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

LinkedIn ran social experiments on 20M users over 5 years

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: LinkedIn ran social experiments on 20M users over 5 years

#31

Post by SkyBelow »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #5

This sort of knee-jerk reaction to a paper is exactly why companies at large prefer to treat their R&D as 'strictly confidential'. Can you imagine how much we could advance if the whole of Industry contributed and published their 'non-secret sauce' research in the same way academia currently does.

>Can you imagine how much we could advance if the whole of Industry contributed and published their 'non-secret sauce' research in the same way academia currently does.

How much faster would scientists produce findings if they only needed to follow laws and didn't need the IRB unless they were looking at experiments that might need legal exceptions. There is a reason we slow down scientists, now the question is how do we handle people doing similar but under a different name and funding model.

Re: LinkedIn ran social experiments on 20M users over 5 years

#32

Post by DoingIsLearning »

SkyBelow wrote: post #31
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #5

This sort of knee-jerk reaction to a paper is exactly why companies at large prefer to treat their R&D as 'strictly confidential'. Can you imagine how much we could advance if the whole of Industry contributed and published their 'non-secret sauce' research in the same way academia currently does.

>Can you imagine how much we could advance if the whole of Industry contributed and published their 'non-secret sauce' research in the same way academia currently does. How much faster would scientists produce findings if they only needed to follow laws and didn't need the IRB unless they were looking at experiments that might need legal exceptions. There is a reason we slow down scientists, now the question is how d…

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. My point is that there is a trove of data and studies that each company's has to keep in a vault.

Not all of it is strategic or secret but companies rarely publish by default.

Re: LinkedIn ran social experiments on 20M users over 5 years

#33

Post by awb »

im3w1l wrote: post #28
awb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The key question is how big the difference between the groups. 2x increase in job opportunities. > They found that relatively weak social ties on LinkedIn proved twice as effective in securing employment as stronger social ties.

> A year after connecting on LinkedIn, people who had received more recommendations for moderately weak-tie contacts were twice as likely to land jobs at the companies where those acquaintances worked compared with other users who had received more recommendations for strong-tie connections. That's one piece of the puzzle but not the whole thing. It's not the same as saying they got 2x more job opportunities. People…

True, but wouldn’t both cohorts be expected to add connections manually in roughly the same amounts?

Re: LinkedIn ran social experiments on 20M users over 5 years

#34

Post by BurningFrog »

SkyBelow wrote: post #29
mjr00 wrote: post #22

Framing A/B testing as "social experiments" for shock value is disingenuous, but it is interesting to think about the real-world knock-on effects that recommendation engines have. In this instance, recommendation engines helped people get jobs. If you're a relatively unknown musician on Spotify, being "blessed by the algorithm" and put into algorithmic playlists associated with more popular artist translates to real-…

>Framing A/B testing as "social experiments" for shock value is disingenuous, Is it? I've only done minor human experimentation, but had to go through the IRB process. What I did was on par with simple AB testing. The only difference here is that the AB testing is not being done to be published and not under the purview of the IRB. If it were, they would require the same sort of approve for human experimentation. Sur…

IRBs are a substantial break on scientific progress today, and need massive reform.

Instituted to prevent repeats of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, they now claim (slow) pre-approval rights to survey questions.

To me, it shows that gate-keepers are going to gate-keep. Institutions always strive to expand their powers.

Re: LinkedIn ran social experiments on 20M users over 5 years

#36

Post by therealmarv »

xtiansimon wrote: post #35

I ran a ethical experiment and avoided LinkedIn. I gave up when I couldn’t see how to make my LinkedIn profile reflect the changes and evolution of my career. I’m not a monolith.

And beside that whole job market is a privacy hell when you really search for a job.
Post reply on HN