|
Remember that Google sells the right to associate your ads with specific search terms. Thus, the terms listed may not have been searched that often, just that advertisers paid the most to be associated with those terms. Of course, there had to be enough people searching for those terms to get the click count up, but there might have been only a little correlation.
|
|
|
|
|
Those are ad keywords stuffed into ad links. So that is what people click, accidentally click or are forced to click while playing games or reading articles. It doesn’t represent actual interest, just what Google has money titled to.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't use Google at all, I use DuckDuckGo, but I use it pretty much the same as you.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that there are many millions of people that use Google (or any search engine) in their day to day lives, and your usage pattern is very skewed as evidenced by you being a member of CP.
I sometimes search for things like local companies that provide a specific service: 2 days ago I searched for ‘fire extinguisher inspection recharge’ because our HOA requires proof of operational extinguishers. However, I use Duck Duck Go. I may use Google if necessary, but that hasn’t happened in years.
The point is that there are many, many people going about their lives who need info about something. These people are probably not as tech-savvy as you - nor would Google know whether they navigated to a supplier’s site to refine their search (well, perhaps they would).
So, what’s the point of my reply? You got me. I don’t know either. 
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events.
- Manly P. Hall
Mark
Just another cog in the wheel
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Starr wrote: your usage pattern is very skewed as evidenced by you being a member of CP.
I think ultimately that's what I wanted to confirm. Google has been designed with consumers in mind. The way I use it (and others doing the same), I'm probably not very valuable to them.
And that suits me just fine. 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't use google search but I have not searched for any of the items on that list. I usually search for how to disable/enable Windows features (like Copilot), game and product reviews and lots of Youtube DIY videos. Most of the articles I read are from forums I frequent.
|
|
|
|
|
#Worldle #649 1/6 (100%)
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🎉
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
To be clear, there are some jobs where there are clear, legitimate, reasons to have everyone in a specific location at least once a week. I am not addressing those here. I am using software development and testing as an example. I hope the discussion focuses on whether hybrid work is a good idea within that context or not.
If work can be done remotely 1 day a week or more, with the same or better level of quality and productivity as can be done in an office, then what value does hybrid bring? The hypothesis for debate in this posting is that a position should be 100% remote or 100% in-office, and that hybrid detracts from productivity and employee satisfaction.
Some common arguments for hybrid:
- Face-to-face in the office helps build team relationships. Face-to-face interactions do help build team relationships. But being in-office is not necessary for that. Use conferencing tools like Teams for two or more coworkers having a discussion and require that the video is on. Audio and video together greatly multiply the personal effects of interaction done remotely, to a degree near enough to in-office as to eradicate any in-office value from hybrid for this argument for hybrid.
- Being in-office ensures the person is working. Most of us who have worked for years in-office know how easy it is to appear to be working when in the office. In-office is no guarantee of productivity. Setting goals for each worker works much better. If goals are not met, then work with the worker to see if the goals were too optimistic, or if the worker needs some help to produce at a reasonable level. That works whether in-office or remote.
- As a manager or team lead, it is easier to walk over to a worker's cubicle or call him/her into my office to help build that manager/employee relationship. The same benefits can be had by scheduling a weekly meeting of 15 to 30 minutes with each of your reports using Teams (or whatever you use for that functionality). With both video and audio, the benefits of building that relationship via one-on-one meetings is just as present with remote as with in-office meetings.
Some common arguments against hybrid:
- The travel time for the employee is wasted time. A typical hybrid employee wastes 1 to 3 hours every day they travel into the office. Plus the cost of commuting. Getting rid of this pain for the employee improves employee loyalty and reduces turnover.
- Tracking each employee's schedule for when to be in the office or working remote is a burden on managers. Either the manager has to keep track of the schedule, opening opportunities for negative effects on work, or the schedule becomes a "one size fits all" that results in ad hoc changes that are also a burden to manage.
- Remote workdays are not just flexible for the employee, but also for the project. There are times an hour or two extra is needed to work on a project. If in the office, traffic and home obligations cause that extra time on a project to be missed or postponed.
The truth is that, in most cases, there is a non-technical (meaning not a software engineer, in this case) manager who is concerned that because they do not understand the technology and sociology of what their team does, the natural (and understandable) concerns arise that their reports may be taking advantage of their lack of knowledge and experience in the hands-on portion of the discipline. Add to that the management that they report to who, for lack of knowing better, have unreasonable expectations.
