[MayanAstronaut]

I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity?

Google is now a mega-corp, comprised of thousands competing for finite success outcomes (raises & promos). It is also data driven hence they look at metrics that are considered success like registers over abandonments. Brand tarnish is a long term outcome, therefore it can not be seen in typical a/b testing cycles. Hence it is ignored, or even gamed upon for short term metric gain. This is true for all corps that equate success with short cycle data driven metrics.

[johnchristopher]

> I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity ?

Because despite being a mega-corp, comprised of thousands [...], it's still called and named `Google`, singular. They naturally map it to one entity ; not because they are stupid but because the entity is interacting with them solely through that one identity and they don't have incentives to care for the inner workings of that entity.

> It is also data driven hence they look at metrics that are considered success like registers over abandonments. Brand tarnish is a long term outcome, therefore it can not be seen in typical a/b testing cycles. Hence it is ignored, or even gamed upon for short term metric gain. This is true for all corps that equate success with short cycle data driven metrics.

Like: "we don't care about those abandonments because we got these phone numbers which are more valuable and show we are a trusty brand" ? Makes sens (no sarcasm).

[oceanplexian]

They don't care about abandonment because anyone can game A/B testing.

Users are easily persuaded. A majority of users will give in just so the damn thing shuts up. They probably use the metrics to hand out bonuses or engage in pointless contests leading to gamification.

It doesn't take a village to make a Picasso, and any attempts to try are going to result in failure. Google needs leadership.

[bowlofpetunias]

Either your description of a purely data driven corporation is true, in which case I would say Google operates exactly like a hive mind, or something else is controlling these actions. Actions which across all Google properties are identical in nature, and maybe more significantly, tone of voice.

That, or all of this is just a huge coincidence. I find that to be the least plausible explanation.

Clearly this is a unified strategic approach. It's one Google doing this, not dozens of units that happen to accidentally all try to do the same things the same way at the same time. It's the total unity part that actually makes it more creepy.

[hackertux]

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

[leoc]

By all accounts the consolidation and Plusification of Google's services is being driven from the top, by Larry Page specifically.

[Silhouette]

That a bad plan comes from a famous person doesn't make it any less of a bad plan.

In the spirit of Google: +1 for people and +2 for companies now actively moving away from almost all Google properties because they're becoming so unpleasant and/or unproductive to use. I know they're all about being data driven and running empirical tests: that's why the {expletive deleted} page moves around every time I come back and visit something, which is probably the single most annoying thing they've been lately. The very fact that they're running so many tests is materially reducing the value of their services to us.

Ironically, our exodus started with abandoning our business G+ pages, because they have generated so little interest that they aren't even worth a few minutes now and then to update them any more. It appears that literally no-one we care about is actually using Google+.

[yuhong]

It is unfortunate that this did not get the attention it deserves: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6420546

Original link: http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/09/20/sex_a...

[dredmorbius]

Do you have any specific references to those accounts?

The consistency and duration of the push certainly makes it appear to me to be a top management directive. Which is among the reasons my faith and trust in the company has fallen so drastically as I've watched its G+ offerings evolve.

[frogpelt]

Sure its a mega-corp but some person or persons are in charge. And this individuals either agree with this path or are getting ready to fire some folks.

[summerdown2]

> I have no idea why people talk about huge corporations like they have hive mind and are in total unity?

Am I the only one to find this statement ironic?

One of the biggest arguments against Google+ and its drive to one account/real names is that individual people don't have unitary identities, let alone companies.

[n09n]

Maybe as a general assessment, but I think the google+/youtube merger specifically is being driven by ideology, not metrics. Remember that memo Steve Yegge wrote a few years ago? I think the company took that message very seriously. Maybe a little too seriously...

[leoc]

I don't see the connection though. Yegge was lamenting Google's unwillingness to be serious about being a platform company for third-party app developers (, developers, developers, developers ...) The latest changes don't seem to have much to do with progress on that front.

[MayanAstronaut]

This is true of all partner+ or close to partner level management due to that they are there for the long haul. They do not have metrics only ideology. In the long haul, brand collapse will be seen; see MS where it has trickled from the bottom to the top, hence the exiting CEO and exec shedding.

But who is implementing and setting all the short term 'features', lower mgmt and ICs. The issue is that ideology is not enough for measuring success in mega corps, data has to used. The translation form ideology to metrics is where they fail.

[joelrunyon]

What memo? Do you have a link?