Home / Diverse / Primele impresii despre Quora

Primele impresii despre Quora

Mi-am facut aseara cont pe Quora, cica urmatoarea senzatie web doizeroista a internetului. Dupa vreo 3-4 ore de sapat si stat cu ochii prin site, am ajuns la cateva pareri despre site.

Dar mai intai, cum se auto-definesc cei de la Quora:

Quora is a continually improving collection of questions and answers created, edited, and organized by everyone who uses it. The most important thing is to have each question page become the best possible resource for someone who wants to know about the question.

Si cateva idei

  • multi oameni din companii (CTO la Amazon, antreprenori, fosti angajati la google si actuali angajati Facebook, bloggeri  recunoscuti internationali) care raspund intr-un timp acceptabil, la diverse intrebari legate de compania in care lucreaza. Poate fi un instrument bun de PR pentru companii
  • similar cu answers.yahoo.com, doar ca intrebarile si raspunsurile sunt ceva mai elaborate. Am citit undeva ca e o combinatie de Twitter cu wikipedia si cu answers. TPU.ro e o jucarie pentru bebelusi, in comparatie cu Quora
  • intrebarile sunt organizate pe tag-uri (topicuri), pe care le poti urmari pentru noutati. Eu m-am interesat doar de cele legate de marketing online, social media, e-commerce si turism, dar sunt si intrebari legate de … cum se distreaza bogatii sau cum fac bogatasii sa si-0 traga cu femei, sau cum pot prostii sa devina bogati :))
  • momentan sunt destul de putine intrebari/raspunsuri pe fiecare subiect, dar raspunsurile pe care le-am gasit sunt multumitoare.
  • nu sunt cine stie ce inside stuff, cum era desprefirme.com odata. Sunt doar raspunsuri venite de la oameni in pozitii de decizie, care pot structura si formula raspunsuri coerente.
  • nu-mi dau seama care e modelul de business. sau cum vor face bani
  • am facut greseala sa ma loghez cu facebook, si m-a abonat instant la multe din domeniile de interes din facebook. ceea ce nu e chiar asa ciudat, doar ca a trebuit sa dau unfollow la topicuri legate de muzica, boardgames, origami sau fotbal :) Partea buna e ca nu mi-a postat nimic pe facebook de genul “Auras has started using Quora to find answers”, deci un plus mare de la mine  :)

Alte link-uri de citit:






Daca va intereseaza sa stiti cum e sa muncesti la Google versus Facebook , uite ce spune un cineva care a avut ocazia:

I’ve done both, and enjoyed both experiences. I left Google 3 years ago, after having been there for 4 years.

A lot depends on your personality, and the kind of culture you like. I’ll try to highlight the key similarities and differences. But, the short answer is you should come work at Facebook. Send me your resume :)

There are a lot of things this post doesn’t cover. My experience at Google is 3 years out of date (and partially based on what I hear from friends who are still there). Feel free to ask follow-up questions in the comments, and I will edit my response accordingly.


Google is like grad-school. People value working on hard problems, and doing them right. Things are pretty polished, the code is usually solid, and the systems are designed for scale from the very beginning. There are many experts around and review processes set up for systems designs.

Facebook is more like undergrad. Something needs to be done, and people do it. Most of the time they don’t read the literature on the subject, or consult experts about the “right way” to do it, they just sit down, write the code, and make things work. Sometimes the way they do it is naive, and a lot of time it may cause bugs or break as it goes into production. And when that happens, they fix their problems, replace bottlenecks with scalable components, and (in most cases) move on to the next thing.

Google tends to value technology. Things are often done because they are technically hard or impressive. On most projects, the engineers make the calls.

Facebook values products and user experience, and designers tend to have a much larger impact. Zuck spends a lot of time looking at product mocks, and is involved pretty deeply with the site’s look and feel.


Google is really big. There are multiple teams doing the same thing and don’t know about each other. There are teams that strongly believe that other teams should not exist. There are giant sections of Google that have been described as “non-Google” because of culture drift and acquisitions. When you go to the holiday party, you will not know 95% of the people there.

Facebook is much smaller, and while you won’t know everyone (or even the majority), you will probably recognize 25% of the engineers. There is sometimes duplication of work, but it is almost always intentional. Facebook is growing, and there is no reason to believe that the problems at Google wont start showing up, but it has not happened so far.

Because of its size, Google can place big bets, and try ambitious world-changing things. A project that makes a 10s of million dollars is not interesting enough for them to even try. There are many ambitious projects, most of which fail, but the successes are pretty inspiring. They can support world-class research into anything computer-science related, and beyond. So if being at the frontier of computer science is what you want, and you are good enough to convince the Google management structure to not place you into one of the many critical but not very interesting teams, Google might be the place for you.


Google has some amazing engineers. There are people at Google that have made the computer industry into what it is today. It is very unlikely that you will work with, or interact with those people. In general, the quality of the people you work with will still be very high, especially if you find yourself in one of the core teams (Search or Ads). There is a good number of academics, and Googlers are often seen presenting their work at top-tier conferences.

