Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Google The Almighty Buck

Google Ties Employee Bonuses To +1 Success 167

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the negativity-is-impolite-mmkay dept.
jfruhlinger writes "Last week Google introduced the +1 button, its attempt to tie its search offerings more closely with users' social networks. Now, a leaked memo reveals that every Google employee will have a stake in the outcome, with bonuses tied to the success or failure of the initiative."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Ties Employee Bonuses To +1 Success

Comments Filter:
  • by lxs (131946) on Friday April 08, 2011 @03:23AM (#35754520)

    Wait until the banking community hears of the blasphemy! Mammon weeps!

    • by Hazel Bergeron (2015538) on Friday April 08, 2011 @03:35AM (#35754580) Journal

      As far as I can tell, this is tying the bonuses of everyone at Google to the efforts of the few people at Google involved in social media crap - in turn coming down to the efforts of the few managers who actually want to push the social media crap. It's the ultimate PHB power trip: you are so insistent that a repeatedly-failing idea is good, while at the same time wanting to acknowledge none of evidence or the responsibility that it isn't, so you declare that everyone else has a stake in it. Then it's everyone's fault: after all, they had financial incentive to succeed - which, as everyone knows, is the reason everyone wants to do anything - so the only reason the plan failed must be because all 24k employees just weren't trying hard enough.

      Page (Gates) is an intelligent egomaniac who happened to be in the right place at the right time, carried to success by Schmidt (Ballmer) and a few venture capitalist titans. Now add cowardly to his list of properties.

      • by Kokuyo (549451)

        Overreacting much?

        Google has a pretty large staff spread across the world. If each one of them can just make one other person aware of the new feature and of those half tell someone else, you've just kickstarted a pretty hefty viral marketing.

        Where is the problem with tying part of an employees bonus to the company's success? Isn't that what bonuses are all about? If they're not tied to the company's success, it's called a salary, you know.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 08, 2011 @04:15AM (#35754740)

          If each one of them can just make one other person aware [...]

          ugh.. enough reason to keep away from googlers for a while.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          If each one of them can just make one other person aware of the new feature and of those half tell someone else, you've just kickstarted...

          ...turning your friends into business opportunities, the same socially damaging outcome to hit every pyramid marketing scheme and cult member.

          • by Kokuyo (549451)

            Oh come on!

            If you're on good terms with a Peugeot dealer, chances are you'll be driving a Peugeot, even if the GM dealer is closer.

            Most people think they get better deals from friends. Sometimes they are right, often they're the same and sometimes they're worse. In most cases, though, people feel better going to someone they know. That is not a nefarious scheme, it's human nature.

            And besides, Google doesn't want their employees to sell this. There is nothing to sell here. It's a move to get the function mor

            • by Hazel Bergeron (2015538) on Friday April 08, 2011 @05:18AM (#35754970) Journal

              Most people think they get better deals from friends. Sometimes they are right, often they're the same and sometimes they're worse. In most cases, though, people feel better going to someone they know. That is not a nefarious scheme, it's human nature.

              It's understandable if a Google employee himself chooses to use Google's social networking crap because he believes that he'll get more money for doing so. But ultimately the success must depend on persuading others outside the company - and it's absolutely nefarious if your "friend" is this Google employee who is taking advantage of your trust and who stands to benefit financially when you follow his advice/example. The ethics of this sort of behaviour has been debated so much in terms of the harm of MLM and cult membership that, if you genuinely are ignorant, ... well, you know how to use Google.

              I don't know that this is what Page expects employees to do, but this sort of geek-grass-roots-marketing thing works approximately once - with an "innocent" start-up when the competition is wanting and people are yearning for an alternative, as with the original and still fairly good Google search engine proper. After that you just look like Microsoft with its, "Wow, it was Vista all along - and there was me thinking Vista was a failure!" ads.

              Car analogy effort notwithstanding, this is nothing whatever to do with choosing Peugeot because you're on good terms with a Peugeot dealer. A good business relationship which may come from a good underlying personal relationship, while often risky, is not proselytism.

