• Cope with IT (unregistered)

    I don't

  • Cope with IT (unregistered)

    think this

  • Cope with IT (unregistered)

    is very

  • (cs)

    Combo breaker.

    Edit: Seriously though, my work has a slightly more interesting take on productivity.

    Did you produce a finished product? If yes, congratulations, you're doing well. If no, congratulations, you're probably on the way out.

  • (cs)

    I would write a script that:

    • Checked out an unimportant file
    • Checked to see if the last line was //END
    • If it is, remove it
    • Otherwise add //END
    • Check in the file
    • Repeat
    • ?
    • Profit!
  • (cs) in reply to Cyrus
    Cyrus:
    Combo breaker.
    Best.
  • Cope with IT (unregistered)

    efficient...

  • Cope with IT (unregistered) in reply to Cope with IT

    pruductive, I mean

  • Cope with IT (unregistered) in reply to Cope with IT
    Cope with IT:
    pruductive, I mean
    productive, dang it... I'll go home now...
  • (cs) in reply to GettinSadda
    GettinSadda:
    I would write a script that:
    • Checked out an unimportant file
    • Checked to see if the last line was //END
    • If it is, remove it
    • Otherwise add //END
    • Check in the file
    • Repeat
    • ?
    • Profit!
    I wouldn't even bother with that.

    Subversion tends to be quite good at not getting confused over whitespace at the end of a line.

    I'd pick a file nobody else is every likely to use, called something like "Test23_Nov99_Y2K_1234", and write a simple program in perl to add a space to the end of each line (up to 1024 characters -- I'm not greedy, and Subversion might notice), followed by committing it. Then, I'd run it every ten seconds while I got on with my work.

    "Still workin' hard, Walking Boss! Still workin' hard!"

    20,000% measurable increase in productivity, plus you can download a great film and watch a rather good-looking young lady wash windscreens with interesting parts of her body.

    "Most checkins are single-line changes."

    Hah! Amateurs!

    PS OK, technically, it's exactly the same thing. My way is less noticeable, though, and a hell of a lot more fun.

  • (cs) in reply to GettinSadda
    GettinSadda:
    I would write a script that:
    • Checked out an unimportant file
    • Checked to see if the last line was //END
    • If it is, remove it
    • Otherwise add //END
    • Check in the file
    • Repeat
    • ?
    • Profit!

    I'd change it so that you can run it once a day and let you choose your desired productivity for the day, rather than run it flat out from the start.

  • (cs) in reply to ComputerForumUser
    ComputerForumUser:
    I'd change it so that you can run it once a day and let you choose your desired productivity for the day, rather than run it flat out from the start.

    Nice. Today I shall be "moderately productive" but to offset I'll set it to "highly productive" over the weekend and claim overtime.

  • (cs) in reply to GettinSadda
    GettinSadda:
    I would write a script that:
    • Checked out an unimportant file
    • Checked to see if the last line was //END
    • If it is, remove it
    • Otherwise add //END
    • Check in the file
    • Repeat
    • ?
    • Profit!

    Too much work. Just add a new file to repository "work.txt", then dump random data to it and check in. Repeat!

  • (cs)

    Productivity that can be raised by a very small script. How useful.

    I wonder if he would pay overtime if you ran it all weekend, too.

  • (cs)

    This isn't that big a deal. So some clueless boss tried something that didn't work.

    Today, this metric is still in use.
    WTF!
  • (cs)

    Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but didn't anyone say anything when this metric was put in place?

  • (cs) in reply to Soviut

    What, and lose out on a pay rise?

  • (cs)
    "Dude, isn't it obvious? You get more money this way."

    It gets you more money until the bank incorrectly flags your card as stolen

  • Alex (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark 
    #!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;

my $old_productivity = 4;
my $new_productivity = 0; 

while(++$new_productivity) {
    printf("Productivity is up by %0.2f%%\n", ($new_productivity / $old_productivity) * 100);
    open(FH, ">work.txt"); print FH time; close(FH);
    system('svn commit --message "Commiting important information for work" --non-interactive work.txt');
    sleep(10);
}

    1- Run for a couple of days 2- Do not forget to turn off when going to boss' office 3- Get promotion 4- Profit !

