I mostly use LinkedIn to snoop on people I went to high school with.
LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
51–60 of 98 posts
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#52I was in product at LinkedIn, and I thought this was spot on. LinkedIn is a two-sided platform. Increasingly the revenue model undermines user engagement. To some extent, one side no longer builds the other, one subtracts from the other. LinkedIn is a platform for spam more than it is a platform for content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market
The content platform was really engaging when influencers were posting and blogging frequently. Medium now seems to be the platform of choice. Not sure if opening up the content creation experience to all users "devalued" the platform or if it was the acquisition of Pulse or a summation of a bunch of factors that caused the decline. What's clear is that content platform definitely has taken a turn for the worse.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#53This reads like a hit piece for some reason.
It's almost as if the media wants to see the downfall of tech companies so they can continue writing about all the doom and gloom and predicting a bubble popping (when the data thus far does not show a "pop" coming per se).
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#54I click on LinkedIn every day. I like the news feed, my network provides useful stuff to read that I wouldn't find otherwise. I have connections that are more appropriate than on Facebook because our relationships are professional social not friend social. I don't want their baby pictures & holiday photos but I do want to hear about their business and comment on their business writing.
I've started a private slack group for my most active friends and business associates. I like that better than linkedin.
Good for you. Lots of my associations are pretty loose though. I have no way to influence their decisions. I'm connected with them on LI because they were already there.
I only joined because my University recommended it but then I found out I liked it.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#55This isn't a bad article, but it's extremely one-sided, from the POV of tech employees, which are still the vast minority of workers. Yes, it's spammy and yes, they use dark patterns, and yes, there should have been some better ethical governance since the beginning, but it's not as bad at what it aims to do as a lot of people believe. Even if you just consider it a business card holder -- there's actual value there.…
>Even if you just consider it a business card holder -- there's actual value there
Yes, but how much? $30BB, where it was last month? What about the $16BB it sits at today?
I think both figures overestimate the value.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you in principle and in the past only accepted connection requests from people I know as well. However, I think LinkedIn's promise as professional social network has really diminished over the years and mostly functions as nothing more than a job board at this point. I probably have about 100 recruiters I have never met in person in my network. As a contract dev updating my profile serves as a way to pus…
It's your choice to add 100 random recruiters to your network. But then, don't complain that you are being spammed by recruiters.
Not who you were replying to, but I don't add people that I don't know to my network, and I still get spammed by recruiters constantly.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#57Well, I keep hearing people say things like "I hate LinkedIn" or "LinkedIn is so annoying" randomly at work or in business travel.
It's a small data point, but it seems that perhaps there is a negative sentiment growing around LinkedIn.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#58"LinkedIn is not, in fact, a business network — individuals on LinkedIn represent themselves, not their businesses." Accordingly, business attire is not, in fact, business attire, since people are dressed up as people not as businesses. What a waste of bandwidth...
I didn't get that either. What would a "proper" business network look like? Everyone connects with other companies' presences through their own company's presence?
Similarly, the advice offered by the article was vague pablum. One example:
>The company needs to simplify its number of revenue streams and make sure that they work in concert with its user engagement and growth strategy, rather than in conflict.
Sure. How? Kind of like saying "the company needs to increase revenue by making more money".
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#59This isn't a bad article, but it's extremely one-sided, from the POV of tech employees, which are still the vast minority of workers. Yes, it's spammy and yes, they use dark patterns, and yes, there should have been some better ethical governance since the beginning, but it's not as bad at what it aims to do as a lot of people believe. Even if you just consider it a business card holder -- there's actual value there.…
Look no further than the source. Who is TC writing for? Certainly not my girlfriend. Certainly not the founder of my former marketing agency.
Yeah, but it's not really about the audience of the article, it's about the audience of LinkedIn.
Which is being portrayed as predominately tech-industry, when in reality the tech industry (where stackoverflow and github are relevant) is a small fraction of LinkedIn's market
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#60Personally, I've used LinkedIn for recruiting tech talent, being recruited and most recently, doing biz dev (aka sales). Stray observations: 1. LinkedIn has too many products like sales navigator that attempt to force you through a specific workflow. While it can work, it feels a lot like a misguided tracking system. 2. LinkedIn is most useful as an online resume. Whenever I am meeting someone new or want a refresher…
As for point 6: I only connect with people I know. Every once in a while I get a connection request from some random person , but I always say no if I don't know them (even if we are in the same industry). I think the whole value of connections is diluted otherwise. A connection doesn't mean anything. So that's what I see as the disadvantage of adding as many contacts as possible.
The strongest contacts should be those that have overlapping resume entries, i.e colleagues, former colleagues and people you may have studied with. Other contacts should have an optional tag (friend/family/random recruiter/...) and would have a lot less weight. Being connected with someone because you worked 5 years with someone they worked 10 years with earlier is a lot closer than you having responded to the same recruiter once. LinkedIn has all this info and should really use it.
It does however show the conflict again: recruiters are their bread and butter, so they may want to be careful outing them as people with huge weak networks that appear to be spam nets.