            • by Jstlook (1193309)

              Oh come on! If you're on good terms with a Peugeot dealer, chances are you'll be driving a Peugeot, even if the GM dealer is closer. Most people think they get better deals from friends. Sometimes they are right, often they're the same and sometimes they're worse. In most cases, though, people feel better going to someone they know. That is not a nefarious scheme, it's human nature. And besides, Google doesn't want their employees to sell this. There is nothing to sell here. It's a move to get the function more widespread acknowledgement and thus a bigger userbase (to which they custom-tailor ads). Frankly, I have a very hard time seeing how this is supposed to be Evil (TM).

              My interpretation that the goal of this bonus program is to make damn sure this feature comes across to the public as a 'Good Thing'. It seems like they hope to chip away every blemish that makes it unappealing. That means they *do* want their employees to sell this, because they want to be able to sell this feature to their advertisers. This is the only thing Google actually *does* sell if I'm not mistaken -- advertising. (sure they might make some money in other departments, but the bottom line is if

              • dubious SEOites

                The proper term is "SEOdomites," you ignorant clod :-p

                If they don't also include a "-1" button, it's just as lame as FaceBork.

                And if they *do* include a "-1" button, it's STILL just as lame. Imagine giving everyone mod points. Now make it so that SOEdomites have a financial interest in gaming this feature. Welcome to the reality of antisocial networks.

          • ...turning your friends into business opportunities, the same socially damaging outcome to hit every pyramid marketing scheme and cult member.

            This is Google's sweet spot. Surprised they haven't hit on this earlier.

        • by SecurityGuy (217807) on Friday April 08, 2011 @10:41AM (#35757318)

          Not overreacting at all. This is a poor implementation of a good idea. It's well known that to be effective bonuses have to be valluable to the employee (I won't work harder for a bottle of bubble bath), credible (if I accomplish something extraordinary for you, you'll actually follow through and give me the reward) and attainable (this thing you want me to do is actually something I -can- do).

          They get 3/3 for everyone working on the project. 2/3 for everyone not.

          I've been in that position myself, where there was a bonus if we reached certain metrics, like customer satisfaction. Problem? A large fraction of the company was research (me) and never, and I do mean never, dealt with customers. Giving me a bonus because the customer facing side did a good job is a waste of money.

          • by Darinbob (1142669)

            Except this is nothing new. Companies quite often give bonus objectives that you have little chance of influencing. Ie, you're working on product A and the company wants to tie bonuses to the success of product B. Or the goals are based on how many new sales are achieved, even if you have no direct control over the process.

            The thinking I suspect is that there may be some very indirect ways to help the goals. Ie, the janitors help out customer satisfaction by making a nicer working environment for develo

        • by GooberToo (74388)

          Where is the problem with tying part of an employees bonus to the company's success?

          None! But that's not what they did! They tied bonuses to a single product, not the successful of the company. One makes sense. The other is typically a power trip with cause to prevent paying out bonuses with the understanding the specific product isn't anywhere as ideal as they outwardly present.

        • Some people feel they're owed a bonus. They don't understand the concept of a bonus and that's why these people don't deserve a bonus.
      • by hey! (33014) on Friday April 08, 2011 @08:47AM (#35755996) Homepage Journal

        The summary posted here at Slashdot invites us to infer more than the memo in TFA says. It seems to imply that Google employees won't get any annual bonus unless the "+1 Button" feature is a success. What the memo says is is that 1/4 of the bonus will be tied to Google's success in its social media efforts *as a whole*.

        You get paid for doing your job. Bonuses are something different. I have doubts about the effectiveness of bonuses, particularly for engineers, but if they do have a function it is to get you thinking, not just about the task at hand, but how it might be tweaked to contribute to the overall success of the company. In a company like Google where engineers have considerable scope for creativity, a bonus policy like this might have some positive effect.

