too big to provide any of the excitement and benefits of when it was just ramping up.

Seconded. Certainly isn't making me want to leave my current startup before it's run its course.

There's still a lot to like about Google; it attracts brilliant engineers, it treats them well, it builds some remarkable products and there's a good deal of status associated with working there.

Every company will have its flaws. Google has over 20000 staff now so there's always going to be some politicking required if you want to get ahead. It's still probably a lot better than other companies that size.

I was expecting one more "google is great" love-post. It was anything but.

If you are dreaming of joining Google, this is the article to read. Really.

Google is still the best big publicly held company in the valley to work for. I wrote this to guide the thousands of Googlers they'll add this year.

Having said that, I've been at well functioning startups, and I've been at Google. Google when I joined was better than many many startups. Google when I left was not so.

What I've noticed at Google is that there's really no comparison between teams. Different parts of the company might as well be entirely different companies, aside from a few common cultural attributes (flat hierarchy, data driven decision, and of course all the perks.)

The best piece of advice in there (I think) is to pick your team carefully, and more importantly, don't feel shy about switching if you aren't making headway.

I think you'll find that is true for any company of sufficient size.

http://xkcd.com/192/

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/

For people that already have misgivings about interviewing for a position at Google, I'm sure this post was a god send.

I mean, after reading all those "google is great" love-posts, you read one that points out flaws, and all of the sudden that's the one to read? All the others go out the window? How does that work?

All the others are repetitions of the same positive points. This is one of the first one to list many negative points. This is an awesome reality check for anyone considering to apply at Google: they are just like any other large company, in that you need to be weary of managers, because their goals often don't coincide with yours.

It is worth noting that Piaw quit Google, and so is biased by that, and the experiences leading up to that. And internally lots of people have found lots of things to disagree with about specific items on his list. There are others that there have been pushes to improve on since. So take all of it with a grain of salt.

That said, he does have a lot of experience, so you shouldn't lightly disregard what he says either.

But, more fundamentally, ask yourself what your goal is. If your goal is to move up the ladder as efficiently as possible, his advice is probably pretty good. If your goal is to enjoy your job, everyone will like you better if you feel free to disregard whatever doesn't fit who you are.

Yes. The advice was given to help people move up the ladder, grab the brass ring, and get the big payout. If you want quality of life, that advice is not for you. Then again, if you want quality of life, and money is not that important, I think that a good startup is hard to beat.

If your goal is to get the big payout, what the hell are you working at Google for? Most of the people that got the big payout from Google joined...right around when you did, or a few years before. Your odds of becoming an executive at Google are far lower than they are at succeeding with your own startup and getting bought out for big sums.

If you want a big payout, you're much better off working for Google for a couple years to build experience and a reputation, quitting and founding a startup, and then getting reacquired by Google in a $5-20M talent acquisition.

Most people I know at Google are there because they want to work on interesting technical problems without dealing with all the bullshit that comes from running your own business. Google is still very, very effective at that - quite possibly the best place in the world for an engineer that wants to do cool stuff, launch to millions of people, and not push their way through lots of hassles.

Google is still handing out million dollar awards. For many people, the low risk but potentially high reward setup is ideal.

For instance, getting the big Android founder's award probably beat being the 10th employee at Aardvark.

Only if you're Andy Rubin.

When I look at the dollar amount of some of the largest-ever Founders Awards and then see how many people they're split between, I can't imagine that the payout is anywhere close to even an employee's payout for an acquisition. I dunno how the Founders Awards are divided up, but I'd imagine that it's a skew distribution, with most of it going to the initiators and key early team members of the project. Some of these teams have hundreds of employees; I really doubt that someone who joined six months before the Founders Award makes off with any more than a "Hey, that's a nifty bonus" amount.

People tell me how much they're getting. The numbers do go up to 7 figures even for rank and file engineers. But if I wrote a post about how to get that kind of money, I'd be accused of being even more cynical (I'm already accused of being very cynical when I wrote this article). Besides that kind of information should really go into the next edition of my book.

