161–170 of 187 posts
Is there an alternative to LinkedIn in that isn't (as) ethically dubious?
Well, in case anyone is curious: I have done a fair amount of searching, and for the most part it is a barren wasteland of alternatives. The only one I've found that looks OK is Seelio[1]. Let's see how this goes. [1] https://seelio.com
They really need to write something that tells you what the service does.
Really surprised by all the comments here. This seems like a solid business decision by LinkedIn, riding the line of what a user is willing to accept and balancing it well with the potential rewards. Look at every famous company and you'll find tactics that you don't agree with, and sometimes downright illegal (Path). If you're not willing to do desperate things, to do what is necessary for user acquisition, good luc…
I've tried to explain this line of logic previously on HN and my experience is that the majority of the people here live in their own world. Much like people who enjoy reality TV, just more technically savvy. They babble about how FB decreases audience reach or how they hide their ad targeting instead of realizing the massive opportunity that is presented to the people who are willing to put the work. They besmirch g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The number of people who actively use g+ is miniscule [citation needed] Weak sauce, I say. It's readily apparent that they are the #2 social network in terms of actual usage. Put a status message on fb and ask how many of them use g+ Shall I also ask MySpace users how many of them use G+? Seriously, that "ghost town" bullshit simply isn't going to fly. It's been done to death, everybody's heard it, and anybody who is…
Googlers like to think that G+ is one of the biggest social networks. The reason the reported numbers are so high is because now YouTube users have to integrate with G+ and all sorts of Google products funnel users in. These users do one thing, and never use the service again.
Metafilter is quite successful, but also very, very small.
> "LinkedIn allows you to sign in to your email account and it will scan your contacts..." Hand my contacts list to a website? No thank you. When is letting a website have this a good idea, not just Linkedin, but ever ?
It also has a separate username/password box for giving it access to your email address. I have never used this feature. However when I visit the site it fills in the second box with the same username and password.
If I used the same password for linkedin and my email account, saved my linkedin password, then all I would need to do is accidentally click the wrong button to send them my email credentials.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Googlers like to think that G+ is one of the biggest social networks. The reason the reported numbers are so high is because now YouTube users have to integrate with G+ and all sorts of Google products funnel users in. These users do one thing, and never use the service again.
Who, other than VCs, actually care about how many folks use a given social network? As long as the people you care to read, and some smattering of other interesting people are on the network, total size doesn't matter. Metafilter is quite successful, but also very, very small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did you create a profile? If you don't want to connect with your professional network, if you don't care who looked at your profile (and are even spooked about it), if you (likely) don't use it to find people... What do you think is the purpose of having a LinkedIn account?
> Why did you create a profile? 1) The intent was to separate my personal and professional social presence: Facebook is no place for doing or talking business. 2) I was looking for work at the time. 3) I tend to try things out > If you don't want to connect with your professional network, I never said that. > if you don't care who looked at your profile Whether I care or not, I don't think the network should be repor…
> I don't think the network should be reporting views to profile owners. Of course I'm spooked by this.
So you're essentially freaked out that a prospective employer or business contact is looking at your CV.
> Not finding employees.
HR departments are paying for those premium accounts because they use it to find employees. Are you suggesting they don't know what they are doing?
> Not finding work. Can I even separate my contacts into people-that-can-see-that-im-looking and people-that-shouldnt nowadays?
You can update your profile without broadcasting the change to your contacts, and you can answer job offerings privately too.
A lot of people use it as the de-facto rolodex: you can learn a lot about who you're going to meet without being "stalkish" because people expect to be searched (well, not you apparently). You can use it to contact people in specific positions (cold call), I've done it with great success to get past unresponsive customer services.
Many people don't agree with their growth tactics, but few would say it's useless.
Really surprised by all the comments here. This seems like a solid business decision by LinkedIn, riding the line of what a user is willing to accept and balancing it well with the potential rewards. Look at every famous company and you'll find tactics that you don't agree with, and sometimes downright illegal (Path). If you're not willing to do desperate things, to do what is necessary for user acquisition, good luc…
I've tried to explain this line of logic previously on HN and my experience is that the majority of the people here live in their own world. Much like people who enjoy reality TV, just more technically savvy. They babble about how FB decreases audience reach or how they hide their ad targeting instead of realizing the massive opportunity that is presented to the people who are willing to put the work. They besmirch g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does "active" Google+ users include people who are logged in and have plus-related stuff-they-don't-care-about in their standard google header? Or people who just reciprocate circle-adds but don't engage whatsoever?
All of the complaining about ghost towns isn't going to change the fact that G+ isn't going anywhere as long as Google stays as successful as it is right now.
I'd say both interpretations apply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what they did. It should be noted that in the announcements that I've seen, Google has counted only active Google+ users. This is the "ghost town" ruse all over again. It's weak sauce and demonstrably facile. You can bash Google+ all you want, but it's not going to impress people who enjoy using it very much. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/the-loyal-users-of-...
Does "active" Google+ users include people who are logged in and have plus-related stuff-they-don't-care-about in their standard google header? Or people who just reciprocate circle-adds but don't engage whatsoever?
http://googleblog.blogspot.ca/2013/10/google-hangouts-and-ph... (at the very bottom)