LinkedIn's best shot at remaining relevant and growing is if they can turn Pulse into something businesses can get real value from.
LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
81–90 of 98 posts
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#82When I still had a LinkedIn account, I noticed that being an attorney on LinkedIn made me a magnet for scammers -- mostly folks attempting to get me to deposit bad checks in my trust account. They were a couple steps up from the typical 419 scam, though fortunately were still easily detected. Between that and the crappy articles that people would post in my stream, I eventually decided that I got less than zero value from LinkedIn membership.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#83Personally, 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…
#4 already kind of exists. You can annotate every contact on LinkedIn with how you met, and all sorts of other context. I agree with your overall point that they need to focus their product and drive it forward more than they've done in the past. I have some friends there and from what it sounds like, that's exactly what they're doing. Re-vamping Groups, re-vamping mobile, cutting out dark patterns (e.g. they've redu…
How do you annotate contacts? I see you can add tags to them. Is that how you are doing it?
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#84LinkedIn 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…
I think endorsements are actually a non-product -- sort of like the "close doors" button on the elevator. My sense is that LinkedIn doesn't use endorsements in any other dimension of the site. It's just an engagement tool, so that people are on the site longer. That way they see more ads -- and are perhaps more likely to tweak their profiles.
I work at LinkedIn, we actually do use skills in a number of places (like the job pages); typically they are used more of a "here's how your skills compare to other people's" and less of a "you'll get hired if you have skill X listed". We know people can game them, so we try to only use their skills in ways that would be helpful if their skills are actually real to give less incentive for people to lie.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#85The very simple reason why linked in isnt valuable is that It doesn't get me a job. PERIOD. If I am skilled and able with no real red flags I should have a dozen interviews coming my way. solve that problem and regain your value LinkedIn.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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've "unfriended" recruiters I've mistakenly added in the past. However, if you're looking for talent, it is helpful to have such "connectors" in your network - without those recruiters, when I was doing a check on my network I didn't see some of the people I was trying to hire - this was only the case when I had switched jobs/domains.
Wow, how do you unfriend people? I've looked for a way for years.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Ho…
Useful doesn't mean it can be monetized. Google has killed literally dozens of products that lots of people used, simply because they couldn't monetize them. Smaller companies do the same all the time.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think endorsements are actually a non-product -- sort of like the "close doors" button on the elevator. My sense is that LinkedIn doesn't use endorsements in any other dimension of the site. It's just an engagement tool, so that people are on the site longer. That way they see more ads -- and are perhaps more likely to tweak their profiles.
I work at LinkedIn, we actually do use skills in a number of places (like the job pages); typically they are used more of a "here's how your skills compare to other people's" and less of a "you'll get hired if you have skill X listed". We know people can game them, so we try to only use their skills in ways that would be helpful if their skills are actually real to give less incentive for people to lie.
As implemented, they're basically useless. Asking "does X know about Y?" without verifying that I have any knowledge of Y myself doesn't do much. My dentist has endorsed me for things like "Cloud", and while he's a great guy and good at his job he can barely work his iPad.
I personally view those as noise at best and very skeptically at worst -- if someone has a bunch of endorsements for a particular skill I suspect they actually don't know much about it.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#89"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. H…
The revenue thing is addressing a conflict in LinkedIn's approach. The value in the platform is the users but their monetization of that platform tends to drive off users (due to being spammy). So they are saying they need to find a monetization system that encourages user growth rather than detracts from it.
You may not agree with that, but that's their logic. It's not quite as tautological as you make it seem.
Re: LinkedIn Problems Run Deeper Than Valuation
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. H…
The revenue thing is addressing a conflict in LinkedIn's approach. The value in the platform is the users but their monetization of that platform tends to drive off users (due to being spammy). So they are saying they need to find a monetization system that encourages user growth rather than detracts from it. You may not agree with that, but that's their logic. It's not quite as tautological as you make it seem.
I understand what the article was saying and I don't disagree. In fact, I'm saying it's obvious. Your explanation effectively repeated it, using equally vague terms.
And that was my point. The author says that LinkedIn needs to find a completely different revenue model in midstream that works for them and that its users love. Do you think there's really a revelation in there? Do you think that's never occurred to LinkedIn (or anyone who's paying attention)?
Making vague and obvious statements as a commentator is also easy. For the article to have value, it should have offered some concrete examples of how these problems could be solved.