It bothers me that in some months, the 27th is 3 days from the end of the month, but in some months, the 27th is 4 days from the end. Could this mess up the graph?
The 27th appears in every month, but the time remaining to meet your (possible) quota would be different for different months.
I was originally thinking that the drop on the 31st could be explained by the last day of the month not counting for quotas, so they could be tallied or something. Then I realized that the last day of the month varies, and that it if that was the cause of the massive drop on the 31st, it would have made a bigger impact on the 30th.
I might do an update with some of the suggestions here, including a graph of tickets / days until end of month. [1]
Is there any evidence in regard to the nature of quota-esque incentives? Are the measurement periods monthly vs. say, every two weeks? One would assume that, if quotas exist, they would have some periodicity, but there certainly are other schemes.
In the US, judges rewrite the law with every ruling. Since the precedent established by a case is used in future decisions, the "real" law (the one which your actions will be compared against in court) is the base law passed in congress plus all of the precedent that has been piled on top of it.
It seems like most of the commenters here are treating the evidence of Google's wrongdoing as conclusive. It isn't. A comment on the post by Richard Wooding demonstrated how Joe Random can make requests from a Google IP address:
Yes, but I don't think they can spin it as a "rogue team" really. If it is a team inside Google. That's Google's fault. It doesn't matter whether it's Google's fault because they have poor oversight or too much freedom or because they hire people who are criminal.
No, some regular person at Google behaved unethically. If Google locked down their employees enough to prevent this (which I doubt is even possible), then they wouldn't be able to do anything good either. You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business.
> " You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business."
I don't see that anywhere in the posts above.
I can't speak for other posters, but the price of letting your employees have the freedom to act according to their own initiative is that sometimes, people will fuck up, and the damage may not just be contained to your own company.
Of course, giving employees freedom also means more innovation, fast progress, and generally more happiness.
So the idea is that Google can't just reap the benefits of high-employee-freedom, they also need to bear the responsibilities for the inevitable damage it causes. These employees, acting on behalf of Google, did something bad, and caused real, quantifiable damage to another business - Google needs to take responsibility for this, and I don't just mean a mea culpa on a blog.
Well, hard to say seeing as how the jury's still out on exactly what happened.
If it was a rogue team in Google, there are a few things that come to mind:
- Google needs to refund all customers they acquired via this process and alert them that they were duped.
- Google needs to call every single business that the rogue team called and inform of what happened, and that Google is not affiliated with Mocality in any way whatsoever. Any fraudulent or deceptive claims that Google allegedly made against Mocality also needs to be addressed and recanted - to every single business that Google scraped and called.
A blanket apology and correction, on a site that the vast majority of these businesses will never read, is simply a cop out and wholly insufficient.
"A blanket apology and correction, on a site that the vast majority of these businesses will never read, is simply a cop out and wholly insufficient."
What about the original post gave you the impression that the blog post was the end of things? How about giving the people who are dealing with this a reasonable amount of time do handle it?
You're reading way more into my post than I intended. Like I said, the jury's still out on what precisely happened, it's doubtful Google has yet figured out just what exactly occurred.
My post was responding to jrockway, who seemed to suggest that, because employee freedom leads to innovation and Good Things(tm), that people should simply let things like this slide with an apology, and chalk it up to a price of innovation. That's a load of crap. Real, provable damages needs to be corrected where possible, and compensated where it isn't.
He also didn't seem to be able to imagine any form of remedial action more than apologizing and disciplinary action - as if the real damage caused to another business is but a detail, or something hopelessly unfixable - neither of which are true.
tl;dr: Google probably (probably) is going to make this right, especially with this much flak directed at them. If jrockway was in charge of Google, though, I wouldn't expect the same.
>You're saying: one mistake in a tiny branch office, entire global company goes out of business.
Nope I'm trying to temper your outlandish general statements; and failing.
napierzaza said, roughly, it was Googles fault if they hired criminals and those people were acting criminally either through lack of oversight or otherwise. You said something along the lines of it being expected that Google would commit crimes and that this is merely the cost of innovation. I asked if Google inc. acting criminally bothered you and you appeared to answer that it didn't that it was impossible for them to do good without also committing 'evil'.
TBH I can't really believe anyone who values the rule of law (particular its equal application) could countenance such a position. So, do you believe that rich corporations should be immune from the laws that bind the rest of us?
Hypothetical: If an employee in McDonald's overcharges all the customers do you think that McDonald's/the franchisee is completely devoid of responsibility because it was "just an employee"?
Hypothetical: If an employee in McDonald's overcharges all the customers do you think that McDonald's/the franchisee is completely devoid of responsibility because it was "just an employee"?
That's a good example. But there's a difference between harming your customers and harming your competitors. In the case of McDonalds' hypothetical actions, the solution is to give your customers their money back and a few free burgers. But what can Google do to make up for their mistake here? Go back in time and not hire the individuals that fucked up?
It's fairly obvious what they should do: apologise publicly and to the people who they misrepresented themselves to.
Not in the Anglosphere where the actual people affected will never know of their wrongdoing.
Not throw their hands up in the air and blame human nature, sorry for the inconvenience.
Every act like this where they do not take a principled stand, dilutes the value of that Don't Be Evil motto a little more, until one day it will essentially be meaningless.
Can we get a little perspective? It's been less than a day since this came to light.
How about giving the people who are investigating a reasonable amount of time to investigate what happened, ferret out who is responsible and and figure out how best to move forward?
You know, up until this comment of yours, it hadn't bothered me that you were an employee of google defending their actions most of the time on HN. I still assumed you were being somewhat objective.
But I have finally lost that trust. It is extremely hard to believe your objectivity when you equate what happened with "pushing the envelope" and "innovation".
By rescaling the numbers, the two questions can be turned into:
- "Would you pay $900 for a 90% chance to win $1000?"
- "Would you pay $100 for a 10% chance to win $1000?"
So the distribution of results really is different. It's not just a phrasing trick. I would still say no to the first and yes to the second. I like positive outliers more than negative ones. This doesn't seem irrational to me.
There's also the fact that we usually cannot estimate the probabilities of events with that kind of precision.
I'd say that most people rarely have enough data to split probabilities into more than about five bins: ~0%, fairly unlikely, coin flip (~50%), fairly likely, and ~100%.
I agree completely with a minor tweak:
"Would you RISK $900 for a 90% chance to win $1000?"
"Would you RISK $100 for a 10% chance to win $1000?"
It's all about managing the risk: generally speaking, I can afford to risk $100, but not $900. Furthermore, I've already spent/borrowed the second $1000 (We're TAKING my existing money, which I presumably have already planned on having). So the first is a windfall, but the second is a real need. So I WON'T risk a large amount of money for a windfall, but I WILL risk a small amount in order to meet a real need. I'd say that's 100% rational.
