Google Comix: Like Batman Sort Of
July 13, 2021
I read “Site Republishes Comics Strips Circulated Internally at Google.” I am not sure this is the type of humor which makes Google top dogs chuckle with delight. In fact, creating fungible evidence of Google foibles is probably a bad idea. The write up points out:
Goomics collects comics strips that went around inside Google. Many concern abstruse industry topics; some offer an insight on the company’s politics, inefficiencies and cultural problems.
Navigate to Goomics and here’s what was on display on July 9, 2021:
Laughing with tears in your eyes yet?
Google, like most of the technopolies, is a hoot. Take Google’s management handling of human resource issues related to ethical artificial intelligence. That phrase on its own is funny. Now visualize the set of the 1950 TV show “You Bet Your Life.” George Fenneman asks Groucho Marx: Would you work in Google artificial intelligence ethics unit? Groucho: Ethics? In AI? Audience laughs for 10 seconds.
One of the Goomics which caught my eye shows the Google motto “Don’t be evil” with the statement “Pray that nobody notices.” Once again, really funny. Evil? Ho ho ho.
And those Googlers. A hoot as I said.
Stephen E Arnold, July 13, 2021
How Do You Spell Control? Maybe Google?
July 8, 2021
The lack of a standardized format has made it difficult to manage vulnerabilities in open source software. Now, SiliconAngle reports, “Google Announces Unified Schema to Make Sharing Vulnerabilities Easier.” Writer Duncan Riley explains:
“Google LLC today announced a unified schema for describing vulnerabilities precisely to make it easier to share vulnerabilities between databases. The idea behind the unified schema is to address an issue with existing vulnerability databases where various ecosystems and organizations create their own data. As each uses its own format to describe vulnerabilities, a client tracking vulnerabilities across multiple databases must handle each separately. Because of the lack of a common standard, sharing vulnerabilities among databases is challenging. The new unified schema for describing vulnerabilities has been designed by the Google Open Source Security Team, Go Team and the broader open-source community and has been designed from the beginning for open-source ecosystems. The unified format will allow vulnerability databases, open-source users and security researchers to share tooling and consume vulnerabilities more easily across open source, providing a complete view of vulnerabilities in open source.”
Google also launched its Open Source Vulnerabilities database in February, describing it as the “first step toward improving vulnerability triage for developers and consumers of open-source software.” Originally populated with a few thousand vulnerabilities from the OSS-Fuzz project, the database is being expanded to open-source ecosystems Go, Rust, Python and DWF. These seems like moves in the right direction, but can we trust Google deliver objective, unfiltered reports? Or will it operate as it has with YouTube filtering and AI ethics staff management?
Cynthia Murrell, July 8, 2021
Institutional Knowledge: A Metric about the Google
July 6, 2021
I read an unusual “I left Google” essay called “Leaving Google.” I am not sure I understand how an apparently valued employee would find bureaucratic processes a reason for leaving what seems to be an okay job. You can read the write up by a Xoogler who worked at the mom-and-pop online ad company for 17 years.
I noted one factoid which struck me as quite interesting. Here it is:
At the time I left, out of ~150k employees, only ~300 had worked there longer than me.
That means that the institutional “knowledge” of Google, its thousands of technical components, its hundreds of thousands contracts, its millions of inter- and intra-process dependencies from the days of Backrub to the weirdness of solving death to the incredibly brilliant but Floc’ed solution to user tracking resides in exactly 0.1935 percent of the staff.
Perhaps some of Google’s more interesting behaviors, products, pronouncements, and personnel decisions have drifted from what the company was first engineered to deliver?
Questions:
- When a component buried deep in code created in 1999 goes wrong, who knows how to fix it?
- What if the issue cannot be fixed? What then?
- How much of modern Google is code wrappers slapped over something that mostly works?
- Are disconnects between engineering and marketing created by this loss of institutional knowledge?
I suppose one can use a Web search engine like Bing, Swisscows, or Yandex to seek answers. Google search is not particularly useful for this type of query.
Stephen E Arnold, July 6, 2021
Google and Personnel: Progress or Regress?
July 5, 2021
I read a write up from Verdict, a UK information service. The story “Google: We’re Hiring Lots of Minorities! Sadly They Are Leaving Even Faster” provides some useful information about Google’s management practices. The story reports:
Big Tech has a diversity problem, a fact underlined by Google’s latest diversity report revealing how minorities are leaving Mountain View in droves.
