3 ms·

It's rather odd that their news algorithm exists in the first place. I use LinkedIn for one reason and one reason only: to maximize my career options, both in

It's rather odd that their news algorithm exists in the first place. I use LinkedIn for one reason and one reason only: to maximize my career options, both in scope and magnitude of opportunities. While I'm happily employed, I learned long ago that if you're not spending a few hours a month thinking about other career opportunities, you're hurting yourself in the long run. LinkedIn is a great platform to stay on top of that several-hours-per-month workflow. For example, you see that an acquaintance has changed jobs....you send them a text...you grab coffee and talk about their career change....you gather the data point and keep your network primed. LinkedIn has made this process way easier to initiate than it used to be -- for me, at least. So I really, really don't get why someone thought it would be a good idea to build an algorithm that assigns news stories to LinkedIn members. If I find myself in the news, and I think it's a cool story that makes me look good to potential employers, I can share it to my LinkedIn network. Hell, if I really like the article, I can embed it permanently on my profile. Thank God I have a relatively rare first-last name combo that makes it very unlikely that something like what happened to Will Johnson could happen to me. That's straight-up nightmare material. It's pretty boggling that LinkedIn would implement a feature that not only doesn't create value for its users, but actively poses a risk to their ongoing career development. The whole point of the site is essentially to serve as a cloud-mounted, data-rich business card. Why jeopardize that platform with crappy AI that spreads harmful falsehoods about members?

potatolicious 10y ago
> "So I really, really don't get why someone thought it would be a good idea to build an algorithm that assigns news stories to LinkedIn members." Because pushing any kind of information at users is considered "engagement", which is a term that has been so thoroughly abused that it no longer holds any substantive meaning.
- leroy_masochist 10y ago
  Yeah. The more I mull it over in my head the more I think that it was probably something that seemed like an interesting engineering challenge but was never properly examined as a business decision.
caseysoftware 10y ago
I think it's so that people can congratulate you first. Think of it as the "local boy makes good" storyline. I've done that a few times when I meant to email someone, got distracted, and was reminded when their name popped up on TwitbookIn or whatever the site is now. And you're right, "Leroy Masochist" is a rare name combo.. ;)
- leroy_masochist 10y ago
  That's a good point, but isn't the distribution of "local boy makes good" stories a bit of an edge case? I mean do we really need AI to do that for us at the risk of something bad happening? I'm not trying to imply that you personally agree with LinkedIn's decision, by the way; just trying to get my head around why they think it makes sense.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    I think they see it as an issue where most of the time it's "close enough" that if it's wrong it'll just be wrong in a way that people will laugh off and that will still generate engagement. As long as the cases where it goes wrong enough to be offensive and hurtful are rare enough, there's very little downside to them.
    - caseysoftware 10y ago
      That makes sense as the closest answer (but still guessing). They could further limit it by location/region or companies mentioned to improve the quality but that may be overkill and reduce the number of notifications too much for their tastes.
wrboyce 10y ago
Yikes. I recall a few years ago having to email a bunch of news outlets to ask they reword some headlines. It seemed some sports player with the position of Wide Receiver and the surname Boyce had been misbehaving himself. I can only imagine the explaining I would have to do if "WR Boyce indicted for child abuse" turned up on my LinkedIn feed.
mcguire 10y ago
Because (a) it's a thing they can do easily, and (b) the response is usually neutral or positive. Plus, with the disclaimer it would be middling difficult to sue them. Remember that the business model here is "do the 80% that's easy and let the punters sort the rest out." Anyone familiar with their subscription numbers? I suspect almost all of their accounts are products, not customers .

potatolicious 10y ago

> "So I really, really don't get why someone thought it would be a good idea to build an algorithm that assigns news stories to LinkedIn members." Because pushing any kind of information at users is considered "engagement", which is a term that has been so thoroughly abused that it no longer holds any substantive meaning.

leroy_masochist 10y ago
Yeah. The more I mull it over in my head the more I think that it was probably something that seemed like an interesting engineering challenge but was never properly examined as a business decision.

caseysoftware 10y ago

I think it's so that people can congratulate you first. Think of it as the "local boy makes good" storyline. I've done that a few times when I meant to email someone, got distracted, and was reminded when their name popped up on TwitbookIn or whatever the site is now. And you're right, "Leroy Masochist" is a rare name combo.. ;)

leroy_masochist 10y ago
That's a good point, but isn't the distribution of "local boy makes good" stories a bit of an edge case? I mean do we really need AI to do that for us at the risk of something bad happening? I'm not trying to imply that you personally agree with LinkedIn's decision, by the way; just trying to get my head around why they think it makes sense.
- vidarh 10y ago
  I think they see it as an issue where most of the time it's "close enough" that if it's wrong it'll just be wrong in a way that people will laugh off and that will still generate engagement. As long as the cases where it goes wrong enough to be offensive and hurtful are rare enough, there's very little downside to them.
  - caseysoftware 10y ago
    That makes sense as the closest answer (but still guessing). They could further limit it by location/region or companies mentioned to improve the quality but that may be overkill and reduce the number of notifications too much for their tastes.

wrboyce 10y ago

Yikes. I recall a few years ago having to email a bunch of news outlets to ask they reword some headlines. It seemed some sports player with the position of Wide Receiver and the surname Boyce had been misbehaving himself. I can only imagine the explaining I would have to do if "WR Boyce indicted for child abuse" turned up on my LinkedIn feed.

mcguire 10y ago

Because (a) it's a thing they can do easily, and (b) the response is usually neutral or positive. Plus, with the disclaimer it would be middling difficult to sue them. Remember that the business model here is "do the 80% that's easy and let the punters sort the rest out." Anyone familiar with their subscription numbers? I suspect almost all of their accounts are products, not customers .