Over the last few years I've entertained the idea of putting advertising on my blog a few times, but always ultimately scrapped the idea because the average profits on Adsense and TLA were pretty low from what I could dig up in my research. Without an incredible amount of traffic there just doesn't seem to be any money in it, and I don't blog as often as Ray or Ben to build up the traffic base, so I know I'm not going to come anywhere close to the money Ray makes on his blog using one of the common methods, like Adsense or TLA. (If you're curious, I guesstimated I could rake in about $0.02/month from Adsense.)
Given that I knew I wouldn't make much money, I took a somewhat oppositional stance on the matter. I thought that not having ads on my blog gave it a bit more credibility, but I've never had a strong opinion one way or the other. Personally I just use Adblock browser extensions and ignore whatever slips through those. I don't have any negative opinions of anyone who does run ads, but I'm curious if you would agree. So in the spirit of openness, I'm asking. Would putting a couple of sponsored text links in my sidebar bug you?
Recently someone approached me asking to place an independent ad on this site, fusiongrokker.com. I'm not sure I'm comfortable divulging the full amount, but suffice it to say, it's enough to buy a cup or two of coffee every month, which is far more than I would expect from Adsense, but still not quite enough to cover my hosting costs. I tried to talk him up to buying me a Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 instead of paying cash, but that didn't work out. ;)
I guess I could say the amount swayed me, but really it was just that it's an amount that doesn't round to approximately $0 over time.
Posted in
Meta
| 7 Responses
October 13 2011
I originally posted this entry on my team's blog, and I'm cross-posting it here for its relevance.
Last week I used a term in conversation with which it seemed none of the people I was talking with were familiar: feature-complete -- So I thought I would take the opportunity to share what it means to me, where I learned it, and how it's useful in software development discussions.
I picked up the term reading one of the first few posts on the Project Aardvark blog, way back in 2005 (before--apparently--civilization evolved to the point where single-entry view for blogs was standard, or even deep-linking on a long page. Alas, search for "feature-complete" on that page). It essentially means that the desired path users take through your code is complete and works as expected, but that there are no guarantees on what will happen should the user deviate from that "perfect" script of clicks. The author of the original post, Benjamin Pollack, did a pretty bang-up job of explaining it, even in those primitive times:
Now, I’ll be the first to admit "feature complete" is a code word for "still has a ton of small yet annoying bugs that you 'forgot' about for the time being, and at least one major bug that, if properly triggered, will cause your computer to explode" (see antonym: "finished")
Feature-complete isn't unique to projects as a whole. I often think of discrete chunks of a project (aka Features) in the same way: it works, but I'm not done working on it. I find that many times feature-complete is an easy rule of thumb for the 80/20 rule; where you spend 80% of your time on the hardest/worst 20% of the project/feature. The corollary is that you spend 20% of your time on the easiest/most fun 80% -- the perfect case. Once that 80% is complete, your feature or project is probably feature-complete.
How is this useful in discussions? As long as everyone is on the same page with the terminology, it's a very quick way to describe your status at a scrum, or in our case, daily stand-up meeting. It means everyone else can start relying on your feature to work as long as they're using it properly, and that perhaps you're ready for testing and bug reports that will help you finish the feature.
As the original post from Project Aardvark illustrates, reaching feature-complete can often be accomplished very early on in a project (Ben reached FC 2 days into his project). Don't be fooled: you're far from finished; but it's the first milestone, and an important one.
Posted in
Meta
| 2 Responses
July 29 2011
If you've ever worked at an organization with a large team of programmers, chances are that you've come across both the passionate and the dispassionate ones.
Programmers are not all created equal. Well, ok, maybe we are created equal -- we are just men and women. But through training and study, some excel while others flounder in mediocrity. And if there's one thing we should have learned from The Mythical Man Month, it's that fewer great programmers are more valuable than more average programmers.
It is my personal opinion that organizations should want to take advantage of that, and hire fewer great programmers. The pie-in-the-sky theory is that the organization ends up paying each individual more -- in recognition of their talent -- but a lower combined total for the fewer great programmers than the combined total of more average programmers, all while accomplishing the same work at a higher quality. Not many organizations realize the amount of Technical Debt that they are taking on by hiring dispassionate programmers. But in order to hire great programmers, you have to be able to tell them apart from the average programmers. With the assumption that everyone wants to hire great programmers, let's take a moment to explore how exactly you can identify them.
I think the mark of a programmer with the potential for greatness is passion. Not accomplishment, or involvement, or even any relative level of knowledge. Accomplishment can be obtained. Involvement can be generated. Knowledge can be learned. But passion comes from within. Either you have discovered it in yourself, or you haven't. The funny thing is that accomplishment, involvement, and knowledge tend to happen naturally and organically when passion is present.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
There are different reasons that the horse may not drink.
Some horses only drink coffee, or Mountain Dew, or peppermint tea. Your offer of water simply doesn't interest him. Likewise, some programmers are passionate about other things, like Cryptography, Compression, or Compiler algorithms; and your offer of free training in CAD is just not interesting to them. It's not that she doesn't have the passion, her passion is for something else, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Some horses just aren't thirsty. You can stand by the water all day and he will just stand there doing horse stuff. Likewise, some programmers don't have the thirst. The passionate programmer seeks out opportunities to learn or try something new. The dispassionate programmer is happy to rest on her laurels. Why should she learn something new when she's getting "satisfactory" marks on her yearly reviews? Her bills are paid, her children are fed, and she gets to spend her weekends doing that thing she really loves to do.