And from whence does this factoid come? Heh, heh, the information comes from the Google, if the Verdict story is on the money. Google issued an annual diversity report. I think this was the first one since the diversity report for 2014. Hey, we are on Internet time, so those seven years are really many, many more. Logically, if Google operates on Internet time and that “time” is accelerated, the Google is not late. Google is on time and on target. Non Googlers need to process Google’s definition of annual and understand that the faster you go, stuff slows down to observers. Hence, 2021 is simply the next annual report in the quantum supremacy world. Google uses a variation of this logic when it misses European regulators’ requests for documents by invoking the “dog ate my homework” enhancement.
Onward. The article includes this interesting passage:
True to form, the latest report kicks off by highlighting all the efforts that it’s made to ensure diversity among its staff. Some highlights to that end include how 84% of Google’s people managers have completed unconscious bias training and that Mountain View has spent $55m since 2014 to boost economic empowerment for women. To put that last figure into perspective: that’s 0.4% of Google’s total revenue of $13.059bn from 2020…
And there’s more:
Hiring among black employees jumped from 5.5% to 8.8% between 2020 and 2021. Similarly, hiring of Latin employees jumped from 6.6% to 8.8%. However, hiring of Asian employees shrunk from 48.5% to 42.8% and Native American hiring slumped from 0.8% to 0.7%. The hiring of white employees rose from 43.1% to 44.5%.
The article includes a somewhat negative statement too:
However, the report also reveals that Google is bleeding staff from ethnic minorities.
And here are the data presented by Verdict:
The biggest change was seen among its black staff. The attrition index demonstrated a jump from 112 in 2020 to 121 in 2021 among black employees. It was particularly bad for black women, whose attrition rate grew from 110 to 146 over the last year. For black men, the number decreased from 114 to 106. A similar increase was seen among Latin employees, with the rate of attrition increasing from 97 to 105 over the period. For women in the group, attrition decreased from 93 to 81. For the Latin men, it jumped from 98 in 2020 to 117 in 2021. For women in the group, attrition decreased from 93 to 81. For the Latin men, it jumped from 98 in 2020 to 117 in 2021. The attrition of Native American Google employees grew from 131 to 136. The increase was led by by Native American women whose attrition rate increased from 123 in 2020 to 148 in 2021 while the men in the group saw attrition decrease from 143 to 127.
Hmmm. The next report will be due next year. Please, don’t forget to calculate what annual means in Google speak.
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2021
Google and Unreliable Results: Like the Jack Benny One Liner, I Am Thinking, I Am Thinking
June 25, 2021
I read a “real” news story called “Google Is Starting to Warn Users When It Doesn’t Have a Reliable Answer.” (No, I will not ask, What’s reliable mean.)
Here’s the statement which snagged my attention in the write up:
“When anybody does a search on Google, we’re trying to show you the most relevant, reliable information we can,” said Danny Sullivan, a public liaison for Google Search. “But we get a lot of things that are entirely new,” Sullivan said the notice isn’t saying that what you’re seeing in search results is right or wrong — but that it’s a changing situation, and more information may come out later.
I think Mr. Sullivan, a former search engine optimization guru and conference organizer, is the “new” Matt Cutts, a Google professional helping to point the way to the digital future at the US government. Is key word packing the path to more patents than China?
I loved this statement which I know is pretty Tasmanian devil like: “Most relevant, reliable information we can.” I did a query for garage floor epoxy coating in Louisville. I gathered about 20 businesses display on the first two pages of Google search results. Two companies were in this business. Others were out of business. One “company” called me back and said, “My loser son has been gone for two years.”
I have other examples as well of search either being out of date, spoofed, or just weird.
Let’s look at some of the reasons why Google made a statement about “reliable answers.”
First, I think the difficulty of providing real-time indexing is beyond three Google capabilities: Outfits with real time content won’t play ball with Google unless Google pays up and works out a mechanism to move the content to a Google indexing queue. (Yep, queue as in long line at the McDonald’s drive through.)
Second, Google is not set up to do real time. I think the notion of having a short list of “must ping frequently sites” may be a hold over from the distant past. The reason? As the cost of indexing, updating, and making the Google indexes “consistent” – some of the practices no longer fit the current iteration of “relevant” and “reliable.” Google is not Twitter, and it is not Facebook. Therefore, the pipelines for real time content simply don’t exist. Googlers tried but seemed to be better at selling ads than dealing with new content types.
Third, hot info appears in non text form on Instagram, TikTok, and even places like DailyMotion and Vimeo sometimes days before the content plops into YouTube. Ever try to locate a video using the creator assigned index terms. That’s an exercise in futility. Ads, gentle reader, not relevant and reliable information.