There is also (according to my friends at Google) a noticeable number of people that should have never been hired, and the company seems reluctant (or unable) to remedy that. But, in general, Google has very smart people, who are experienced, passionate, and do good work.

Facebook engineers are typically younger, and many are less experienced. There are only 400 of them, and Facebook is much more willing to fire people. So I would say the median quality of engineers at Facebook is higher, but Google has some strong outliers.


Because Google is so big, management plays a much bigger role. There are many VPs, directors, managers (not all technical), and tech-leads. Most managers are competent, and I have almost never heard engineers disliking their managers. But there are turf wars, and ideological conflicts on many levels. Google’s culture is that decisions should be distributed, and made bottom up. This means engineers, and project teams have a lot of freedom, but it makes it difficult for teams to cooperate.

All of Facebook’s managers are technical, many have switched to the management track from engineering. There is one VP of engineering, a few directors, and a bunch of managers. So things are not completely flat, but reasonably so. Due to the size of Facebook, the hierarchy is much less important, since it’s actually possible to develop relationships with people through out the company. This means there is a lot more peer-to-peer communication/collaboration than the management structure enables. Some of the managers at Facebook are new to management (having recently switched from engineering) and may not be as good at management as you may like. That said, I’ve been very impressed by the diligence with which they approach their new role, and the effort Facebook puts into selecting the right candidates.

Personal Impact:

At Google’s it’s often hard to feel like you have real impact. Many (most?) people make incremental changes to existing systems to improve stability, performance, or add minor features. Improving the throughput of a GFS cluster by 5% is huge, saves Google a ton of money, and improves the search experience of hundreds of millions of people. But it takes effort to feel like improving something by 5% is actually meaningful.

Products have to be built to scale, and have a fairly high level of polish and maturity before release. Before a project launches there is a long checklist of things it needs to handle (such as internationalization, logging, security, etc…) Even if your product was completely finished, working, and bug free, it can take months to go through the checklist, and actually launch.

On the other hand, when you do launch, 100s of millions of users will notice, and that’s awesome.

At Facebook, I had checked in code my first day there, and it was pushed to the live site on the next day. There were bugs, and emergency pushes to fix those bugs, but a few days later my code was running in production, and millions of people were benefiting from it. That was 3 years ago, and it’s still the case now. In general new-hires have code go live in their first week, maybe first two weeks. Chances are pretty high that your code is directly visible by users, though as the company grows, there is a lot of work on internal tools as well.

Facebook is full of low-hanging fruit, as well as important systems that need to be replaced to handle orders of magnitude more data, so if you want to feel like you have an impact, it’s easier at Facebook. Most critical infrastructure projects are the work of small teams, so you get to work on v0 of a system instead of v5.2.


The base salaries at the two companies are pretty close, with Google offering a bit more. Google also has an annual bonus targeted at 15%, but with various multipliers. The years I was there, it was more like 30%. Additionally, Google grants RSUs which (on expectation) should also be in the 15%-30% over 4 years. They will also pay for you to continue your education, and make it relatively easy (and cheap) to get a Masters from Stanford or CMU while you work at Google. They also match your 401k contributions, which is an additional $7k, tax-deferred.

Facebook’s bonus target is 10%, but goes up non-linearly for high-performing engineers. Facebook is private, so deciding on the value of their RSUs is hard. Secondary markets might give reasonable estimates, but no one knows for sure. Furthermore, you will not be able to sell your shares until Facebook IPOs, and it’s not clear when that will be.


In general, perks are better at Google. Facebook’s cafe is very good, but Google has 30 (?) and on any day you can find great food in most of them. Google has gyms, a dance studio, a steady stream of interesting speakers, ski trips, and cellphone giveaways.

Facebook has subsidized laundry service

Citeste si asta

A inceput “razboiul” live streaming dintre Facebook, Youtube si Twitter

Dupa ce Facebook a introdus optiunea de live direct de pe telefon, care permite oricarui …

6 comentarii

  1. Primul minus de la mine este ca-ti cere sa te loghezi pentru a intra in site… cred ca promovarea se face din gura in gura, asa cum s-a intmplat si cu FB

  2. E invitation only pentru ca fondatorii incearca sa controleze cresterea. In felul asta scalarea serviciul da mai putina bataie de cap si se poate face in timp.

    Deocamdata au sub 1 milion de vizitatori lunar dar probabil ca anul acesta vor creste destul de mult (cel putin asa se prevede).

    Si tot deocamdata nu exista un business model pentru Quora. Nu asta e prpblema lor principala. Au finantare indeajuns incat sa reziste cativa ani fara venit.
    Dar daca ar fi sa fie poate un business model ar fi sponsored questions or/and answers sau text advertising in context cum are Facebook si Google.

    Aici e o lista cu utilizatorii romani de pe Quora care au mai postat cate ceva pe acolo: http://www.quora.com/How-many-Quora-users-are-there-in-Romania

  3. Si inca ceva: site-ul e numai in engleza si toate discutiile se vor purta numai in aceasta limba. Poate in viitor vor avea in vedere si alte limbi…poate.

Comentezi ?