Eric Schmidt: “It Is A War For Talent”(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Eric Schmidt: “It Is A War For Talent”
http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/15/google-schmidt/
47 comments
What kind of "talent"? The egregious metadata of Google Books has been brought up in book circles again and again. Fixing that should not require the kind of hiring hoops that programmers go through. Librarian and other specialist degrees existed long before there was ever a Google. Some things Google just doesn't want to be bothered with. (And when it comes to books, ditto for Apple.) [typo edit]
There's no significant return to google for fixing the metadata. It's not that google can't do it, it's that they don't want to do it.
Google is a company which is about scale. Hiring librarians is not a scalable solution to fixing metadata. Figure out a way to automate that fixing and I'm willing to bet Google will offer to hire you.
edit: As it happens I actually looked at working on a fairly similar problem for my undergraduate thesis (automated dating of works of unknown provenance) so if someone wants to talk about ideas for how to fix it feel free to email me.
Google is a company which is about scale. Hiring librarians is not a scalable solution to fixing metadata. Figure out a way to automate that fixing and I'm willing to bet Google will offer to hire you.
edit: As it happens I actually looked at working on a fairly similar problem for my undergraduate thesis (automated dating of works of unknown provenance) so if someone wants to talk about ideas for how to fix it feel free to email me.
> Hiring librarians is not a scalable solution to fixing metadata.
I’m skeptical of this line of reasoning.
If we can’t hire librarians to label all those books, how did we ever get people to write, edit, bind, read, distribute, and finally scan them?
I’m skeptical of this line of reasoning.
If we can’t hire librarians to label all those books, how did we ever get people to write, edit, bind, read, distribute, and finally scan them?
There are two products in Google which matter to the bottom line: core search and AdSense. If you are not one of these projects, anecdotally your requests to hire new people or get resources which cannot be requested by API get forwarded to Customer Service.
It's pretty obvious that Google just wants the raw data of the books for later projects, and the concept of making them available to the public as they have is nothing more than the thinnest of fig leaves. They're getting far, far more value from the libraries they're scanning than they are providing back to the world, and it's because of their atrocious metadata processes.
And if someone figures out how to automate the process, you'd be a fool to be "hired" by Google. That's something that should be paid for at a much higher rate than any salary.
And if someone figures out how to automate the process, you'd be a fool to be "hired" by Google. That's something that should be paid for at a much higher rate than any salary.
Most people simply don't care about metadata. The average user searching for information doesn't use metadata fields to search, they just use free-form text search.
I understand the importance of good data for academics (bad metadata on electronic book archives drove me crazy when I was researching etymology for the OED), but for most people it doesn't really matter.
I understand the importance of good data for academics (bad metadata on electronic book archives drove me crazy when I was researching etymology for the OED), but for most people it doesn't really matter.
Thanks to all of you who replied. Interesting perspectives on things.
Oh please!
The egregious metadata of Google Books is almost all date related problems. Anyone programmer who has done metadata-related work before will tell you that human compiled metadata always needs to be treated carefully, and date related metadata is usually "wrong" when the metadata comes from multiple sources.
Don't believe me? Crosswalk your data to dublin core and then tell me what date it was written, first published and the date the edition you have was published. I bet all those field go to dc.created and in standard dublin-core you have no way to identify which is which.
Now tell me why Google's data is so bad again?
The truth is that for subject-related data it is much, much better that library catalogs, for Author data it is pretty close and for date data the library catalog wins at the moment.
(Speaking as someone who spent a long time working in the field, and has had papers presented at the world library congress and at dublin core metadata conferences)
The egregious metadata of Google Books is almost all date related problems. Anyone programmer who has done metadata-related work before will tell you that human compiled metadata always needs to be treated carefully, and date related metadata is usually "wrong" when the metadata comes from multiple sources.
Don't believe me? Crosswalk your data to dublin core and then tell me what date it was written, first published and the date the edition you have was published. I bet all those field go to dc.created and in standard dublin-core you have no way to identify which is which.
Now tell me why Google's data is so bad again?
The truth is that for subject-related data it is much, much better that library catalogs, for Author data it is pretty close and for date data the library catalog wins at the moment.
(Speaking as someone who spent a long time working in the field, and has had papers presented at the world library congress and at dublin core metadata conferences)
Just out of curiosity, any "talent" here, on HN, being aggressively recruited by google/facebook? Or is this some other kind of "talent" they are looking for.
Wouldn't most talented people want to start their own company anyways?