From my vantage point on the porch overlooking a mine drainage pond, I have some hypotheses:
- Google is under financial pressure, a competitive pressure from Amazon and Facebook, and a legal pressure. Almost any nation state with an appetite to drag the Google into court is in gear.
- Google is just not able to handle the real time flows of content, either textual or imagery. Too bad, but that’s the excitement of Hegel’s these, antithese, synthese which “real” Googlers learn along with search engine optimization marketing methods.
- Google’s propagandistic and jingoistic assurances that it returns relevant and reliable results is more and more widely seen as key word spam.
- Google’s management methods are not tuned for the current business environment. I may be alone in noticing that high school science club thinking and management from assumed superiority is out of favor. (If Sergey Brin were to ride a Russian rocket into space, wou8ld he attract more signatures that Jeff Bezos. The quasi referendum did not want Mr. Bezos to return to earth. Mr. Brin’s ride did not materialize, so I won’t know who “won” the most votes.)
Net net: Relevant and reliable. That’s a line worthy of Jack Benny when he is asked about Fred Allen. I give up, “What does ‘reliable’ mean, Googlers.” My suggestion is marketing hoo haa with metatags.
Stephen E Arnold, June 25, 2021
Google: So Darned Useful to Good and Bad Actors
June 25, 2021
Never underestimate hackers’ adaptability and opportunism. E Hacking News reports, “Threat Actors Use Google Drives and Docs to Host Novel Phishing Attacks.” For the first time, security firm Avanan has found, attackers are able to bypass link scanners and other security protections and use Google’s standard document tools to deliver malicious, credential-stealing links. Previously, bad actors have had to lure their victims to a legitimate website in order to exploit its security flaws. Now they can do so right from users’ inboxes. The article cites a recent report from Trend Micro as well as the research from Avanan:
“According to researchers, once the hacker publishes the lure, ‘Google provides a link with embed tags that are meant to be used on forums to render custom content. The attacker does not need the iframe tags and only needs to copy the part with the Google Docs link. This link will now render the full HTML file as intended by the attacker and it will also contain the redirect hyperlink to the actual malicious website.’ The hackers then use the phishing lure to get the victim to ‘Click here to download the document.’ Once the victim clicks, the page redirects to the actual malicious phishing website through a web page designed to mimic the Google Login portal. Friedrich said Avanan researchers also spotted this same attack method used to spoof a DocuSign phishing email. In this case, the ‘View Document’ button was a published Google Docs link that actually was a fake DocuSign login page that would transmit the entered password to an attacker-controlled server via a ‘Log in’ button.”
Stolen login credentials are the most effective way to infiltrate any organization, and with a little social engineering hackers can attract many of them with this approach. It is a good reminder that educated users who do not fall for phishing schemes provide the best protection against such attackers. Alternatively, just download some interesting apps from the Google Play Store.
Cynthia Murrell, June 25, 2021
The Google: EU Action Generates a Meh
June 24, 2021
I read “Europe Is Finally Hitting Google Where It Hurts Most.”
Here’s a passage I found interesting:
The fact that it owns the biggest search engine, video streaming website and e-mail client isn’t the top cause for concern — it’s that the finances of all three are tied together through the ads that pay for them.
Yep, but I would suggest that Google is doing the synergy thing better than most mom and pop outfits.
Here’s another interesting statement:
The problem is that Google holds all of the power. In the auction house analogy, the company is the buyer’s agent, the seller’s agent and often the seller too. It has both the opportunity and incentive to A) overcharge advertisers who have no visibility into the value of competing bids; and B) send more revenue toward its own websites. It can decide to direct my advertising spend towards YouTube, rather than another video site.
I think Google is holding the cards in the online ad game. To make the game more profitable, Google can pull cards from its other data decks. Will the EU try to end the game or just walk out of the Googlegarch’s casino?
Stephen E Arnold, June 24, 2021
Google and Its Engineering Residency: Problem Solved or Is It?
June 24, 2021
I read “Google Drops Engineering Residency after Protests over Inequities.” That means unfair, right? Maybe discriminatory? Nope, more of the good old Google management method in action. Remarkable, but the Google is consistent. Controversy and glitches every which way but loose.
