71–80 of 85 posts
Linkedin is the example of the clickbait engagement society we live in. Everything turns arround self promotion full of bullshit titles and descriptions of mostly thin air. Everybody is an uber executive leader responsible for mind blowing changes impacting the entire world.
About a decade ago, we’d refer to LinkedIn as “the network everyone has, but nobody is on.” Meaning, everyone has an account but there’s no reason to log in unless you’re seeking an employment change. Looks like they tripled-down on features to change it. Always seeking DAU.
> Looks like they tripled-down on features to change it. Always seeking DAU. The irony is that all the extra nonsense keeps a lot of us away even more. I think even the next time I want to change jobs, there are platforms I'll use before I go back to LinkedIn. I guess it's like any social media platform. Once you invite too many people, you dilute the original purpose and community, and just end up with memes and cat…
About a decade ago, we’d refer to LinkedIn as “the network everyone has, but nobody is on.” Meaning, everyone has an account but there’s no reason to log in unless you’re seeking an employment change. Looks like they tripled-down on features to change it. Always seeking DAU.
I watch our sales people use LinkedIn heavily for prospecting and cold reach outs. They rely on tools like Lusha which are basically databases of contact information that are sold on a subscription basis.
If you work in management or any sort of position where it's possible you're involved in procurement and that is reflected in your job title you will get hounded incessantly by people - sometimes directly on LinkedIn but more often they /found/ you on LinkedIn and then paid Lusha or one of the other contact database tools for your email address and contact info.
Fwiw you can opt out of Lusha. I tried it and the number of inbound calls and emails I got dropped significantly.
I’m not sure how many are employed at LinkedIn today, but at the end of 2019 there were 65 journalists at the company. This is clearly a strategy to get people to spend more time in the site. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/23/media/linkedin-journalist...
I say this because your dangling comment seems to imply that LinkedIn's employment of journalists is so that they may practice their journalistic dark-arts on unsuspecting users in a ploy for them to spend more time on the site.
I’m not sure how many are employed at LinkedIn today, but at the end of 2019 there were 65 journalists at the company. This is clearly a strategy to get people to spend more time in the site. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/23/media/linkedin-journalist...
What an odd comment. According to your link the journalists were employed for a LinkedIn feature called LinkedIn Daily Rundown. This is seemingly a journalistic endeavor, and as with any product offering would be a strategy to keep people engaged with the site. Why not also point to LinkedIn offering direct messaging as "clearly a strategy to get people to spend more time on the site"? I say this because your danglin…
It’s totally normal for social networking websites to establish newsrooms and hire lots of journalists. Friendster, MySpace, Facebook… and now LinkedIn.
Sorry, Dad. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an odd comment. According to your link the journalists were employed for a LinkedIn feature called LinkedIn Daily Rundown. This is seemingly a journalistic endeavor, and as with any product offering would be a strategy to keep people engaged with the site. Why not also point to LinkedIn offering direct messaging as "clearly a strategy to get people to spend more time on the site"? I say this because your danglin…
Right. Establishing a newsroom and providing dm functionality is an apples-to-apples comparison in the context of a social networking website. It’s totally normal for social networking websites to establish newsrooms and hire lots of journalists. Friendster, MySpace, Facebook… and now LinkedIn. Sorry, Dad. /s
Beyond that, why would normal have anything to do with what you're offering your users? Do you think Friendster, MySpace, or Facebook thought "what's a normal social media product we can offer"? I guess the whole "go fast and break things" ethos ends with "but totes don't hire journalists and create a newsroom as a possible profit center because some people don't know how to evaluate disparate sources of information on the internet".
Does anyone else remember when LI had the basically illegal idea to replace users mail servers with their own, so they could scrape email content/address information? I remember hearing an interview about this on NPR, I think. They were quite pleased with themselves, too. Since that day I've always blocked them in the local firewall.
In Europe / London politics are very much off the table for LinkedIn. It would be crazy to talk about anything except some charity helping in place X.
Not the European LinkedIn network I’m in. Plenty of Gaza posts and the usual energy political tribalism around. I try to restrict my engagement on that kind of content though