LinkedIn: How Much Do You Use It?
-
Again, with Facebook, sure. I have check-ins, statuses, etc. The reasons for having an account on either site is totally different. It doesn't really matter what LinkedIn set out to be originally. At some point, they saw what they deciphered to be a good logistical move and made it. Again, Facebook and LinkedIn... !=
-
Or <> if you prefer...
-
@ajstringham said:
Wrong. The intents are completely different. You don't see pictures of cats going up like crazy on LinkedIn. It's not social networking. You say it started out like that but obviously that's not what it is now. I don't go on there to find friends. I go on there to make business connections with people, some of whom may be my friends. Totally different. There are common elements between the two but you can't put LinkedIn and Facebook on the same plane.
You are too young, you see LinkedIn as they coopted it with information they gathered under false pretenses. You have been sold their attempt at rebranding using data they collected using false information. LinkedIn was meant to be business Facebook when it started. If you think that it is a resume site or a recruiting site, you've fallen for the very recent marketing.
-
That being said, I get why you did the connection to Kodak. However, I can't remember but I thought you told me that you actually did some work for them. If you did, put that. Otherwise, even secondhand experience from your father isn't something to put on there. That would be something to put in the summary field or a similar place.
-
@ajstringham said:
Again, with Facebook, sure. I have check-ins, statuses, etc. The reasons for having an account on either site is totally different. It doesn't really matter what LinkedIn set out to be originally. At some point, they saw what they deciphered to be a good logistical move and made it. Again, Facebook and LinkedIn... !=
You are confusing current state with intent. LinkedIn failed at what they set out to do, what you see is them desperately trying to find a way to make money with questionable ethics.
-
@ajstringham said:
That being said, I get why you did the connection to Kodak. However, I can't remember but I thought you told me that you actually did some work for them. If you did, put that. Otherwise, even secondhand experience from your father isn't something to put on there. That would be something to put in the summary field or a similar place.
I did but you had to have an email address or something to prove it. They did all kinds of funky things that forced you to put in false info for the site to even work. That has all changes now, long after I left it.
-
LinkedIn was sold as a way to make business connections with people you knew, not people you didn't know. But to reach them you had to tell LinkedIn certain things. The site was, and is, complete garbage. One of the worst sites ever. To me, worse than MySpace. Just crap.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@ajstringham said:
Again, with Facebook, sure. I have check-ins, statuses, etc. The reasons for having an account on either site is totally different. It doesn't really matter what LinkedIn set out to be originally. At some point, they saw what they deciphered to be a good logistical move and made it. Again, Facebook and LinkedIn... !=
You are confusing current state with intent. LinkedIn failed at what they set out to do, what you see is them desperately trying to find a way to make money with questionable ethics.
I'm not. So they set out to be a business Facebook. So what? In business, you strive to make money. Method A isn't working. They tried Method B. They may have gathered information originally with a certain purpose in mind but that doesn't make them slight or deceitful. They set out on a course and it didn't work. They changed course. There is nothing dishonest here. Trying something and it not working and then trying something new...what's wrong with that? What are they supposed to do? DBAN all their drives and tell everyone that they were wrong going one way so let's all start over and go another? What you're saying doesn't make sense and you contradict yourself. If they had originally had their current model as the end game and set out in another way to get information sneakily, then that's one thing. You yourself said though that they changed to this when the other didn't work. You honestly sound a little paranoid...
-
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@ajstringham said:
Again, with Facebook, sure. I have check-ins, statuses, etc. The reasons for having an account on either site is totally different. It doesn't really matter what LinkedIn set out to be originally. At some point, they saw what they deciphered to be a good logistical move and made it. Again, Facebook and LinkedIn... !=
You are confusing current state with intent. LinkedIn failed at what they set out to do, what you see is them desperately trying to find a way to make money with questionable ethics.
I'm not. So they set out to be a business Facebook. So what? In business, you strive to make money. Method A isn't working. They tried Method B. They may have gathered information originally with a certain purpose in mind but that doesn't make them slight or deceitful. They set out on a course and it didn't work. They changed course. There is nothing dishonest here. Trying something and it not working and then trying something new...what's wrong with that? What are they supposed to do? DBAN all their drives and tell everyone that they were wrong going one way so let's all start over and go another? What you're saying doesn't make sense and you contradict yourself. If they had originally had their current model as the end game and set out in another way to get information sneakily, then that's one thing. You yourself said though that they changed to this when the other didn't work. You honestly sound a little paranoid...
Blah blah. You are missing that the data was collected under false pretenses. I would never have agreed to have an account if I knew their intent. I feel that LinkedIn is unethical. They are pieces of poo. They lie about what they are to make a quick buck. Business doesn't have to mean unethical.
-
They kept data from one set of customers and, without informing them, presented it as something else.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
LinkedIn was sold as a way to make business connections with people you knew, not people you didn't know. But to reach them you had to tell LinkedIn certain things. The site was, and is, complete garbage. One of the worst sites ever. To me, worse than MySpace. Just crap.
Ok, but look at it from their perspective. I agree that what they did and still to some degree do, can be classified as data-mining. However, in a business world, you can't afford the same luxuries as just clicking a "friend/connect" button. If I wanted to connect with Bill Gates, wouldn't it make sense that, first, I can verify I know the guy? I agree there are better methods but saying the site is garbage is quite inaccurate and slanderous.
