I may be making the problem worse but both this post and the comments section are some of the worst I've seen on HN -- from linkbaity title to incorrect possessive pronouns (I barely speak English and caught it while skimming), and then the deep analysis of anonymity on G+ completely based on one or two anecdotes with no relation to G+, anonymity, or even the Internet.
Why is this submission at 80 upvotes? What value am I missing that others are seeing?
Some of what Google does is tech industry gospel - for example things like technical interviews. When there's faults with it, that's relevant to my interests, as I might want to avoid their mistakes at my own company.
That's why I found the article interesting, at any rate.
>When there's faults with it, that's relevant to my interests, as I might want to avoid their mistakes at my own company.
Same here, except that is why I found the article to be a crappy, linkbait, waste of time. It wasn't about mistakes in google's hiring process, it was a personal rant about what the author dislikes about google.
You're not providing much value with your comment yourself. I thought it was an interesting personal story of what can happen the company you work for gets acquired by a large company. Just because it's not "top 10 hiring mistakes" doesn't make it uninteresting. The comments also include far more insight than usual into things that aren't necessarily found elsewhere.
I didn't say nobody could find it interesting. I said the title is misleading, thus wasting the time of people who were expecting content appropriate to the title. The content would still be interesting to you if the title reflected the content.
Sorry, I must be being dense. How is the title linkbaity? It's as close to a literal description of the article content as I can imagine. What should the title be?
Hi. I submitted this article. Frankly, I don't think that skud ever expected this to get onto Hacker News. I'd never heard about her before her article - in fact I found out through David Gerard of Wikipedia fame via Facebook and I thought it was interesting enough to submit to HN.
I don't think there was anything intentionally link-baity about the title. It is what it is.
I think the post is negative. With all the awesome stuff going on in tech, I don't think we need to spend our time writing (or reading!) negative posts like this. It's unlikely to help anyone and only serves to get the rest of us all upset. Google has done some awesome stuff and the experience of a few (or even a moderate amout) people who have worked there isn't helpful to the conversation.
Good news is fluffy candy that is tasty but not very useful. Bad news is harder to eat but is much more useful for survival reasons. Bad-experience outliers at Google are then more interesting than average or good outliers. Having a pointless conversation about the joys and successes of Google really doesn't allow me to "know" anything, which is the point of coming here.
Why is this submission at 80 upvotes? What value am I missing that others are seeing?