Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

#61

Post by fweespeech »

alain94040 wrote: post #43
ydt wrote: post #26

Earlier 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.

I get spammed by them via initial contact / add connection requests.

I literally have 0 recruiters in my list of contacts.

Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

#62

Post by fweespeech »

rjurney wrote: post #41

I 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

It sounds like you are suggesting a minimalist version of LinkedIn intended to break even [rather than VC-level profitable] is a good idea. ;)

Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

#63

Post by autoreleasepool »

LinkedIn is a great example of how your platform can be useful to people in spite of a horrible UI, bad infrastructure, and grossly inconsistent user experience.

I swear the amount of times I wasn't sure if I actually accepted or sent a connection request is way too high. The endorsements are begging to be rigged, and the website is absolutely dismal in terms of social functionality - it pales in comparison to almost every other social media platform.

The only reason it's still popular is because it doesn't need to be any better to do the one thing it does best, which is to be a search engine for recruiters.

That all being said, I maintain an active linkedin profile and I use it regularly.

Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

#64

Post by paulddraper »

gadders wrote: post #10
eitally wrote: post #5

This 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.…

I was coming to say this. From the article: "Spotting the best talent is actually far easier with tools like Talentbin, Stack Overflow, and Github, which aggregate or facilitate positive interactions and allow skilled individuals to display their work — showing why they’re good at what they do." So that covers technical people, technical people and, er, technical people. What if I want to find a PR Agency? Or a compa…

Or hire a PM? Or HR? Or marketing?

Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

#65

Post by pfarnsworth »

qaq wrote: post #38
mathattack wrote: post #24

I'm not so bearish on LinkedIn. It serves a few useful purposes: 1 - Before any meeting I look to see if there's something I share in common (person, interest, job, etc) with the other person. This was especially important when I was in Sales. 2 - When I was job hunting, I did a lot of "Look up the job, then see if I knew someone who knew someone at the company" that would've been impossible without it. 3 - I use it…

You are not so bearish as a user, are you planing to invest though even at current valuation?

I did at $103 through options and am currently up 45%.

Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

#66

Post by dreamfactory2 »

LI is irreplaceable right now as a business networking and lead tool, but maddening and getting worse daily in terms of UX. I already pay hundreds on it and ready to pay thousands as it's easily worth that to my business.

But I'm spending that money grudgingly and always reluctant to upgrade because although it saves me time and effort overall, it also wastes my time every day due to crappy UX, badly implemented SPA type functionality, and hateful mobile experience if you don't want to use their app (LI: I will never use your app if it needs access to my contacts list, particularly given the way you leverage that valuable and private info).

That's a really really stupid position for an incumbent to put themselves in as they will inevitably get their lunch eaten by an upstart at some point.

Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

#68

Post by gutnor »

alkonaut wrote: post #60
henrik_w wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A huge network for a recruiter is not weak. That is his bread and butter. Often, a valuable interaction with a recruiter is very brief: he found you a job. Similar for people in Sales, Business development, Consultant, ...

The problem is that the connection feature in LinkedIn covers 2 vastly different use case. What is regular for you ( and me ), a network of people we have worked with and developed a relationship and that overlap your competences in some fashion and eventually become an implicit reference for what you put in your resume. What is regular for recruiter is a network of customer to which you have provided services. You will look at a recruiter connection to double check if he is indeed in contact with all the major investment banks as he pretend, not to double check he indeed worked at company X on project Y in the past.

The weighting should be almost the opposite for a recruiter. If he has worked 5 year in HR in a company 10 years ago, those connections are less interesting that the one he has made in his current position.

Problem is that all the use case are treated the same in linked in and most people mix and match different type of contacts in their connection.

Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

#69

Post by aidos »

forgetsusername wrote: post #55
eitally wrote: post #5

This 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.

I've had my fair share of LinkedIn hate in the past. Using it outside the tech industry is really useful though - it's almost like a GitHub profile in some circles.

Using it as an advertiser is something else altogether. Their advertising interface sucks but holy moly, it's the best business ad targeting platform in the world. People use it, that makes it valuable for advertising - that makes the company valuable. How valuable, not sure - but I think the tech industry doesn't really get LinkedIn so there's a lot of knee jerk bias.

Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation

#70

Post by sanderjd »

codingdave wrote: post #29
henrik_w wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I reply to messages from random people who ask to connect with an email telling them that if they have a reason they want to talk to me, please send me an email about it. Most people never reply, so I presume they are just trying to bump up their numbers.

Or maybe, like me, they accidentally clicked the button that sends out contact requests to all (or maybe just a lot of?) your "suggested contacts". D'oh!
Post reply on HN