-
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
LinkedIn was sold as a way to make business connections with people you knew, not people you didn't know. But to reach them you had to tell LinkedIn certain things. The site was, and is, complete garbage. One of the worst sites ever. To me, worse than MySpace. Just crap.
Ok, but look at it from their perspective. I agree that what they did and still to some degree do, can be classified as data-mining. However, in a business world, you can't afford the same luxuries as just clicking a "friend/connect" button. If I wanted to connect with Bill Gates, wouldn't it make sense that, first, I can verify I know the guy? I agree there are better methods but saying the site is garbage is quite inaccurate and slanderous.
That's fine. But then taking the verification and producing a "resume" is not ethical. And really, they only "suggest" it is a resume. They rely on, for example, you saying that I put something on my resume that I never did. I'm falsely represented by implication.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
They kept data from one set of customers and, without informing them, presented it as something else.
This is a totally different issue. Once you put the data out there, unless this is something involving financial info (credit cards, bank accounts, etc), legal records (tickets, court rulings, etc) or medical records, it's theirs to do what they want with it. That is implied when joining any site, including this one. ML could take my email and info and, unless I've told them otherwise, use it how they see fit, as long as it's not illegal or destructive.You inherently agree to that when you register on any site.
-
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
They kept data from one set of customers and, without informing them, presented it as something else.
This is a totally different issue. Once you put the data out there, unless this is something involving financial info (credit cards, bank accounts, etc), legal records (tickets, court rulings, etc) or medical records, it's theirs to do what they want with it. That is implied when joining any site, including this one. ML could take my email and info and, unless I've told them otherwise, use it how they see fit, as long as it's not illegal or destructive.You inherently agree to that when you register on any site.
Putting data out there as required for a site to work and then having it presented as something different is not the same as publishing data. I left LinkedIn before there was any suggestion of what you think that it is today.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
LinkedIn was sold as a way to make business connections with people you knew, not people you didn't know. But to reach them you had to tell LinkedIn certain things. The site was, and is, complete garbage. One of the worst sites ever. To me, worse than MySpace. Just crap.
Ok, but look at it from their perspective. I agree that what they did and still to some degree do, can be classified as data-mining. However, in a business world, you can't afford the same luxuries as just clicking a "friend/connect" button. If I wanted to connect with Bill Gates, wouldn't it make sense that, first, I can verify I know the guy? I agree there are better methods but saying the site is garbage is quite inaccurate and slanderous.
That's fine. But then taking the verification and producing a "resume" is not ethical. And really, they only "suggest" it is a resume. They rely on, for example, you saying that I put something on my resume that I never did. I'm falsely represented by implication.
What on earth do you mean? LinkedIn is just like other websites in that it works almost exclusively on the honor system. Being the security nut you are, you should know their main reason for verification. They have no interest in proving your resume is accurate. It isn't their reputation on the line. They present you with the tools to present yourself and you can make of it what you will. They do this to stop spammers. It only makes sense.
Ok, whoa whoa whoa...back the train up.
They rely on, for example, you saying that I put something on my resume that I never did. I'm falsely represented by implication.
Ok, now you're sounding cynical. You're saying LinkedIn is trying to pit us against each other? That makes no sense! Just as in a technical community we call each other out if there are things that are obvious discrepancies, the same goes for LinkedIn.
-
Not much. I only use it primarily as a professional contact Rolodex if you will. Recruiters who contact me through there always are a waste of time. They always have the position filled if you respond, and most of them contact you about jobs that have 0 to do with your skillset.
I visit my account maybe 2-3 times a month, and that's mostly just to look up contact info.
-
You are right though. If I saw something I knew wasn't right on your LinkedIn, I could say something about it. But that's just the whole verification by a community. Besides, you can lie if you want on there. It'll be about as productive, and possibly worse, than lying on your resume. I see where you're coming from but your angle is skewed.
-
@ajstringham said:
That is implied when joining any site, including this one. ML could take my email and info and, unless I've told them otherwise, use it how they see fit, as long as it's not illegal or destructive.You inherently agree to that when you register on any site.Misrepresentation is always unlawful. Claiming that my data represents my statements of where I have worked is untrue. You can collect data. You can't misrepresent it.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
Not much. I only use it primarily as a professional contact Rolodex if you will. Recruiters who contact me through there always are a waste of time. They always have the position filled if you respond, and most of them contact you about jobs that have 0 to do with your skillset.
I visit my account maybe 2-3 times a month, and that's mostly just to look up contact info.
On this I don't totally disagree. Most are a waste of time but still, some aren't. Those are the nuggets to wait for.
-
@ajstringham said:
You are right though. If I saw something I knew wasn't right on your LinkedIn, I could say something about it. But that's just the whole verification by a community. Besides, you can lie if you want on there. It'll be about as productive, and possibly worse, than lying on your resume. I see where you're coming from but your angle is skewed.
Is it? Or is yours? Your view is based off of data that would have looked normal when collected but now looks skewed because the way it is presented is false. LinkedIn has lied and you feel that my data looks "wrong on a resume". Why would you think it was resume or resume-esqe? I was never told that. It's not me that is skewed. You see LinkedIn as how they want you to see it now, not how it was when the data was input.
