3 ms·

When i see someone with less than 500 connections I am more likely to interact with them. Its a signal that they don’t blindly accept all connections.

kostarelo 8y ago
Or a signal that they actually have many connections...
- mmt 8y ago
  True, but there can still exist a presumption that a large proportion of those connections aren't meaningful. I have no qualms connecting with a vendor or recruiter I just worked with, even if briefly on a single project, but after 6 years of no contact and 2-3 employers later, that connection isn't going to be useful for something like an introduction, if we even remember each other. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number
technofiend 8y ago
One of our CIOs literally accepts any connection request and then quickly deletes anyone he doesn't know or care to stay connected with. Then again my employer has twigged on to the fact it's both a good recruitment tool and a good way for bad actors to find targets so everyone is mandated to put boilerplate language on their profile instead of any detail with regard to their job.
airpmb 8y ago
Or that they are not old enough to have built up a larger legitimate network. Imagine the LinkedIn’s-dream-case of someone starting to use LI as soon as they are old enough to type (or hell, to say ‘hey cortana’) and sticking with it nearly from cradle to grave. How many years until even connecting with only legit other people gets them over 500? I have over 500, am pretty selective about connecting and I’m also over 40. Really what is needed is some kind of better metric than the number of connections anyway. Though one might ask better for who; it seems likely that it’s to LinkedIn’s advantage to hold the true graph connectivity closely so only they can profit thereby. I’ve also been thinking for awhile lately that I’m just part of the problem here and that it’d be not a bad idea to rather be part of the solution by getting off LinkedIn, to try and recapture some of the value that they’ve been deriving from the data I and my connections have been feeding them. Again, another example of the old “if you’re not paying for the service you’re probably the product being sold” corollary to the more familiar proverb concerning the price of lunches. Returning to the prospect of things like the ideal scenario for LI, I feel like the minimum age for joining any of these “free” services should be something like 30, so one has enough life experience to figure out that it may not actually be a bargain they are willing to make. Hmm, I just realized that the shorthand I’ve been using for LinkedIn could be pronounced like “lie”. I think I’ll start using that when talking about LI verbally.

kostarelo 8y ago

Or a signal that they actually have many connections...

mmt 8y ago
True, but there can still exist a presumption that a large proportion of those connections aren't meaningful. I have no qualms connecting with a vendor or recruiter I just worked with, even if briefly on a single project, but after 6 years of no contact and 2-3 employers later, that connection isn't going to be useful for something like an introduction, if we even remember each other. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

technofiend 8y ago

One of our CIOs literally accepts any connection request and then quickly deletes anyone he doesn't know or care to stay connected with. Then again my employer has twigged on to the fact it's both a good recruitment tool and a good way for bad actors to find targets so everyone is mandated to put boilerplate language on their profile instead of any detail with regard to their job.

airpmb 8y ago

Or that they are not old enough to have built up a larger legitimate network. Imagine the LinkedIn’s-dream-case of someone starting to use LI as soon as they are old enough to type (or hell, to say ‘hey cortana’) and sticking with it nearly from cradle to grave. How many years until even connecting with only legit other people gets them over 500? I have over 500, am pretty selective about connecting and I’m also over 40. Really what is needed is some kind of better metric than the number of connections anyway. Though one might ask better for who; it seems likely that it’s to LinkedIn’s advantage to hold the true graph connectivity closely so only they can profit thereby. I’ve also been thinking for awhile lately that I’m just part of the problem here and that it’d be not a bad idea to rather be part of the solution by getting off LinkedIn, to try and recapture some of the value that they’ve been deriving from the data I and my connections have been feeding them. Again, another example of the old “if you’re not paying for the service you’re probably the product being sold” corollary to the more familiar proverb concerning the price of lunches. Returning to the prospect of things like the ideal scenario for LI, I feel like the minimum age for joining any of these “free” services should be something like 30, so one has enough life experience to figure out that it may not actually be a bargain they are willing to make. Hmm, I just realized that the shorthand I’ve been using for LinkedIn could be pronounced like “lie”. I think I’ll start using that when talking about LI verbally.