  • Doesn't matter (unregistered)

    With recent work on my house, I've had to take a lot of money out of ATMs. I have a daily limit of $2000 on my card, but most of time the ATM will only let me have $340. Or $490. Or $890. All I have to do is re-insert my card and try again. And try again. And then I have my $2000.

    Why it just doesn't give me the $2000 in one go, or refuse to give me any more money after the first transaction, I do not know.

  • bramster (unregistered) in reply to Doesn't matter
    Doesn't matter:
    With recent work on my house, I've had to take a lot of money out of ATMs. I have a daily limit of $2000 on my card, but most of time the ATM will only let me have $340. Or $490. Or $890. All I have to do is re-insert my card and try again. And try again. And then I have my $2000.

    Why it just doesn't give me the $2000 in one go, or refuse to give me any more money after the first transaction, I do not know.

    Transaction fees?

  • (cs)

    I wonder how I would do with this "metric", as I am asked very often not to commit any changes before testing in my local environment. Given this restriction, I usually commit stuff at a rate of one change/day, or sometimes even less.

    Of course, given this metric, I'd be a lazy boy:

    a) Copy checkout folder b) checkout new copy c) do minor change.

    Then, its simply a matter of:

    • Commit changes in working copy
    • Commit "changes" in old working copy
    • Commit "changes" in working copy ...

    Repeat as desired.

  • (cs) in reply to bramster
    bramster:
    Doesn't matter:
    With recent work on my house, I've had to take a lot of money out of ATMs. I have a daily limit of $2000 on my card, but most of time the ATM will only let me have $340. Or $490. Or $890. All I have to do is re-insert my card and try again. And try again. And then I have my $2000.

    Why it just doesn't give me the $2000 in one go, or refuse to give me any more money after the first transaction, I do not know.

    Transaction fees?

    Sadly, after working in the banking card sector, no. Typically, if you use the right ATM, there is no Rule Six ... oops, transaction fee.

    It's basically institutionalised stupidity.

    You may say that it's "fraud protection."

    Well, I co-authored a rather large "fraud protection" system -- large, as in it covered every single card transaction for the institution in question across the whole entire gigantic world, whether it bothered with the transaction or not (and in Kazakhstan, for example, it's wise not to question the average credit card transaction, which I believe is around $5000 or so).

    I also got hit by a particularly obvious fraud involving two unusually large currency exchanges on my debit card a couple of years back.

    Ironic, really. And I'm not even going to blame this on the fact that the card authority in question took the anti-fraud system off our perfectly good C++ system and ported it for no good reason at all to a Java system that didn't work, for reasons (not to do with Java per se, although why they did it I have no idea) but to do with the inability at the time of the JVM to run over a multi-processor server. Nor will I blame it on the fact that they subsequently folded it into the IBM mainframe, where presumably little teeny bits of my functional C++ code reside to this day.

    No.

    My firm belief is that this is all down to institutionalised stupidity.

    That's what they employ the bosses for, after all.

  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark

    speaking of whitespace... I think if it were me I'd be tempted to set up a code formatter with rotating formats... if necessary to justify later, claim it's the resolution to an argument about coding standards- my way on the even minutes yours on the odd!

  • APH (unregistered) in reply to bramster
    Doesn't matter:
    Why it just doesn't give me the $2000 in one go, or refuse to give me any more money after the first transaction, I do not know.
    Sometimes if the ATM is running low on cash it will dispense less money than requested in an attempt to service more customers until it can be replenished. The expectation is that you may be happy with the amount you received and not try to pull a stunt like that.

    Of course, if you ask for $500 and only receive $320, how likely are you to attempt to get the other $180 immediately? I dunno, when I need a large sum from the ATM.... I NEED a large sum from the ATM.