Wouldn't most talented people want to start their own company anyways?
I get LinkedIn In-Mail from both Facebook and Google recruiters periodically. It's nice to feel wanted, and I get a certain enjoyment out of politely rejecting google recruiters. This is a lot more fun than subjecting myself to their grueling and ego shattering interview process.
As to your second question, some people are smart enough to know that running a business is not one of their core competencies.
As to your second question, some people are smart enough to know that running a business is not one of their core competencies.
It depends on what you want to work on. There are problems that only get interesting at scale; people who are good at solving them will likely always be working square jobs, because square jobs willol haved the capital to misallocate and create said interesting-scale problems. There are also problems where there is no immediately obvious way to disrupt an existing market, many of which are fascinating. And there are many, many, many talented hackers whose risk appetite is such that they're happy to trade ev for security.
And then again, too, "talent" is too gnarled a word to be meaningful intercontextually. The "talents" that Schmidt is shopping for may very well be disjoint from those that pg seeks out.
And then again, too, "talent" is too gnarled a word to be meaningful intercontextually. The "talents" that Schmidt is shopping for may very well be disjoint from those that pg seeks out.
I was in the interview process (was just about to schedule an on-site) with Google a couple weeks ago, before I decided to go to Matasano. They were pushing pretty hard and rushing a lot (since I had other offers/potential offers), but in the end I just decided I didn't want to work in the team I was interviewing for, and decided not to waste any more of their time. From what I've heard, they decide whether or not they want you pretty early on, and will bend over backwards to accommodate you in most cases if they really want you, it just wasn't for me. (Not quite the aggressive recruitment most people think of, but I figure it's a data point nonetheless.)
I have offers from both and am deciding presently. I don't know that they're "aggressively" recruiting me though.
The reason I'd rather work for them than start my own company (now) is that I'm interested in infrastructure. I could go start a company and be an architecture astronaut (and never sell any infrastructure to anyone), or I could go to Google/Facebook and learn the kind of domain specific knowledge that I can only get at a Google or Facebook.
The reason I'd rather work for them than start my own company (now) is that I'm interested in infrastructure. I could go start a company and be an architecture astronaut (and never sell any infrastructure to anyone), or I could go to Google/Facebook and learn the kind of domain specific knowledge that I can only get at a Google or Facebook.
I also get e-mails every 6 months from Google.
A few years ago Google required a 3.75 or higher college GPA. That is an amazing GPA for the college I went to, so I've never applied. I wonder if they have relaxed that criteria.
A few years ago Google required a 3.75 or higher college GPA. That is an amazing GPA for the college I went to, so I've never applied. I wonder if they have relaxed that criteria.
'In my dressing room, I don't want any brown M&Ms!'
When you are perceived to be a rock star, people are willing to accommodate even seemingly non-sensical requests. Google wants a 3.75+ GPA, thats what they get. Google wants XYZ cert, thats what they get. Google take 5 months to hire you, so be it. It may piss people off individually, but as long as there is a steady stream of applicants, it doesn't immediately impact Google.
Of course the more truly talented, qualified people they dick around with and piss off, the more their reputation begins to slide from 'the best' to 'eccentric' to 'ridiculous'. I think Google is now experiencing some repurcussions that to them seems like a 'talent war'.
When you are perceived to be a rock star, people are willing to accommodate even seemingly non-sensical requests. Google wants a 3.75+ GPA, thats what they get. Google wants XYZ cert, thats what they get. Google take 5 months to hire you, so be it. It may piss people off individually, but as long as there is a steady stream of applicants, it doesn't immediately impact Google.
Of course the more truly talented, qualified people they dick around with and piss off, the more their reputation begins to slide from 'the best' to 'eccentric' to 'ridiculous'. I think Google is now experiencing some repurcussions that to them seems like a 'talent war'.
There is some flexibility, but they are strict. Strict in weird ways. I'm actually a former Googler who can't get back in because my GPA. Go figure! :-/
This makes no sense. Surely Google believes GPA is a good predictor of performance, but isn't on the job performance the ultimate measurement? How long did you work there?
Really boggles my mind, but I think it has to do with how the recruiters get rated. I imagine the lower the percentage of successful applicants, the lower their performance.
I worked there a bit over two years.
I worked there a bit over two years.
In retrospect, my college GPA of 3.1415 doesn't seem so smart. =)
(Note: I didn't hit it exactly; it was a while ago but I think I recall I ended up at 3.139.)
