[yukichan]

But why go through that? Google is just another place to work. If I got rejected from a job at HoneyWell or G&E I wouldn't be thinking to myself well in one more year I can try again. I'd be thinking about the next place to apply and never go back.

The guy was obviously qualified for the job and they still rejected him because he got nervous. He had done well except for one and they said no. I guess if you have so many people interviewing where you have some that did better it makes sense, but it's silly and personally I don't plan at working at companies that interview this way.

Google isn't special. They're just a well known consumer brand, and all that marketing is what's got into people's brains. Coke is just sugar water, it doesn't make you cool. It just puts fructose corn syrup into your stomach. You wanna be the person that has to obey Larry Page's whims and integrate Google+ into more places users don't want it?

[tmhedberg]

If you don't think it's worth your time to interview twice at the same company, then simply don't. That's a completely reasonable point of view, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

For what it's worth, Google has a public reputation as a great place to work and as a company that hires "high quality" engineers. Both of these things mean that some people are willing to put more effort into getting a position there. My post wasn't meant to say that he must keep trying at all costs, but just to let him know not to be discouraged if he happened to really want that job. In many places, you're dead in the water if you don't make it the first time, but Google is not like that.

Personally, I didn't see my interview process as "something I had to go through", i.e. a laborious means to an end. I enjoyed the challenge and the opportunity to get a glimpse of a company like Google from the inside. Even when I was turned down the first time, I came away feeling glad that I had done it. It's not like I had anything to lose from trying.

> You wanna be the person that has to obey Larry Page's whims and integrate Google+ into more places users don't want it?

Not in the least, nor do I feel that I am doing that. I don't work on Google+ or anything related to it. However it may look from the outside, Google is not Google+. It's a big, multifaceted organization with opportunities to work on all sorts of interesting things. Much of our work is driven directly by the engineers themselves and not by management whims. And there's plenty of mobility to change roles if you decide you don't like what you're doing.

SRE specifically has proved to be a truly interesting and unique position. There are engineering challenges that we face which quite simply don't exist anywhere else. Beyond the much-touted perks, that's what makes Google special, in my opinion, and well worth the comparatively small effort I put into getting there.

[aosmith]

I couldn't agree more. If you aren't good enough to grow with the company the company isn't good enough for you.

[gritzko]

           TYLER
                 You're too young.  Sorry.


                             JACK
                 Wait a minute...


     Tyler comes back inside, shuts the door.


                             JACK
                 "Too young?"


                             TYLER
                 If the applicant is young, we tell
                 him he's too young.  Old, too old.
                 Fat, too fat.


                             JACK
                 "Applicant?"


                             TYLER
                 If the applicant waits at the door
                 for three days without food, shelter
                 or encouragement, then he can enter
                 and begin training.


                             JACK
                 "Training?"  Tyler...

[oh_sigh]

Nice!! What's your reddit username so I can read more of your high quality posts?

[toomuchtodo]

> Google isn't special. They're just a well known consumer brand, and all that marketing is what's got into people's brains. Coke is just sugar water, it doesn't make you cool. It just puts fructose corn syrup into your stomach.

It takes you a while to get to this mindset as a technology worker. Everyone's motivation is different though.

I'm 31, have 13 years of experience, and keep getting rejected by SpaceX for a Linux Admin job at launch operations Cape Canaveral. Yes, I'm overqualified. Yes, I'd be taking an enormous paycut. But I want to help send rockets to Mars damn it.

It's not always about the money, nor about the work. Sometimes, you're simply irrational about it.

[shaneofalltrad]

I believe they want to create this atmosphere if Google being hard to get in, and hopefully it will make the smart people feel prestigious if they do get in. Psychology 101. I would not be surprised if they targeted him because he was an active blogger, and would get this out to the world. Just think about it, our community is doing well because we are an open community working together online and what better way to control this group than injecting persuasion into the community.

Don't get me wrong, I would likely work for Google if I had the opportunity, but I would go anti-google if they did this to me.

[nawitus]

There's nothing irrational about that. Rationality is about maximizing your utility function. If you care about sending rockets to Mars, then it can indeed be rational to take a paycut.

[toomuchtodo]

Thank you!

[noir_lord]

If I was financially independent I'd work for SpaceX for free.

They build rockets!.

I'm not remotely in their league though as a programmer.

I build web apps.

[dc2447]

I have been approached a few times to interview for "Director, Site Reliability Engineering", which as far as I could tell was leading up the SRE team in Europe.

I had a few conversations but did not take it further. My reasoning was not going further was not the nature of the interview process, although I found it a little strange that they expected a director level position to know how many bits were in a mac address or nature of google as a business but the description of what the engineering team did for the majority of the time. Rather than building 'stuff' the team seemed to be involved in very low level debugging on the Google infra and apps.

I know somebody has to do that stuff but it's not something I was very sold on when it was described to me.

Incidentally the role is still being advertised so maybe finding engineering directors that know how many bits in a mac address or what the default signal sent with a kill command :)

http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/10632280

[philsnow]

> I found it a little strange that they expected a director level position to know how many bits were in a mac address

All (or the overwhelming majority) of the engineering directors I know of at google are very technical. Maybe it's silly, but I think it increases their credibility with their transitive reports.

[mcintyre1994]

It seems from the parent like a recruiter just following up when they could. That seems smart - there was a level of interest so why not see if it's still there? A lot could happen in a year to make someone more (or equally, less) likely to decide to give it a go again.

[asdfologist]

Right, being a company filled with some of the best and brightest engineers in the industry working on technical challenges of massive scale makes Google just like any other company.