Google can and does hand out big bonuses. There's so much cash flowing through the company that a little sprinkle of it (by Google's standards) is still a lot of money. If you're one of the fast-tracked folks at Google, there is no reason to join a startup just for the money.

Based on the little I know about this, it probably beat being almost any employee. With $6 million invested, sold for $50 million, wouldn't you need more than a 2% stake to earn a million on the sale? Could someone more knowledgable break down how that $50 million was likely distributed, and what number employee you would have to be to get a million? (also what's the tax difference between the founders award and a million dollar startup exit)

> Piaw quit Google, and so is biased by that,

Having an opinion resulting from direct experience with the matter under discussion is not bias.

Not bias, but rather a prior. If you know someone quit Google, finding out they disliked a lot of things about Google doesn't give you much more information.

And the opposite: we often see many posts by current Googlers describing it with rose-tinted glasses, all unicorns and rainbows. I'm waaaaaaaay more interested in hearing from people that left Google, especially recently. Also more interested in perspectives from folks over 30, and ideally over 40.

I don't know if I disliked a lot of things about Google. Otherwise, I would have left long before my 6.5 years. I turned down requests to join other companies while at Google. I couldn't have disliked that much of it. :-)

The comment above (and piaw's reply) should be getting more attention. He's not talking about overall work experience. He's talking about promotion.

In my experience so far, Google is not the kind of company that's going to come find you in the trenches and pat you on the back and give you a cookie. You have to seek that out yourself if you care about it.

[edit: clarity]

My host at Google for my recent tour did say that engineers have limited say with HR and external hiring - which was one of her frustrations.

I think this post skips a big part of the experience at Google. One important use of the 20% time is to check out other areas and projects within Google. If you like the project, consider requesting a transfer to that project.

This is good advice for any large company, not just Google. Tips #3 and #4 are key - I would prioritize those higher than #1 and #2. In short - make sure your manager/leader is capable of pushing you; make sure you get to work on visible projects; and optimize your time to make contributions to the more visible projects. One of the things I wish someone had told me a long time ago.

Yeah but I think most people see working at Google as all unicorns and rainbows. Its a bit disheartening to find out that in someways its not.

This post has to be taken in context of everything else that Piaw has been saying for a while: Google is an excellent place to work. It may not be as nimble as it used to be, but it is still better than most other big companies and most other startups as well. Sure, it is not _the_ best place, but it is right there at the top.

Once you keep that as the background for the article, then you realize that the article is meant for Nooglers interested in a certain career path. It is not for everyone, but it is certainly the most common expected path for the majority of their engineers.

It is odd to see HN jumping to conclusion reading one article without any background. I think thats part of the reason why bloggers stop blogging because whatever they say is taken to mean something else.

Thanks!

It's official: performance review sucks everywhere.

Yes, one would immediately think that the items he listed are somehow all true at large companies.

Looks like a nice list of things for Google management to improve about their promotion process.

So what is the effect of promotions? The article hints at one thing: Higher salary cap. Are there other things?

So far in my own career, I have recognized a few situations where I could choose to climb the career ladder. In all of those situations, I have chosen not to. The new responsibilities did not seem to be worth it. I believe I have a much more interesting job as a consequence, and as far as I can tell, my salary has not been hurt noticeably (I do fight for my pay rise).

Do you really have to add "flare" to your title in google to be successful? Makes me not want to work there.

Former Googler here.

I left a few months ago after four years. I have nothing but great things to say about Google. I loved my job, the environment, the people, the perks, the feeling of being privy to the most closely held secrets in Silicon Valley. Most of all, Larry and Sergey, who have always - always - kept their employees at the top of their priority list, even after the company went public. These guys really mean "Don't be evil", but you need to work at Google to really understand what this means.

Why I left? Career, mostly. I had reached a point where it was hard for me to get promoted. I could have settled for an easy job that is very well paid but without much hope of going much higher. A lot of people are okay with this and I was for a while, but then I realized I wanted more.