The write up states:
The Google residency, often referred to as “Eng Res,” has since 2014 given graduates from hundreds of schools a chance to work on different teams, receive training and prove themselves for a permanent job over the course of a year. It offered a cohort of peers for bonding, three former residents said. Residents were Google’s “most diverse pool” of software engineers and came “primarily from underrepresented groups,” according to a June 2020 presentation and an accompanying letter to management that one source said over 500 current and former residents signed. Compared with other software engineers, residents received the lowest possible pay for their employment level, a smaller year-end bonus and no stock, creating a compensation deficit “in the mid tens of thousands of dollars,” the presentation said. Nearly all residents converted to regular employees, according to the presentation. Many alumni years later have continued to feel the “negative effect” of their starting pay on their current salary, it said. Google said it worked to eliminate long-term disparities when hiring residents permanently.
Interesting. The protest thing seems to be one way to catch the attention of the president of the digital science club working overtime to deliver quantum supremacy.
Stephen E Arnold, June 24, 2021
Google: Me Too, a Refrigerator, and Innovation
June 23, 2021
Okay, pantry, refrigerator, on ice, whatever. Google is not an innovator; it is a me too outfit. I read “Si! Das Ist Richtig! Google’s Reportedly Building a Duolingo Competitor.” The write up reveals:
the company is preparing a new product called Tivoli that’ll be rolled out later this year. It’ll initially work on text, and will live in Google Search.
I thought I saw a Google slide deck in 2006 which had this in a dot point. Oh, well, history is not exactly what thumbtypers do these days.
The write up states:
Whenever Google launches its efforts, it might a heavy competition from other industry leaders such as Babel, Duolingo, and Rosetta Stone. According to a report by Meticulous Research analytics firm, the online language learning market is set to reach $21.2 billion by 2027. And it wouldn’t surprise me if the search giant is gearing up to grab a big chunk of that booty.
Okay, big numbers and competitors who are entrenched.
What’s interesting is that Google is pulling some of its preserved groceries out of the warehouse and presenting them as alternatives to self driving cars which are sort of self driving, solving death which is a thorny problem, and floating ideas which show that the mom and pop online advertising store is not out of ideas.
There’s a freezer in the company garage stuffed with me toos. Just add marketing, shake, and serve.
Stephen E Arnold, June 23, 2021
Why Messrs Brin and Page Said Adios
June 22, 2021
Years ago I signed a document saying I could not reveal any information obtained, intuited, learned, or received by any means electrical or mechanical from an interesting company for which I did some trivial work. I have been a good person, and I will continue of that path in this short blog post based on open source info and my own cogitations.
Yes, the GOOG. I want to remind readers that in 2019, the dynamic duo, the creators of Backrub, and the beneficiaries of some possible inspiration from Yahoo, GoTo.com, and Overture stepped away from their mom and pop online advertising store. With lots of money and eternal fame in the pantheon of online superstars, this was a good decision. Based on my understanding of information in open sources, the two decades of unparalleled fun was drawing to a close. Thus, hasta la vista. From my point of view, these visionaries who understood the opportunities to sell ads rendered silly ideas like doing good toothless. Go for the gold because there was no meaningful regulation as long as their was blood lust for tchotchkes like blinking Google pins or mouse pads with the Google logo.
But there were in open source information hints of impending trouble; for example:
- Management issues, both personal and company centric. Who can forget drug overdoses, attempted suicides, and baby daddies in the legal department? Certainly not the online indexes which provide valid links here, here, and here. Keep in mind, gentle reader, that these items are from open sources.
- Grousing from Web site owners, partners, and developers. The Foundem persistence gave hope to many that others would speak up despite Google’s power, money, and flotillas of legal destroyers.
- Annoying bleats about competition were emitted with ever increasing stridency from those clueless EU officials. Example number one: Margrethe Vestager. Danes fouled up taking over England, other Scandinavia countries, and lost the lead in ham to the questionable Spanish who fed cinco jota pigs acorns.
Nope, bail out time.
I offer these prefatory sentences because those commenting, tweeting, and blogging about “Google Executives See Cracks in Their Company’s Success” seem to have forgotten the glorious past of the Google. I noted this statement which is eerily without historical context and presented as a novel idea:
But a restive class of Google executives worry that the company is showing cracks. They say Google’s work force is increasingly outspoken. Personnel problems are spilling into the public. Decisive leadership and big ideas have given way to risk aversion and incrementalism. And some of those executives are leaving and letting everyone know exactly why.
Okay. But Messrs Brin and Page left. This is a surprise? Why? The high school science club management method is no longer fun. The crazy technology is expensive and old. The Foosball table needs resurfacing. The bean bags smell. And — news flash — when Elvis left the building, the show was over.
Messrs Brin and Page left the building. Got the picture?
Stephen E Arnold, June 22, 2021
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