  • Jay (unregistered)

    A company I worked for years ago talked about rating programmers by lines of code. It never happened, which is too bad, because I had all sorts of ideas on how to boost my lines-of-code output.

    1. "x=x+4"? How inefficient. Much beter to write:
    x=x+1;
x=x+1;
x=x+1;
x=x+1;
    1. Putting an entire statetment on a single line? Too cluttered. How about one WORD per line! Now that's productive:
    x
=
x
+
1
;

    1. Loops? Who needs loops. Rather than looping for, say, 20 times, better to copy and paste the code 20 times.

    2. Re-using code? VERY unproductive. Better to copy and paste.

    3. If the compiler can in-line a function, why not save it the trouble and do it yourself? Not only does this boost your lines of code, but it can speed up compiles!

    4. Of course there's the obvious "add lots of comments". No reason to limit them to describing the code, of course. Put in comments about what you had for lunch, rambling thoughts about your co-workers, and fragments of that novel you always wanted to write. And comments praising the brilliant (or brillant) new productivity measurement system!

  • (cs)
    The Article:
    In one instance, one of Milo's colleagues stopped to use the ATM while they were out at lunch. He retrieved his cash, then returned to the back of the line to use the ATM again, got some more money, and got back in line again. Puzzled, Milo asked "what are you doing?"

    "Dude, isn't it obvious? You get more money this way."

    So someone should show the Boss this so that he can stop this stupid method of productivity.

    That said I do think that measuring lines of code and checkins are good measureables you can not use them as absolutes. You can use them as guides in addition to other information (such as is the project finishing on time). Metrics are only as good as the people who use them.

  • (cs) in reply to jaamkie
    jaamkie:
    speaking of whitespace... I think if it were me I'd be tempted to set up a code formatter with rotating formats... if necessary to justify later, claim it's the resolution to an argument about coding standards- my way on the even minutes yours on the odd!
    What sort of primitive and ignorant idiot would speak of whitespace?

    Three points here: (1) Find an easy way to game the system. Whitespace is it. (2) Make sure that anybody can check the code out and compile/test it. Whitespace works for that. (3) //END vs not//END is silly.

    People will notice that.

  • (cs) in reply to DeLos
    DeLos:
    So someone should show the Boss this so that he can stop this stupid method of productivity.

    That said I do think that measuring lines of code and checkins are good measureables you can not use them as absolutes. You can use them as guides in addition to other information (such as is the project finishing on time). Metrics are only as good as the people who use them.

    Metrics don't kill productivity.

    Pointy-headed bosses kill productivity.

  • baronzemm (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark

    We always had a running joke at my first job about making "code beautification" checkins or checkins with comments such as "added own name to product credits".

  • Andy Goth (unregistered)

    You can run faster by taking smaller steps!

  • (cs)

    My last performance review at Google had a link to the number of checkins to the main depot. It had a chart and everything. The chart even showed when my brother died last October. Apparently, most engineers check things in hourly.

    Working for a "data driven" company isn't always all that great.

  • (cs)

    Things like this need to be part of a manager's curriculum in college.

    #1 You just realized that your subordinates are checking files in to increase their stats, do you:

    A. Pat yourself on the back for increasing productivity. Report success to superiors. B. Realize the error of your ways and discontinue using check-ins as a productivity metric. C. Get pissed at employees for being dishonest and checking-in needless changes to pad their stats. Discipline follows. D. WHY ARE THEY USING CHECK-INS TO MEASURE PRODUCTIVITY!?

  • jmo21 (unregistered) in reply to Doesn't matter

    most (all?) ATM's machines work like this.

    presumably a theft prevention assuming a thief only has time to try a card once?

    Doesn't matter:
    With recent work on my house, I've had to take a lot of money out of ATMs. I have a daily limit of $2000 on my card, but most of time the ATM will only let me have $340. Or $490. Or $890. All I have to do is re-insert my card and try again. And try again. And then I have my $2000.