If things don't work out at my new gig, I'll try another gig. And if this doesn't work out either, I'll go back to Google in a heartbeat.

Keep an open mind, if you get a chance to interview, take it. If you get a job offer, take it, even if it's just for a few months. At the end of the day, the only person who knows what's best for you is yourself, not a blogger, nor an anonymous Hacker News commenter.

When reading this I feel like a 1950ies rocket engineer reading about how bad a warp-drive really is...

Had to look up "SRE":

SRE: Site reliability engineer

SWE: Software engineer

It seems that I should have answered acronyms to the "Ask HN: What annoys you?" question[1].

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1560796

Yes, we should complain to the AAAA.

The tried and true American Association for Acronym Abuse can help there.

This confirms my suspicions - SRE are looked at as inferior or "second class citizens" compared to SWE. It also confirms some of the interviewer bias I experienced (I interviewed for an SRE position).

It's a measurement issue rather than a value judgement. Reliability is "sales we didn't lose due to downtime" while software is "new sales we couldn't have made without THIS GUY RIGHT HERE!".

Though remember, this post was aimed at Google employees, who should know what these are.

so basically it's the same as any large megacorp?

Any large megacorp with distracting fun mailing lists and talks to avoid (tip #2). Also 20% time and mentoring (tip #1). Definitely the part about performance reviews (tip #3) and having a good manager (tip #4) is applicable to any company, though the part where you should make sure you choose a good manager might not be.

I like how the advice to succeed at Google involves ignoring (tips 1 and 2) the distracting and fun things that distinguish Google from other companies.

If you are willing to spend more than 8 hours a day on "work", then you can do well and read mailing lists. If you were at a company other than Google, then your 9th hour wouldn't get you much more than a headache, but at Google, you can learn about cool stuff and get to know your coworkers better.

(I think 8 hours is way too long to spend working in a single day anyway, so company-sponsored mailing lists seem like a nice distraction. I would rather just go home and read Internet mailing lists though.)

I momentarily misread "Noogler" as "Nuclear".

Alas. I had hoped for another nuclear engineer HN reader.

When I read yours, I had Homer's voice in my head, somehow :-D

Are there any of these tips that stop being true if you substitute "Google" for any other large tech organization?

I thought at Google most people, regardless of salary or rep, were just "Software Engineers". If so, how do people know you got a promotion?

Google has a software engineering ladder. It was introduced in 2002-2003. Many old-timers considered it Google's biggest mistake.

Past a certain point in the ladder, promotions were a big deal and those who got promoted to that point got it publicly announced. Past another point, the CEO himself announced it in a company-wide e-mail.

Software engineer is the generic title for a number of levels: software engineer II, software engineer III, senior software engineer, staff software engineer, senior staff software engineer, and so on.

I heard that the job titles for engineers above a certain level are shared publicly with in the company.

Deleted comment

Automate as much of the maintenance as you can.

This is very similar to the big company that I work for - we use "visibility" instead of "high profile" though. :) So I suppose when company grows larger, it is inevitable. You just need to adapt to that or leave if you can not stand it. Also, the team and manager you have has big impact on your experiences. I do not believe there is a perfect environment.

There is a lot of helpful context that could theoretically be added to an article like this, which would obviate a lot of the "wow, so depressing" or "Google has succumbed to the times" comments here.

Alas, for confidentiality reasons, such cannot be shared :|

Suffice is to say, do be sure to take this as but one data point of many :)

Sounds like any other big corporate organ grind -- self promotion and working on high profile, corp important tasks gets you up the ladder, keeping the engine running just keeps you on the ladder. The sexy just wore off for me. Meh.

Everywhere mid-management strategy is Heads I Win. Tails You Lose.

Most of this advice is (unfortunately) true in large companies. It's sad that the idealism of our youth is corrupted by the reality of survival/prosperity in the workplace.

Has anyone read Piaw's book (linked to in the last sentence of the blog post)? Do you recommend it?

I have and it's excellent. Short, to the point and contains a ton of invaluable information I never found anywhere else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com