[bane]

Well, let's not blow this out of proportion. Google is basically a big advertising agency. The principle problem they're working on is click through rates.

If that's what floats the boats of the best and brightest, I feel kind of sorry for the direction of the species.

Sure they have lots of cool feeder technologies to support this singular goal, but getting people to click paid links is not exactly the same as colonizing Mars.

[minwcnt5]

Ah, the old "Google is just an advertising company" cliche. This is just a small step from the Reddit hipster memes that say things like "oh, self driving cars are not that interesting, they're just a way to get your attention off the road and onto their ads".

The vast majority of engineers at Google have never worked on click through rates in their lives. Downplay it as a "feeder technology" all you want, but I'm pretty sure Google search, for instance, has had a huge impact on humanity. One that some people might consider just as important as sending a robot to Mars.

[bane]

People have a habit of assigning altruism to things to they like that they don't pay for -- and without connecting those things to the costs.

SV and the greater Startup ecosystem has taken this to heart and turned it around, trying to "change the world" with photo sharing apps or weather reporting toasters or whatever. The fact of the matter is, this messaging is a hack to get people to feel good about using the service or buying the device. It's psychological slight of hand because people don't like it when a nameless gray haired white man in a suit says he's looking to maximize revenue growth the next 3 quarters.

Why is Google in search? To deliver ads. They can deliver better ads by having better search, no? They can deliver better ads by providing locational service. They can deliver better ads by getting your face stick to a mobile screen playing matching games that serve up ads. They can deliver better ads by...<insert method>.

Let's say google develops and licenses technology for self driving cars to all the automakers in the world. What do you think people are going to be doing in those vehicles? Surfing the internet and probably looking at ads.

Do you think Sergey Brin, when he's travelling to his private vacation island, bought with ad revenue, in his private jet, paid for with ad revenue, going over the quarterly report, about ad revenue, is thinking to himself, "I'm really satisfied with how many people found trivial information about pop stars with our technology" or is he thinking, "how can I get even more people to click the top-most served ads?"

It's great that I can get global turn by turn directions on my phone, it's improved my life, but google hasn't provided that to me because they think I'm a nice person and want to make my life better. I could have just kept buying Garmins after all. They want me to search for "restaurant" and have a top paid advertisement for "Bob's Pancake House" show up in the list and have me click that so Bob transfers a little money to Google's bank account.

Helping humanity is simply a fortunate side effect of Google's work. But it's not the focus.

[pwnguin]

> Do you think Sergey Brin ... is thinking to himself, "I'm really satisfied with how many people found trivial information about pop stars with our technology" or is he thinking, "how can I get even more people to click the top-most served ads?"

He's probably scared shitless that he has exactly one revenue stream worth talking about, and has no idea how to supplement it.

[S4M]

> I'm pretty sure Google search, for instance, has had a huge impact on humanity.

Actually, I am not so sure about this. Sure, it's convenient and saves time, but I wouldn't call it "a huge impact on humanity". It has been more than ten years since it has been around, and I haven't noticed a massive change. I would say, it appears to me that people are more connected, and slightly more aware of the news, which is due to a conjunction of the massive penetration of Internet, the social networks, and the improvement of the search. Google has an important part for sure, but again, for me it's not "a huge impact on humanity", like would be, say, the colonization of Mars or the end of the poverty (where Google search may or may not play a role).

[gaius]

Its "impact on humanity" may not be positive http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-googl...

[S4M]

Ho, I remember having read this article, in 2008 or 2009, and agreed. I think it's part of a debate whether instantaneity is good or bad. Thanks for giving that link back.

[waterlesscloud]

Someone's certainly bought into the marketing.

[namelezz]

I disagree that Google filled with the best and brightest engineers in the industry. Google just turns into a "hype" engine that makes you think so.

[greenrice]

You're kidding yourself if you think Google is "just a well known consumer brand"...

[yukichan]

I use several Google products, daily. I also eat food Kraft's foods daily. I also use Comcast every hour of every day of the week. I'm not pining over a job at any of these companies.

[mitochondrion]

How is Google anything more than a well-known consumer brand?

[bane]

Because Google is probably the most well-known advertising agency on the planet?

They're not much of a consumer brand tbh, but they pull in tens of billions a year creating virtual properties to sell advertising space on.

[w1ntermute]

By that logic, you could also say that McDonald's isn't a restaurant chain, but a real estate company: http://seekingalpha.com/article/73533-mcdonalds-is-a-real-es...

[bane]

Well, who's Google's customers? People who buy ads, or free search users?

(an aside) One of the startups I worked for years ago, rented a huge office near San Jose, but decided to change directions and hire out of cheaper locales for a while. So we sublet the space out. For a good 2 years this space generated more revenue than the rest of the company and we joked that perhaps we should get into the real estate business. We even had two employees with real estate licenses in 3 states.

[yukichan]

I wonder if that's how 42floors got their idea.

[d4mi3n]

One could make a similar argument for just about any large financial, real-estate, or holdings company. Bank of America, General Mills, and General Electric to name a few.

[001sky]

"They're not much of a consumer brand tbh"

People google stuff on bing, tho. So, if you're brand is a verb, in widespread common usage, I'd say it's doing ok. Kinda like Kleenex.

[eadlam]

Well, for one they just acquired eight of the worlds best robotics/AI teams. You don't see Kraft trying to bring the singularity nearer.

[yuhong]

On Google+: http://www.businessinsider.com/sex-and-politics-at-google-it...