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 a

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.