    Why it just doesn't give me the $2000 in one go, or refuse to give me any more money after the first transaction, I do not know.

  • (cs) in reply to jmo21
    jmo21:
    most (all?) ATM's machines work like this.

    presumably a theft prevention assuming a thief only has time to try a card once?

    Doesn't matter:
    With recent work on my house, I've had to take a lot of money out of ATMs. I have a daily limit of $2000 on my card, but most of time the ATM will only let me have $340. Or $490. Or $890. All I have to do is re-insert my card and try again. And try again. And then I have my $2000.

    Why it just doesn't give me the $2000 in one go, or refuse to give me any more money after the first transaction, I do not know.

    Read upwards, darling.

    It's pretty much like being backwards -- except I assume you're already that way.

  • anon (unregistered)

    I'd so suck by these measures, I'm lucky to check in something once every couple weeks. It took them a while to finally get me to use svn at all. Some of the people I work with haven't quite gotten to even that point yet.

    I do non-production coding in non-officially by company supported languages, I'm the only one who will ever use any of this code 99.9% and 99% of the time the code won't ever be used in the future. There is already a backup program running on the code and I'm lazy.

    Granted the people who write normal code all use svn and so on.

  • (cs) in reply to akatherder
    akatherder:
    Things like this need to be part of a manager's curriculum in college.

    #1 You just realized that your subordinates are checking files in to increase their stats, do you:

    A. Pat yourself on the back for increasing productivity. Report success to superiors. B. Realize the error of your ways and discontinue using check-ins as a productivity metric. C. Get pissed at employees for being dishonest and checking-in needless changes to pad their stats. Discipline follows. D. WHY ARE THEY USING CHECK-INS TO MEASURE PRODUCTIVITY!?

    Correct answer: A, followed by C once someone points out that D is the real correct answer ("Those lousy programmers told me that more check-ins means more productivity! THEY LIED TO ME! I'll fire the lot of those bastards!")

  • (cs)

    Man this would suck... we are not able to check in code here until after client approval (right before it moves to production, even our stage exes are made from our desktop so that we do not check it in)

  • a (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    Subversion tends to be quite good at not getting confused over whitespace at the end of a line

    Just add a semi-colon (hope I spelled it correctly).

  • Calli Arcale (unregistered) in reply to forgottenwizard
    forgottenwizard:
    Productivity that can be raised by a very small script. How useful.

    I wonder if he would pay overtime if you ran it all weekend, too.

    Reminds me of the classic t-shirt: "Go away, or I shall replace you with a very small shell script."

    :-P

  • Angostura (unregistered)

    He should have fired the people who didn't know when to use 'less' and when to use 'fewer' in a sentence. >cough<

  • (cs) in reply to Angostura
    Angostura:
    He should have fired the people who didn't know when to use 'less' and when to use 'fewer' in a sentence. >cough<
    And that would have left him with low-grade Mexican peons. >cough<

    Except that even us Grammar Nazis don't fire people for making a simple mistake.

    Being an offensive bigot is an entirely different thing, however.

    Look out!

  • Andrew (unregistered) in reply to real_aardvark
    real_aardvark:
    Angostura:
    He should have fired the people who didn't know when to use 'less' and when to use 'fewer' in a sentence. >cough<
    And that would have left him with low-grade Mexican peons. >cough<

    Except that even us Grammar Nazis don't fire people for making a simple mistake.

    Being an offensive bigot is an entirely different thing, however.

    Look out!

    Us applies to direct or indirect objects. We Nazis of grammar know this. Ask the Teachers of English who don't know that Germanic languages put adjective before nouns.

    CAPTCHA: erat - Et tu DailyWTFum?

  • Glen (unregistered)

    Why are so many managers guilty of this type of shortcutting, and why are so many in upper management impressed by this sort of thing? 9 times out of 10, establishing metrics is just a snazzy way of saying a) I have no idea how to measure the quality of my employees work. and b) I am lazy enough that rather than learn what my staff is up to, or actually listening to their actual progress reports, I'll create an artificial measure of productivity to satisfy the higher up's thirst for status reports. Truly an example of the Dilbert Principle in action.