The thirsty horse will not only drink the water you lead him to; but he will remember the trail, follow it back later by himself, sometimes bring friends, and eventually exhaust the water supply. He'll take it upon himself to find other watering holes. A passionate programmer will pore over presentations, books, blogs, articles, and magazines; apply what she learns and build on it, and in some cases she will even make a hobby out of what started as an occupation. Eventually, she may even turn her passion into an opportunity to teach: presenting, and writing for books, blogs, articles, and magazines.
And she will do all of these things not because they are her job, or because they bring her tremendous amounts of success; but because she enjoys doing them.
How do you find passionate programmers? One way is to look to Open Source software. These are programmers that enjoy what they do so much that after they are done getting paid for it from 9-5, they go home and do more for free. If that isn't passion, I don't know what is.
Need someone to come in and overhaul your intranet? Start looking at the developers of Open Source content management systems. Need a great architect to whip your team into shape? Start looking at framework developers. These people have the skills you're looking for and the passion you need. Who cares if they'll need to learn a new programming language? That's the type of thing they do over the weekend -- for fun -- remember?
However, not all passionate programmers develop open source software. Some people just don't want to put themselves out there in the public eye; but that doesn't mean they aren't hiding in the shadows, sharpening their saws. Open Source contributions are one indicator for passion, but anything she does on her own time that makes her a better programmer (not limited to programming) is also a good indicator. That includes things like reading blogs, trade magazines, and books, and attending conferences or user group meetings. If she has made a hobby out of her job, then it's clear that she's passionate about that job.
Not everyone wants great programmers.
I prefaced all of that by saying that we were assuming that everyone wants great (passionate) programmers. But we know this not to be the truth. Not all organizations believe they can afford great programmers (in which case, see paragraph 3), and still others just don't believe that programmers are close enough to their bottom line to worry about it. And if there are dispassionate programmers, then it stands to reason that there are dispassionate managers, too.
I imagine that dispassionate managers are threatened by passionate people, because passionate people change things. And passionate programmers can be particularly unruly. In these cases, there may just be a culture of dispassion. That's an unfortunate situation to be stuck in if you're passionate, and if I ever find myself stuck there I'll start looking for another job.
But she didn't apply!
What I'm proposing here is flipping the hiring process on its head. When you post a job on your company website or Monster.com, or run an add in the paper, the only people that will see it are those who are in need of work or who are looking for something better. If you're lucky, every now and then coincidence will deliver a rockstar to you via these channels, but more often than not there's a reason that people are out of work or stuck in crappy jobs.
There are a lot of people out there that would be willing to take a great opportunity if it came up and smacked them in the face, but instead your opportunity is sitting on a street corner with a dirty cardboard sign that reads, "Will food for work."
I would encourage you to seek out the rockstar that you want on your team. You never know, she might just say yes, and might even be willing to relocate to come work for you. Telecommuting is also an option, but that's a rant for another day.
I am not a hiring manager.
I realize that one of the biggest problems with this article is that there are very few hiring managers likely to see it; so I'm preaching to the choir in some ways. Short of sending it to your hiring manager, here are some ideas that can at least help you apply the idea of seeking out passionate people in your situation.
My organization is fairly large, and the interview process is quite thorough. With a few exceptions you have to interview with almost everyone you would be working with, and we usually do two rounds of in-person interviews per candidate, after phone-screening, unless it's clear that you aren't what we're looking for. Since that means I get to participate in interviews for potential coworkers and give my input to the hiring manager, I will be using that opportunity to try and find out if the person is passionate, or just doing the bare minimum; in addition to my normal questions about technical ability and personality. If you are passionate and open minded, then you can learn any language and best practices necessary to do the job.
If you're not already involved in interviewing people that you would have to work with every day, ask if you can get involved. Show an interest in selecting the best candidate, and then work hard to find the right one. As I mentioned before, you can find passionate programmers by asking them about their interest (or lack of interest) in user groups, conferences, blogs, magazines, and so on. Even if they don't contribute to open source projects, they could be passionate and flying under the radar. Sometimes you have to prod a little bit to find these things out.
Don't be afraid to say no! Think of hiring someone like buying a house. If you're going to be homeless in a week, then it's more important to get something lined up --any crappy motel room will do-- and then worry about finding the right place when you have time to do your homework. But if you aren't in dire need of someone to fill a chair and do work that is a fifth of the quality of a great programmer, then take your time. If all of the applicants suck, say so. Just be prepared to back up your claims. You wouldn't buy a house in a hurry, go through all of the settlement costs, and then realize that the roof leaks and the basement smells like dead fish... would you?
You probably can't offer anyone a job, but you can find someone that you'd love to work with and convince them to apply. That's about as close as you can get; and something I've done on a few occasions. It doesn't always work out, but I've been happy with the results so far.
Do you have any other ideas for how to affect positive change in the hiring process? I'd love to hear them.
Posted in
Meta
| 7 Responses
July 16 2010
I was getting really, really tired of all of the problems with my last theme (tiny comment box, really didn't like the font, or the colors, or... well... anything, any more!); so over the last few weeks I've been working with Mark Aplet on this new theme. It's finally done enough to publish, so I've decided to go ahead and put it up so that I can see all of the kinks live, which will help me work them out. So if you see anything awry, it will probably get fixed soon. Thanks for your patience!
In the meantime, what do you think of the new design?
Posted in
Meta
| 5 Responses
May 05 2010