(Note: I didn't hit it exactly; it was a while ago but I think I recall I ended up at 3.139.)
Better than my college GPA of did not finish:) I had a 3-something when I left...except that I didn't take a final or two that last semester (weather was really nice).
I think the GPA thing at Google is just stupidly silly. I've accomplished quite a bit in my career. Thankfully I don't really need Google, but it does drive me nuts that there is a place that I can't work:)
I think the GPA thing at Google is just stupidly silly. I've accomplished quite a bit in my career. Thankfully I don't really need Google, but it does drive me nuts that there is a place that I can't work:)
I personally know a number of people working at Google who not only didn't maintain that kind of GPA, they didn't graduate at all.
GPA is only useful as a filter for people just out of college. If you've been in the work force for a while, there are better measures available.
GPA is only useful as a filter for people just out of college. If you've been in the work force for a while, there are better measures available.
I think if someone can achieve a GPA that is equal to Pi out to 5+ significant digits then Google should hire them instantly. :)
3.1421 here :) That was a happy accident. At least it wasn't approaching e.
What makes you think they had that requirement? At least their current job listings don't mention anything like that (http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/uslocations/mountain-view...).
My suggestion would be that if you want to join Google then just send them your resume. Let them decide whether or not they want you rather than deciding that for them.
My suggestion would be that if you want to join Google then just send them your resume. Let them decide whether or not they want you rather than deciding that for them.
I get emails from both every 6 month (and tell them each time to come again 6 months later still, as I continue to run my own business).
Two friends of mine, fine engineers with background in database systems and large-scale distributed systems, have got offers from both and had successfully played one off the other. One of them ended up in Facebook and the other one in Google.
It's a war, no doubt.
Two friends of mine, fine engineers with background in database systems and large-scale distributed systems, have got offers from both and had successfully played one off the other. One of them ended up in Facebook and the other one in Google.
It's a war, no doubt.
I get email from Google recruiters every couple of months, you'd think they'd lay off now that I've told them a few times I'm a full time student... and will be for another year and a half. I've also been pulled in for a contracting job, but that wasn't from a recruiter.
They email every six months.
The comments in that TechCrunch thread are why I don't read TechCrunch anymore. Mike Arrington really needs to mod the trolls.
This reminds me of William Gibsons "New Rose Hotel" short story. A couple of more years and switching jobs will be "defection". Bring on the teenage prostitutes, neurotoxins and japanese coffin hotels.
The contrary view is that 'talent' doesn't actually matter. http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_07_22_a_talent.htm
[deleted](1)
Looks like someone is lifting xkcd's "Online Communities" map in the background of that picture of Schmidt (or paying homage, I hope).
I went through a ~2-3 month interview process with google at the end of which they said "You did great, it looks like we will have an offer to you tomorrow"
The next day, I got a call from them saying "Well, unfortunately we wont be giving you an offer, because you dont have a PMP certification."
(When I went into the process, for an infrastructure PM, I stated that my lack of a PMP cert may hurt me - they said "Oh no, we don't want people to come here with a predisposition of the process they feel they need to impose on how we work" -- I was so freaking enraged over that experience.)
I was later told "You scored really well on the interview process, why not apply for another position?"
To which I only had a big FU to the whole experience.
The next day, I got a call from them saying "Well, unfortunately we wont be giving you an offer, because you dont have a PMP certification."
(When I went into the process, for an infrastructure PM, I stated that my lack of a PMP cert may hurt me - they said "Oh no, we don't want people to come here with a predisposition of the process they feel they need to impose on how we work" -- I was so freaking enraged over that experience.)
I was later told "You scored really well on the interview process, why not apply for another position?"
To which I only had a big FU to the whole experience.
Yeah, the latency of their hiring amazes me. I lean towards small shops, but for some reason I entertained a phone screen from them a few years ago. Well, they called me several weeks later hoping for an onsite, but I had already interviewed for, accepted, and started another position in the meantime. I don't see why they would expect anyone good to remain available long enough for them to have a chance with, unless the candidate has singled out Google as the only place they're even considering for a month if not an entire quarter.
Yeah, that reminds me of my Thinking Machines experience. I later heard it took them another two tries to fill the position I was applying for, I think I heard the second guy timed out on them as well.
I had a similarly frustrating experience interviewing for an internship there. I'm very happy to be doing what I'm doing right now (CTO of a startup) but the experience with Google still left a bad taste in my mouth, and it makes me reluctant to apply to them rather than e.g. Facebook or MSFT in future.