  • (cs) in reply to real_aardvark
    Angostura:
    He should have fired the people who didn't know when to use 'less' and when to use 'fewer' in a sentence. >cough<

    Vi is much better than Less actually.

  • (cs) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    real_aardvark:
    Angostura:
    He should have fired the people who didn't know when to use 'less' and when to use 'fewer' in a sentence. >cough<
    And that would have left him with low-grade Mexican peons. >cough<

    Except that even us Grammar Nazis don't fire people for making a simple mistake.

    Being an offensive bigot is an entirely different thing, however.

    Look out!

    Us applies to direct or indirect objects. We Nazis of grammar know this. Ask the Teachers of English who don't know that Germanic languages put adjective before nouns.

    CAPTCHA: erat - Et tu DailyWTFum?

    Yes, I made that Grammar Nazi (and why, pray, not a Grammar Stalinist?) joke a couple of days ago.

    Look it up.

    I believe my additional, and exceptionally humorous (if I say so myself) joke was to wait until the time was up -- and after all, isn't that true for all Grammar Nazis, in the true sense of the words "time" and "up" -- and in my own deliberate little way "appended" the comment: "Did I say us? I meant U.S."

    And your point would be?

  • (cs) in reply to Andrew
    Andrew:
    real_aardvark:
    Angostura:
    He should have fired the people who didn't know when to use 'less' and when to use 'fewer' in a sentence. >cough<
    And that would have left him with low-grade Mexican peons. >cough<

    Except that even us Grammar Nazis don't fire people for making a simple mistake.

    Being an offensive bigot is an entirely different thing, however.

    Look out!

    Us applies to direct or indirect objects. We Nazis of grammar know this. Ask the Teachers of English who don't know that Germanic languages put adjective before nouns.

    And if we're feeling really feisty, we put more than one adjective before nouns.

  • (cs)

    Nice to see you people are getting serious about your vocation and blue-lining the idiots again.

    How long, O lord?

    How long?

    We need to get down to the mat with these scum.

    There are many of them, and they are all around us.

    I blame Coolidge, myself. That Tea-pot Dome scandal ... well, things have just gone downhill from then.

    TDWTF does make up for the occasional spasm of drug withdrawal, though. I'll talk to my Pastor about that.

  • Ken B (unregistered) in reply to PSWorx
    PSWorx:
    Angostura:
    He should have fired the people who didn't know when to use 'less' and when to use 'fewer' in a sentence. >cough<
    Vi is much better than Less actually.
    Okay, it's time to shut down my computer and get a good rest.

    After reading the above comment, I wanted to close the TDWTF tab and typed ":wq"

  • (cs) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    PSWorx:
    Angostura:
    He should have fired the people who didn't know when to use 'less' and when to use 'fewer' in a sentence. >cough<
    Vi is much better than Less actually.
    Okay, it's time to shut down my computer and get a good rest.

    After reading the above comment, I wanted to close the TDWTF tab and typed ":wq"

    Hint for people new to vi: this will not work.

    For all but experts and sysadmins, TDWTF is read-only. You cannot just write back without wizard commands.

    Do not try to hit the keyboard wildly at random. You'll just end up in the underlying editor (did you know that there's an underlying editor? Well, there is), Ed.

    Trust me, you do not want to talk to Ed.

    Anyway, where was I? Oh yes. What this man means is that you want to type ":wtf?"

    That will work, even if you've edited the file first.

    What was that, Ed?

    Oh, I'm sorry. I'm growing old and infirm and very, very, tired of typing inscrutable commands these days. What I meant to say was:

    :wtf?^w:q!

    There. Fixed that for me.

    PS Can I just wreck the entire premise of my own comment by pointing out that you can get into vi mode from less by typing "v"?

    Thank you and good night.

Leave a comment on “Productivity 2.0”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article