Susan's quite sharp. She ran the product team for ads (AdWords and AdSense) in the early days and made some pretty big moves, including pre-buying premium ad content on NYTimes and other sites to make the content network attractive to advertisers when it was initially seen as lower-quality goods. She's very quantitative.
Hooray, once again it's the generic boilerplate executive or product manager who gets the big bucks, while the PROGRAMMERS are stuck toiling away.
Thank god for people like John Carmack and Linus Torvalds, great programmers who are recognised as leaders and given the respect that this profession so badly needs.
That Susan is quite smart in no way takes away from the programmers who are also quite smart. Search leadership is engineers all the way down, from Larry (invented PageRank) to Alan (started as a hardware engineer at Compaq) to Amit (one of the leading academic figures in information retrieval before he invented Google's ranking algorithm) to Ben (authored much of the early utility code for Google).
But hey, if you'd like to give props to the programmers toiling away on Google, I'll be happy to take 'em. ;-)
Not at all. PageRank is a way of assessing relevant importance of pages; the only input is link structure. If that was the sole ranking algorithm, every query would give the same results.
Explain how Susan is "generic"? Do you think Google would have had its success sellings ads (or whatever) to make more programmers into millionaires than any other company has done, if someone else had been in her place?
Marissa Mayer hired a guy, paid him millions, then fired him because he was crap. What makes you think Susan is any different? Right time, right place, right connections, you get the job.
We'll never know if somebody else could have been as successful or not at selling ads at Google, but guess what, given that Google has been the #1 search engine for so many years, it's kind of hard to screw up, right?
At the end of the day, I don't even know why I'm commenting on this thread, because I don't actually give a damn who's running YouTube. All I care about is that the site is literally going down the tubes because of a poor user experience, and in an attempt to monetize, it's only going to get worse.
Comments
Susan's quite sharp. She ran the product team for ads (AdWords and AdSense) in the early days and made some pretty big moves, including pre-buying premium ad content on NYTimes and other sites to make the content network attractive to advertisers when it was initially seen as lower-quality goods. She's very quantitative.
Hooray, once again it's the generic boilerplate executive or product manager who gets the big bucks, while the PROGRAMMERS are stuck toiling away.
Thank god for people like John Carmack and Linus Torvalds, great programmers who are recognised as leaders and given the respect that this profession so badly needs.
That Susan is quite smart in no way takes away from the programmers who are also quite smart. Search leadership is engineers all the way down, from Larry (invented PageRank) to Alan (started as a hardware engineer at Compaq) to Amit (one of the leading academic figures in information retrieval before he invented Google's ranking algorithm) to Ben (authored much of the early utility code for Google).
But hey, if you'd like to give props to the programmers toiling away on Google, I'll be happy to take 'em. ;-)
I thought Google's ranking algorithm was PageRank.
Not at all. PageRank is a way of assessing relevant importance of pages; the only input is link structure. If that was the sole ranking algorithm, every query would give the same results.
Explain how Susan is "generic"? Do you think Google would have had its success sellings ads (or whatever) to make more programmers into millionaires than any other company has done, if someone else had been in her place?
Marissa Mayer hired a guy, paid him millions, then fired him because he was crap. What makes you think Susan is any different? Right time, right place, right connections, you get the job.
We'll never know if somebody else could have been as successful or not at selling ads at Google, but guess what, given that Google has been the #1 search engine for so many years, it's kind of hard to screw up, right?
At the end of the day, I don't even know why I'm commenting on this thread, because I don't actually give a damn who's running YouTube. All I care about is that the site is literally going down the tubes because of a poor user experience, and in an attempt to monetize, it's only going to get worse.