        As for "social media" being crap, this attitude is *precisely* why managers contemplate steps like this. Just because you have good, even unassailable reasons to believe social media is crap doesn't mean it's an unimportant business. It doesn't matter what *you* think or how justified you are when your customers think differently. Google has to consider Facebook as a key competitor. Facebook has moved into product niches that are important to Google. There's advertising, for one. Everyone one uses Google search, but nobody spends the kind of time many people do on Facebook. Facebook is well positioned to move into other areas such as email and cloud services.

        What is really a mystery is why Google chose to pull the plug on Wave. It was poorly marketed, that is true, but it was an unique take on social media: actually using it for *doing* things. The one thing Facebook is *not* positioned to do is launch services that people can readily see require *trust*.

      • I'm reminded of the company who offered bonuses to the QA team for every bug found in their code. Suddenly, bugs were being found on a regular basis.

        Then someone realized that programmers were getting kickbacks.

      • Name a successful and active billionaire who isn't an egomaniac. There are certain levels in the game of life where you don't keep succeeding without extra ordinary efforts. I cannot think of a single successful Silicon Valley startup where they didn't expect 12 hour days at a minimum.

        But if you find the lazyboy reclining, unmotivated, cheetos eating, and brilliantly successful CEO/Corp, you let us know so we can unlock the best kept secret of all ages. Jobs? No. Gates? No. Richard Branson? No. Page? N
      • As far as I can tell, this is tying the bonuses of everyone at Google to the efforts of the few people at Google involved in social media crap

        Isn't this the way it works for most people?

        I work in IT in manufacturing. Our bonus monies are tied to how well the company does, which in turn depends on a whole lot of things, all of them out of my control: marketing, the economy, the bond market and, ultimately, how well the guys in manufacturing are slapping together widgets today.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Bank bonuses were dependant on results. The more money you shovelled out the window or burned in a furnace, the more you got paid.

      This will ruin Google. Bonuses and other goal oriented incentives ruin organisations wholesale.

      If you dangle large quantities of money in front of people to get them to do something(or worse threaten to deny them money if they don't), then they will do whatever it takes to meet that goal. This means they will cut corners, engage in risk, change parameters, and generally cheat and

      • by Hazel Bergeron (2015538) on Friday April 08, 2011 @05:20AM (#35754986) Journal

        Bonus culture has completely ruined service provision in local and national government in England over the past decade. Unfortunately, we are severely lacking an ideology which recognises what you state.

      • Bonuses where I work are actually introduced as a sort of "market adjustment" -- our bonuses are calculated quarterly as a percentage of the profits of the company divided out per man hour across all employees, including salaried employees (who still punch the clock for purposes of calculating their bonus) but excluding upper management. Upper management does not receive a bonus. It's routinely on the order of $3-5/hour, unless we've had an exceptionally good or bad quarter.

        • by Hazel Bergeron (2015538) on Friday April 08, 2011 @06:58AM (#35755394) Journal

          Which is arguably still irrational because an organisation's mission rarely aligns with the short term profit goals of employees/management. Optimum behaviour would be to strip the company and sell off its assets, or as close as possible to that as constraints will allow.

          (Hence, again, many recent examples of corporate and public sector plundering.)

      • by delinear (991444)

        I'm not even convinced that this is real - from TFA:

        "So much so that, according to Business Insider's Nicholas Carlson, Page last Friday distributed a memo to all employees informing them that 25 percent of their annual bonus in 2011 will depend on the success of Google's social media efforts."

        Given that last Friday was April 1st, it seems an odd time to release an announcement that 25% of your bonus will be tied to some trendy new search feature if it's not a joke. Having said that, FB is arguably Google's

    • by Rie Beam (632299)

      Actually, if done right, this might be an interesting exercise in management. Make everyone's bonuses directly correlate to the quality of work of other parts of the business. Make it so that everyone's bonus is dependent on everyone else's work, in various branches, and just sit back and watch everything self-organize...or burn to the ground. Either way, you'd still have your golden parachute...

      • by hoggoth (414195)

        Google social does poorly. Programmer "responsible" finds himself frequently 1) stuffed in a locker, 2) dangled over a toilet and given a "swirly", 3) tripped in the lunchroom, 4) generally ostracized at company gatherings.

