Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Engineers are also sandbagged with "we need more data" until a risk-taking idea gets snuffed out of existence.

Not at Google, but what I saw was worse than that. It was "we need more data" over and over and, on each round, I could watch other people's riskier changes just fly by without a shred of evidence that they even did what they were claimed to (let alone that they were beneficial). "Need more data" is not always just inertia. It's often a way of defending territory or enforcing hierarchy. Being "data driven" only really works when it's done consistently, and abuses called out.




The problem with data driven is how do you get data without actually doing it. Sometimes you can prototype, but if they won't let you do anything you are stuck.

Then there is measurement. Even if you can prototype, you might be forced to collect the wrong data.


I think sometimes "need more data" has a similar connotation as "citation needed". It's a way to dismiss an idea you don't believe in without being fully dismissive. In other words, it can be a way of saying "I don't think it's obvious that your idea will float, but I'm willing to accept it if you can provide evidence for it".

Of course there's a risk for bias here, you'll be more inclined to trust a close team mate than someone with just as good arguments outside your team which can lead to unlucky territorial behavior, even when intentions are good. But at least it leaves an opening for challenge that "nah, I think it won't work and I own the code, sorry" does not.


Uggghh, this is a pet peeve of mine. Particularly when dealing with people that are not domain experts. Like why do I even exist, if not to provide a good data point for what the product you're developing for me should look like?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: