[optimusclimb]

Had to use the cloud storage python API yesterday to retrieve the sizes of many blobs I have stored there.

First time using said API. Creating the client was straight forward enough...oh look, there is a section of the API docs on Blobs, cool - create a blob...and there's a size property.

And it has no data. Scan through ALL of the docs on the page...ahh, there's a "reload()" method, and sure enough, calling it retrieves the data.

Though...why doesn't constructing the object fetch the properties? And if it doesn't, why don't you just write some sentences somewhere telling people the general flow they should expect for how to interact with the API?

From my experience with all other GCloud docs, the answer is - because Google couldn't care less if their customers can figure out how to use their products. You write some minimal API docs on functions, MAYBE give one example of doing one specific activity, and then it should be OBVIOUS how to do the rest.

Having used both - would never, ever choose to use GCP over AWS if given the choice - and the main reason, aside from any technical differences - is that one company seems to care about what the experience of using their product is, and the other just doesn't.

[wikibob]

I have to say I 100% agree about the documentation.

Having used both GCP and AWS, although the core GCP offerings are fantastic and far superior to AWS, the GCP documentation is a disaster.

It’s totally inexcusable, and really disappointing because it has a huge effect on the perception of the platform among folks that are AWS users and take a quick look at GCP.

I can’t see any reason why the documentation issue shouldn’t be solvable in 3 months with enough money. Take a wheelbarrow down to the bank, fill it up, and put out an open offer to everyone on the AWS documentation and developer relations teams to double their salary and stock.

The core of GCP is so great, that it’s such a shame the final polish seems to be impossible to accomplish.

[sethvargo]

Thanks for sharing your experience. This is definitely not the feelings we want users to experience. If you remember, could you share the documentation page(s) you were on? I'll make sure they are updated to reflect the proper fields and steps to take.

We do care deeply about our users' experiences with both GCP and the GCP ecosystem. Feel free to send me specific areas where you've experience pain in the past and I'll get them addressed (email is the same as my handle - at google - dot com)

[optimusclimb]

Thanks for the response. See my response to bduerst in this same thread - it was that page.

Also to be clear - I don't think this particular example I gave is the end of the world/egregious - I just used it as representative of the fact that the general pattern I've seen of the docs following where details are explained, but the "obvious" bits of simple usage are not discussed.

[mustacheemperor]

Seth, thanks for taking the feedback directly here, but...

Shouldn't we be able to make these requests given the built in feedback tools in the documentation, and actually expect some result? It's great that you're willing to address this specific issue, but it's frustrating to basically see plain text validation that the feedback forms are not attended to, and developers should be emailing individual team members problematic documentation pages if we're in the cohort exposed to your contact information.

[bduerst]

Can you point to which docs were you using? On github it says that if it reports 'none' then you need to load the resource.

https://googlecloudplatform.github.io/google-cloud-python/la...

[optimusclimb]

Was reading that page. What it specifically says is:

> The size of the blob or None if the blob’s resource has not been loaded from the server.

That's pretty vague imho, because there is no high level overview or tutorial to tell you that you need to explicitly cause the load from the server. Point in fact, the function you need to use is "reload()", and the documentation of this func is "Reload properties from Cloud Storage." To me, the "re" part makes it a bit of a misnomer - as it implies there would have been some sort of initial load in the first place (there is not.)

Imagine if the interface for going to a web page in chrome was: 1. Type the URL in the location bar. 2. Hit "refresh."

[meeks]

To conclude that:

> Google couldn't care less if their customers can figure out how to use their products.

That feels like a pretty strong leap to make from your complaint about using the term "reload" when "load" is better.

I can understand you are providing an example, and perhaps you feel the documentation has many such examples. From personal experience reading extensive documentation, I think you are being slightly unfair in this instance.

If I had to guess, given the speed of development of Google Cloud, it will take some time to get to the level of mature documentation of AWS who has had years of head start.

[optimusclimb]

> That feels like a pretty strong leap to make from your complaint about using the term "reload" when "load" is better.

I never made that leap - you're saying that. I'm saying that GCP docs are all severely lacking in "how to" guides.

API references are not so helpful without an explanation of how you're intended to use them. So, the problem isn't that the function name is "reload()" instead of "load()" - it's that nowhere does it tell you the pattern is to instantiate the object you're interested in (in this case, a Blob), and then you must make a call to retrieve the data from the server before the data you're interested in will show up.

Additionally, my commentary was made after now using many different GCP services - this was just something recently in mind.

[naasking]

> I can understand you are providing an example, and perhaps you feel the documentation has many such examples. From personal experience reading extensive documentation, I think you are being slightly unfair in this instance.

I kind of agree with the other poster. Getting up and running with .NET on flexible instances has been challenging to say the least. The datastore documentation does not give a good overview or introduction to how interact with this system.