  • If everyone at Google is incentivised to push successful features out, then perhaps it will help keep them focused on projects that deliver real value to their customers. Lets hope this is not taken too far and starts to stifle innovation at Google though. Thank you
    • by Anonymous Coward

      So they know what features are successful before they're out?

  • Welcome to business. (Score:4, Informative)

    by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Friday April 08, 2011 @03:35AM (#35754582)

    This is how my company, and I imagine many others, do bonuses. They're not givens.

    Every year HQ releases the metric/equation for our bonus. Sometimes it's company wide. Sometimes it's division wide.

    For example: (Round numbers, not real)
    No one gets a bonus unless we hit a $0.50 dividend.
    After that. For every $0.01 above $.50, we get that much as a 'multiplier'.

    So as a salary grade 10. I get 10% of my annual salary as my bonus. Multiplied by the multiplier. I earn $50,000 year. We hit $1.20 dividend. That means I get 50k*.10*1.20 = $6000 bonus.

    It's not like the +1 button is their entire metric, but I'm sure it plays a role. Unless +1 hits 10% of market usage AND some other things happen, then the bonuses are given.

    • by karnal (22275)

      Actually, wouldn't that be 50k*.10*.7 = 3500? (Given you get .01% for every cent OVER 50 cents?)

  • by Mouldy (1322581) on Friday April 08, 2011 @03:35AM (#35754584)
    "...every Google employee..." -- Really?

    If the projects I was working on at Google had absolutely nothing at all to do with +1, I'd be pretty pissed if my bonus was riding on whether or not somebody else's project did well.
    • by mcvos (645701)

      I think this is Google's way of saying that everybody is now working on this. Figure out how to make it relevant to what you are doing.

      • Sounds like a pathological reimplementation of Apple's "steer your cadre of elite engineers to one thing" approach.

      • I think this is Google's way of saying that everybody is now working on this. Figure out how to make it relevant to what you are doing.

        And by "working on this" they mean "wildly clicking on every +1 link they see".

        • by hoggoth (414195)

          1. Calculate potential middle-management bonus based on +1 clicks.
          2. Hire mechanical turks in third world countries to click on +1 clicks.
          3. Profit.

          • by tomhudson (43916)

            No, it's more like:

            1. Calculate potential middle-management bonus based on +1 clicks.
            2. Write a bot to click on +1 clicks.
            3. Profit.

            This will be just one more opportunity for spammers to try to get their stuff in your face.

      • by pmontra (738736) on Friday April 08, 2011 @04:08AM (#35754726) Homepage

        Some (most?) of the people working there know they are not working on this +1 thing. Maybe they can make it somewhat relevant to their job, maybe not. I don't want to make guesses about Google's case but that very thing happened to me in a company I was working for years ago. The bonuses were linked to 3 or 4 goals that made sense for the long term success of the company but that were under the control of very different subsets of the employees. One of them could be somewhat linked to what I was doing but there was no chance I could help at achieving the other ones. It was demotivational and it didn't benefit our appreciation of the management and of the company. Furthermore, if one of those goals looks difficult to achieve employees get the impression that is a way for the company to save money at the end of the year. That's also very demotivational.

        By the way, everybody understands what a Like is but with +1... I'm adding 1 unit of what? They could have reused the thumbs up and down of youtube or copied the rating system of Slashdot. I'm looking forward to a -5 Spamindexing [wikipedia.org], on a scale from -5 to -1.

        • by he-sk (103163)

          They could have ... copied the rating system of Slashdot.

          Are you serious? Slashdot has the worst rating system ever devised on the internet. The "word" choices are extremely limited. Good mod options outweigh the bad mod options. You can only rate when Slashcode allows you to. You cannot rate and comment in the same article. You cannot rate a comment if it's already maxed out.

          Did I miss anything?

          Anyway, if you strip away the stupid descriptions, the upmods are reduced to a simple "+1".

          • +1 Archaeopteryx.

          • by Raenex (947668)

            Slashdot has the worst rating system ever devised on the internet.

            It's actually one of the better ones.

            The "word" choices are extremely limited.