There is a common perception among non-technical management that developing software is a process of assembling widgets to build something. In fact, a lot of modern Agile is based on taking the manufacturing origins of Agile and trying to apply it to software development. In most manufacturing of material goods, the work done is assembling parts in a pre-described manner on a production line, requiring little, if any, creativity to ensure success. Software engineering is not like that. Software engineering includes some assembly of purchased third party components (the "buy" in the buy vs. build analysis), but usually around half to three-fourths involves applying engineering knowledge to the specific requirements of the project, which takes engineering knowledge and creativity. Software development is not an assembly line process, nor will it ever be.
That is the downside in having software engineers report to those who are not software engineers. Scrum masters, project managers, etc. rarely have the software engineering background to know how to do the work their team does. Unfortunately, this too often manifests with unreasonable expectations, a lack of trust of team members, and a lack of knowledge of how to effectively supervise and lead software engineers.
The two best ways to correct that imbalance are:
1. Hire experienced software engineers to be "hands on" team leads, scrum masters, and software project managers (combining roles into one position is a good idea where practical), with enough allotted time for the manager/team lead to be responsible for at least some of the coding. That garners respect and trust from the team members and provides a team lead/manager who truly understands what their team is doing, why they do it, and what it takes to complete a software project successfully. It is easier, and less expensive, to train a seasoned software engineer in managerial skills, how business works outside the technical areas, and how to relate to non-technical management.
2. Train the scrum masters and project managers in how to be software developers, so they understand what and why their reports do what they do. Having that ability in common, and even requiring some appropriate "hands on" work in the project will help that leader gain respect from the team, and respect for, and better understanding of, what their team does. This approach will take more time, as software engineering is a much more academically challenging discipline than what scrum masters and project managers normally deal with. But it can sometimes be worth the effort. An added bonus is that some team members will gladly help that leader in the learning process becauwse it now becomes a method of bonding manager to the ones being managed.
|
|
|
|
|
Work from home and hybrid on a massive scale that we've seen in the last 3 years is still a new thing.
There's is a lot of experimentation still going on.
There are probably not many large scale studies on the effects of WFH or hybrid.
In my experience, a good PM/PO/ScrumMaster will make sure work is efficient, both at the office and at home.
Anecdotal : hybrid works very well when you know there will always be a good rotation of employees at the office and if the office is (re)build for hybrid work.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your explanation.
But how does the in-office portion of hybrid offer any advantages over 100% remote?
Hybrid, as was 100% remote, was in use years before COVID-19 hit. Neither are anything new.
|
|
|
|
|
MSBassSinger wrote: But how does the in-office portion of hybrid offer any advantages over 100% remote?
Human interactions.
MSBassSinger wrote: Hybrid, as was 100% remote, was in use years before COVID-19 hit. Neither are anything new.
But not at the scale we're seeing it; not just for programmers but for a lot of white collar jobs that was in office only before (insurances, finance, ... )
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
I can't speak for other disciplines, but in software engineering it has been around a very long time.
|
|
|
|
|
Why not allow both? I'm a hybrid worker and I love it. I like the human interaction begin in the office. I also like the convenience of being remote (HVAC appointment tomorrow, packages being delivered). I wouldn't mind 99% in office (minus some days for home appointments) if the travel wasn't too far. I think hybrid is great for the environment (less travel) and my sanity seeing people in person every week.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
It is not a question of "allow" for hybrid. I contend that all three should be supported.
I agree that for some folks with a short commute, or single people whose social life revolves around work, hybrid is a very good alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
MSBassSinger wrote: I agree that for some folks with a short commute, or single people whose social life revolves around work, hybrid is a very good alternative.
God help you if your social life revolves around work. As much as I get along with my coworkers, I don't exactly want to hang out with them past office hours. And I'm saying this as someone who actually is single, with no social life to speak of, and have been working from home exclusively for > 15 years.
Something very, very bad would have to happen for me to go back to an office on a regular basis, even if it was just a 5-minute drive away. As in, early retirement would be much more likely to happen before that.
|
|
|
|
|
The future that I see for working from home on a large scale is the switch to a single pay for all.
Right now what is happening is that people from places that pay very well are moving to places that are more affordable and are buying and renting at rates that are commiserate with their pay and are driving housing to a level that the native people can't afford.
Case in point: we moved from a townhouse in NE FL 3 years ago and the price of the townhouse in 3 years has increased by 60%.
I don't think before I open my mouth, I like to be as surprised a everyone else.
