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

Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

#31

Post by Aloisius »

wpietri wrote: post #28
jusben1369 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the "network" benefit of LinkedIn is close to zero. That is, when was the last time anyone said "I would like to talk to person X at Company Y. Oh, one of my friends is connected to person X. I'll ask that person for a warm introduction" Is anyone seeing or doing that?

I make intros like that once or twice a month. I'm generally happy to do so, because I only accept LinkedIn connection requests from people I know well enough to recommend.

I do a similar thing, but I only connect to people I know well enough to ask for an introduction to other people.

Re: Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

#32

Post by willcole »

Disclaimer: I work on a competing job board site at Stack Overflow Careers 2.0

LinkedIn (as opposed to CareerBuilder apparently) isn't really cheating anyone. They're charging for a stupid feature to make a quick buck off of naive or desperate candidates. I can't figure out how a feature like putting a resume on the top of a pile solves any problem to do with matching candidates with employers. Much less why good employers would care about this arbitrary order. At least (apparently) they aren't biasing search results in their recruiter platform.

We've taken the route of only charging employers for access to advertise jobs and company pages on Stack Overflow, and search profiles of developers on Careers 2.0 (no crappy contingency recruiters allowed). Not only do we not want to charge candidates, I don't exactly know what we'd be charging them for that would help clear the market more efficiently.

Re: Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

#33

Post by jusben1369 »

Aloisius wrote: post #31
wpietri wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make intros like that once or twice a month. I'm generally happy to do so, because I only accept LinkedIn connection requests from people I know well enough to recommend.

I do a similar thing, but I only connect to people I know well enough to ask for an introduction to other people.

Well that's pretty awesome to hear (that it's still being used that way) What's a ratio of connection requests you accept vs ignore?

Re: Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

#35

Post by dev1n »

WestCoastJustin wrote: post #2

Age and skills seem to be a factor. The people in the video are 40+, with many doing marketing/sales. The HN community, based off the what is your age? poll [1], suggests the majority here are between 21-35, so we probably are not experiencing their problem. Second, networking is a major factor, if the software keyword system is really the issue, you need to find ways around the system, email your old co-workers, etc…

If you are in the red, with zero money coming in, isn't anything better than nothing, at least as a gap till you find something better?

I'm not sure I would call it pride. Some won't apply to jobs if they feel it is below them because the general consensus among employers is that if a better job comes along that this person is more qualified for, they will quit that "lower" job.

source: my Econ professor

Re: Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

#36

Post by kamjam »

danielweber wrote: post #9
WestCoastJustin wrote: post #2

Age and skills seem to be a factor. The people in the video are 40+, with many doing marketing/sales. The HN community, based off the what is your age? poll [1], suggests the majority here are between 21-35, so we probably are not experiencing their problem. Second, networking is a major factor, if the software keyword system is really the issue, you need to find ways around the system, email your old co-workers, etc…

Taking a lower-paid job can reduce your salary once you get back to your primary field. Workers have legitimate reasons to treat wages as sticky.

Not to mention the boredom factor. But I have known people to take a job just cos they need the money, and also been refused a job because they were over-qualified and the employer knew they would just leave once they got a better job. It's a two way thing.

Re: Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

#37

Post by bcbrown »

jusben1369 wrote: post #19
auctiontheory wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should absolutely have a LinkedIn account and begin to build the network. Just don't PAY for your LinkedIn account.

I feel like the "network" benefit of LinkedIn is close to zero. That is, when was the last time anyone said "I would like to talk to person X at Company Y. Oh, one of my friends is connected to person X. I'll ask that person for a warm introduction" Is anyone seeing or doing that?

I've certainly done that. When job-hunting, if I find a job posting I'd like to apply for, I'll check to see if there's anyone in my 2nd or 3rd-level network who's worked for that company.

Re: Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

#38

Post by vonmoltke »

willcole wrote: post #32

Disclaimer: I work on a competing job board site at Stack Overflow Careers 2.0 LinkedIn (as opposed to CareerBuilder apparently) isn't really cheating anyone. They're charging for a stupid feature to make a quick buck off of naive or desperate candidates. I can't figure out how a feature like putting a resume on the top of a pile solves any problem to do with matching candidates with employers. Much less why good emp…

> I can't figure out how a feature like putting a resume on the top of a pile solves any problem to do with matching candidates with employers. Much less why good employers would care about this arbitrary order.

It helps them get through the human keyword filter in HR faster, which (theoretically) makes them more likely to get an interview. Even many "good" companies have issues with poor HR filter functions, and on top of that a majority of the jobs seem to be with "bad" companies.

I agree, though, that its set up to prey on the naive and desperate. Those for whom any job is better than no job, or simply think this is how "the game" is supposed to be played.

Re: Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

#39

Post by Sven7 »

zcarter wrote: post #26

The problem comes down to trust and incentives. The "promoted" job board model leads to a middle man agent ("agent" in the Economics sense) with asymmetric information who is incentivized to give poor advice. LinkedIn wants you to trust their matching algorithm, but then goes behind your back and supplants the best matches with whoever the highest bidder happens to be. Instead of benefiting when their customers get v…

Rent-seeking in silicon valley isn't spoken about enough. Rent seeking has and will always be around, but is it increasing?

When we are talking about rankings and matching algo's in the hands of monopolies be it Google, Facebook, YouTube et al its a great mystery to me why the advertising industry trusts them so much.

Re: Is LinkedIn Cheating Employers and Job Seekers Alike?

#40

Post by polarix »

No problems with the main thrust of the article, but the conclusion that "America's jobs crisis needs to be looked at as a failure of employers and job boards to ensure an accurate and fair employment process" is laughable. The problems with the re-employment engine are multifold, and not trivially reducible to a single sentence.

An interesting, and more nuanced take on the issue from a very different angle, which at least starts to grasp the enormity of the problem: http://lesswrong.com/lw/hh4/the_robots_ai_and_unemployment_a...

Post reply on HN