            The only category I really care about is "funny", because those I subtract 6 from.

            You can only rate when Slashcode allows you to.

            Look at sites like Reddit, where anybody can thumbs up or down on any comment. It's completely groupthink, and you don't get well stated, insightful, differing opinions both being modded up. There's also the problem of sockpuppet accounts and rigging to the voting.

            I do wish Slashdot was more liberal in it's vote allocation. Something like allowing 3 mod points per day for any established us

            • by he-sk (103163)

              The only category I really care about is "funny", because those I subtract 6 from.

              That's interesting, because I mainly read the Slashdot discussions for comic relief. To each his own, I guess.

              Look at sites like Reddit, where anybody can thumbs up or down on any comment. It's completely groupthink, and you don't get well stated, insightful, differing opinions both being modded up. There's also the problem of sockpuppet accounts and rigging to the voting.

              I don't know about Reddit, but I find the top comments on Youtube are usually worth it. They also use thumbs up/down. And I don't care about sockpuppets or vote-rigging in that context.

              • by Raenex (947668)

                YouTube shows the top two comments. Yeah, those top two are often informative, but YouTube comments don't come anywhere close to a serious discussion site.

                What's cool about Slashdot is that when I browse at 3 or above, I'll usually get some nice back and forth views on the current topic. On sites like YouTube or Reddit, even if somebody has a good argument they'll get modded to oblivion (and sometimes even marked as spam).

                Of course, if all you want is comic relief or to read the prevailing groupthink, then

            • by Jeng (926980)

              "Something like allowing 3 mod points per day for any established user would be nice. I'd also like for a downvote to cost 3 mod points, to help reduce groupthink."

              Not sure about you but I get mod points at 15 points a whack, sometimes twice a week.

              • by Raenex (947668)

                Not sure about you but I get mod points at 15 points a whack, sometimes twice a week.

                This is entirely the problem, it varies extremely. Some users never get mod points. Some users get them all the time and far too many of them. Lately I've been getting 5 mod points now and then. I've had 10 and occasionally 15 before.

                There's just no consistency. It'd be nice if every established user got 3 every day that expired that day. I hate it when I don't feel like moderating and have mod points, and vice versa. I hate the enormous inequity in the system.

          • by Jeng (926980)

            "Good mod options outweigh the bad mod options"

            There is no "this is just plain wrong" option for a reason, because you need to post and explain why it is wrong. If you can't reply and state why it is wrong, then don't mod it.

            • by he-sk (103163)

              The problem is that you can't post and mod. That alone encourages downmodding, because you can't upmod a post in one thread and then reply with your criticism in another. Stupid.

              Oh, I forgot: Overrated and Underrated. Their meaning is completely ambiguous and Underrated is basically a stand-in for "I don't like what you said."

              • by Jeng (926980)

                "The problem is that you can't post and mod. That alone encourages downmodding, because you can't upmod a post in one thread and then reply with your criticism in another."

                I'm sorry, you are not making sense, so rather than mod you down I am replying to you.

                • by he-sk (103163)

                  Read the FAQ.

                  • by Jeng (926980)

                    "Read the FAQ"

                    I have, it's quite a good read actually. It's nice that they included why the moderation system is as it is and what was attempted before.

        • by delinear (991444)
          You're right that it's often demotional but is a pretty standard operating procedure. A lot of companies have bonus schemes related to sales or profits which don't make sense for a reasonable subset of employees. If you're working in the IT department you might have gone way above and beyond the call of duty keeping everything up and running through some particular crisis and, just because some people in some other department failed to sell X items, you don't get a bonus. For many companies it still makes s
      • Which is in turn a stupid policy set by management who is apparently too ignorant to understand that simply because project A is their baby, doesn't mean that all projects are suddenly related to it.
    • by thegarbz (1787294) on Friday April 08, 2011 @04:10AM (#35754732)

      Small scale thinking. Bonuses should depend on a how well a company does. If you exceed expectations you get a bonus. If anything this is an indication of the direction that Google wishes to head. It is clear they are not content with being a search king or a mobile king. The CEO has just defined success as breaking into social networks, and the employees will be rewarded if the company is successful.

      It's the same everywhere. Where I work our bonuses currently ride on no lost time injuries. We have a big problem with safety on site currently. But WTF do I have to do with lost time injuries? I work in an office in front of a computer! But yet when I'm walking around I tend to take notice of things, manhole covers not closed properly, fence railings in disrepair. Now that I have a stake in injuries I report things that are wrong. The system works, sometimes.

      • by n7ytd (230708)

        This. The last place I worked had a bonus structure tied at three levels: personal, departmental, and company-wide. It wasn't 33.3% at each level, but the idea was to tie the company's overall performance to your piece of the pie.

        At my current company, the structure is: "Bonus? Work is its own reward, heathen!"

    • by NoSig (1919688)
      The idea is to get you pissed at the +1 people in particular if they don't perform. It's collective punishment of the whole company to pressure the +1 group.
  • I like playing craps, whenever I'm in a jurisdiction that allows gambling. It's a very social game, and you don't need to bet a lot of money to have several hours of fun at almost fair odds (and get free drinks, the real secret to being a low, low, low roller). One thing I frequently saw was players betting a large amount, and then throwing in a dollar or two "for the dealer to play along". I never really thought much of it until I read some forum while in search of the elusive $2 pass line bet + 10x odd
    • by Anomalyst (742352)
      another craps afficianado here (check crapsfest.com and/or diceinstitute.com for others of us. I personally feel its good form to (when I remember) put a dollar down on top of my passline bet offset to one-side of my chip(s) when I get the dice on and loudly announce "dealers on the line! Player controlled.". The announcement serves to a) ensure the boxcritter knows that a dealer bet is on the table. b) to hopefully encourage other players to do the same (not as successful a strategy as I would hope). The
  • Many social experiments Google ran have failed -buzz and wave comes to mind first- and yet they still keep pushing. People don't go to Google for interacting. Google means business, Facebook and Twitter do not.

    This also reminds me of Microsoft's efforts to force themselves into others' more lucrative turfs and looking pathetic in the process. Google should just stick to being Google instead of immitating others.

    They are also doing the bonus adjustments wrong. It should be the other way around: If succ
    • Many social experiments Google ran have failed -buzz and wave comes to mind first- and yet they still keep pushing. People don't go to Google for interacting. Google means business, Facebook and Twitter do not.

      This also reminds me of Microsoft's efforts to force themselves into others' more lucrative turfs and looking pathetic in the process.

      You mean like when Microsoft pushed into consoles? I'll grant you the original Xbox wasn't that strong, but you'll be hard pressed to find a gamer that doesn't have an Xbox 360. Maybe Microsoft isn't as pathetic as you think.

      Google should just stick to being Google instead of immitating others.

      If Google just sticks to what they're doing, they'll just stagnate and ultimately fall behind. Trying to enter other markets is how these companies grow themselves. Sure there's going to be failures, but you can't have success if you're not even trying.

      They are also doing the bonus adjustments wrong. It should be the other way around: If successful extra +25%, otherwise, regular bonus. After all success means (apparently for them) entrance to another market.

      Ok, what exactly does the word "bo

      • by Tintivilus (88810)

        Ok, what exactly does the word "bonus" mean to you? If it was just a given that you were going to get a bonus, why not just include it in the regular salary?

        Bonuses in the US are "incentive pay". They're an aware based on success, and most companies define success as meeting their goals, so it's perfectly logical for a company to say to have a baseline bonus policy in addition to salary, and modify that bonus up or down for exceeding or falling short of the stated goals. It's both the carrot and the stick.

    • by omnichad (1198475)

      I don't remember exactly how, but I'm pretty sure that Google knows my Twitter handle and who I'm friends with on Facebook. They collect a lot of data. Remember, at worst this is crowdsourced info like Wikipedia, except with only algorithms - not editors - to filter out the bad posts. People in your social circle are weighted higher. If you use gmail, then they have all your contacts and know if any of those are google accounts. I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out, but I can still see the

  • I'm kind of surprised how Google has kept failing when trying to become a social network. You'd think they'd have everything. The by far largest search engine to market their network on, a crapload of Google accounts already, and most importantly - lots of smart people that are used to designing stuff for the web.