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: we moved from a townhouse in NE FL 3 years ago and the price of the townhouse in 3 years has increased by 60%.
That phenomenon has been observed everywhere over the last few years, and I've yet to hear anyone in the real estate business suggest it was caused by people commanding large salaries moving into areas where cost of living is cheaper.
|
|
|
|
|
The U.S. company I work for is part of the real estate horde of businesses (realtors, settlement companies, insurance, inspections, etc.). It most definitely is a thing that remote workers are moving to cheaper areas. Their salaries are not adjusted down, so they effectively make more money. This is obvious in the CA area where people are moving out of the big cities to their massive suburban sprawl and nearby mountains, if they still want to be close to the office. Colorado and the mid-west have seen a huge spike in housing because of this trend. Long term, this could even have political ramifications as more left-leaning people move to the mid-west to get the cheapest houses and move away from the crowded eastern and western seaboard cities. Some mid-west towns are having issues keeping up with municipal services, like sewage systems and trash collection.
Bond
Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Well, maybe I'm only seeing it from my own perspective, which is in Canada, which is facing a housing crisis across all provinces, since our genius of a prime minister has allowed for over a million immigrants to show up in very little time, without having the infrastructure in place (housing, schools, hospitals, etc) to take in such a number.
|
|
|
|
|
When I was in my longest contract I travelled interstate every month for time in the office. I think it's really helpful, although I love work from home
|
|
|
|
|
I'm an employer (and also still programmer myself) and I want my employees to be at the office at least about half of the time.
Working from home isn't an issue, and this week and next week I have someone working three days at home and one in the office.
Fact is, when he's at home he's less likely to contact me for any questions he has, he'll spend hours figuring it out while in the office he asks me after about fifteen to thirty minutes.
We also use the office time for briefings on projects, status updates, other questions he might have, music interchange, a walk in the nearby forest and sometimes drinks and snacks.
Granted, most of these things can be done digitally trough Teams, and we sometimes do, but there's simply no substitution for seeing face to face.
Let's put it this way, would you only see your family and friends digitally?
You wouldn't, because seeing people online just doesn't build the same kind of familiarity and trust as seeing someone in real life.
And now you're saying "well, there are these people I work with eight hours a day, and we need to get stuff done, but there's no reason to ever see them in real life."
That just sounds like crazy and highly unproductive to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Today is my 'office day'. Once a month I cone in for meetings with my boss, the PM and the CEO.
Both the PM and CEO have already called off, there's a bit of dodgy weather today, and my direct boss is looking shakey.
I'd go home but I'm interviewing this afternoon and there's no way I'm leaving that to HR, they could hire anybody!
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
You bring up two good use cases - 1) the person whose self-discipline is not strong enough to make them as productive at home as at the office. 2) You also mention this employee tends to work on solving a problem on his own too long before reaching out for help.
My practice as a dev manager (one I learned from a Dev Manager I had years earlier) was with new hires, that they worked in office 5 days a week the first month. That aided with learning how we worked, and fitting in. After the first month, if the new hire showed he or she could manage their time, reached out for help when needed, self-starter, etc., then I went to in-office two days a week for a month to two months. That allowed me to track at-home versus in-office performance. Once I could see the new hire was as productive and reliable at-home as on-site, then 100% remote was allowed.
Beyond that, I would have a mandatory in-office day at least once a quarter.
One of the benefits of having a 100% remote team is being able to widen the number of potential candidates to the entire US, raising my entrance standards, and not be limited to just local.
The downside is it requires more of my time to monitor productivity and correct any deficiencies. But that is part of my job when leading and managing a team. Having done it, I know it works.
But if your approach works for you, your company, and your employees, why change it?
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been in the office for over a year now. Before that, once or twice a month.
I don't want to travel 3 to 4 hours a day to work 6 or 7 hours.
I don't need to see my colleagues in real life.
When I went to the office, I looked at the schedule and chose a day that most of them where not there.
And Covid is still very much around. At this moment 2 of my colleagues are off sick with covid. 
And I am very vulnerable for covid. The doctor said to me 'if you get Covid, it probably will kill you'
I am much more productive when I don't have to interact with other people.
B.T.W.
I haven't seen my family in real life for over 3 years now. We call or WhatsApp each other.
And seeing friends digitally saves me beer. 
|
|
|
|
|
JohaViss61 wrote: The doctor said to me 'if you get Covid, it probably will kill you'
Well, thank your lucky stars for the jab and all the boosters then, right? RIGHT??
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