    And yet, I'm not sure they get it this time either. I think Ars Technica put it best [arstechnica.com] so far:

    Given the size of the Internet, limiting the crowd that is able to sort through it for you to your circle of friends doesn't seem like the best solution. In the same vein, the assumption that Google users only have contacts whose opinion they respect may be a little off-base. The service could prove useful if you have a cadre of impeccably tasteful friends, but we hope this isn't meant to be the magic bullet for Google's increasingly SEO-burdened results.

    • I think you're making the assumption that a lot of people go to Google for anything other than searching. Sure, a lot of people use Gmail or their other services, but a lot of other people don't for whatever reason. If you're not a part of the Google ecosystem, and only use Google because of what they do best - search - all of their attempts at social networking look like "me too" shoved in your face that you really may not want.
  • by polyp2000 (444682) on Friday April 08, 2011 @04:48AM (#35754846) Homepage Journal

    Where are the "Dont Like" or "-1" buttons ?

    I totally understand why such a thing is not prevalent. Surely - in terms of data mining peoples tastes and interests a "Dont Like" button would be very useful too.

    Suppose some company catches on that I am interested in computers - I dont neccessarily want them sending me info about Windows or OSX so i might want to be able to know that I "Dont Like" those topics.

    Also , a friend of mine on FB the other day posted an item about a crime that had been committed in his neighbourhood and people were "Liking" it. That doesnt work in my mind. Someone gets stabbed and people "Like" it ? whats the world coming too ?

    Nick

    • by pmontra (738736)
      I bet that it's a misunderstanding. If liking or thumbs up are the only ways to express appreciation for reporting the crime, people will use them even if they might be misunderstood as liking the crime itself. Unfortunately FB doesn't have a "Thank you for reporting" button. That's what Infomative is about here on /.
    • by kill-1 (36256)

      What we need is an antisocial network where you don't have friends but enemies and can only dislike things.

    • by omnichad (1198475)

      I thought they already had an experimental feature like that - each result has an X on it and you can click that X to keep it from ever showing up in your own search results again. Pretty harsh, yes - that will probably be aggregated against the +1's at some point.

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Friday April 08, 2011 @06:06AM (#35755156)

    At least, once financial well-being is established?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc [youtube.com]

    Instead, it's supposed to be independence, recognition, and other such things?

  • So Google, with its pretty sweet database of what people are searching for all over the Internet, feels the need to inject bias and conflicting opinions into the matter?

    Part of Google's success was -removing- the personal opinions of those doing the searching, favoring what they ultimately searched for over what they felt was good. This gives much crisper results than simply asking people, "So, what do you like?", since for some unusual reason, people always seem to like glitchy porn sites and random advert

  • by w0mprat (1317953)
    Also reads as if your staff don't succeed with this they will be denied money. It's just not worded like that.
  • And next year I'll tie my employees' benefits to how often I get oral sex.

    Why not? It's logically tied to most of my employees' jobs just as much as most of Google's employees' jobs are tied to the +1.
  • "I'm gonna write me a new minivan this afternoon!" (self-clicking +1 button)
    Of course, the +1 button is just a side-note to the larger social-networking goal, but management mandates of intellectual property are always doomed to produce poor results. If a person or group of people within Google could produce the next Facebook, why would they give it to Google?

  • Well, now we know that "+1" isn't about search quality.

    Most ad clicks come from a tiny percentage of users. [googleusercontent.com] 85% of ad clicks come from 8% of users. Worse, from an advertiser perspective, the heavy clickers don't buy much. Also, ad click-through dropped 50% from 2007 to 2011. Only losers click on ads now.

    "+1" is likely to have similar demographics. If it's important to you for your friends to know that you like some product, you probably have no life. Or you're a spambot. As an approach to social netwo

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. -- F. Brooks, "The Mythical Man-Month"

Working...