5 ms·

I noticed this the other day -- while logged in, LinkedIn insisted I must upgrade to Premium in order to see the last name of the person whose profile I was loo

by yahelc 12y ago

I noticed this the other day -- while logged in, LinkedIn insisted I must upgrade to Premium in order to see the last name of the person whose profile I was looking at (which of course, was publicly once I logged out).

hga 12y ago
Might you find some value from the person, and LinkedIn, knowing you looked at that profile? I can't offhand think of any, but that's one difference between these two use cases.
- lstamour 12y ago
  Except anonymous users get the benefit of being both anonymous and able to view the profile. LinkedIn pushes users to either upgrade or sign out. Works for me, I don't like signing in often either.
  - andypants 12y ago
    They only really push users to upgrade. They don't let you know that you can view the full profile if you sign out. That's just an obscure (possibly temporary) workaround.
- antjanus 12y ago
  Yeah, small bits of value. Before any interview, I'd check out the people I'd go see. They would know I looked at their profile (which shows interest and due diligence) and if they had not checked out my profile already, they would now which helps me imprint on them better, if that makes sense. I'd also check out the people I'd be working with, and if they see that I checked out their profile, they'd probably check mine out too (just to see who this guy is that visited their profile) thus that makes me stand out a bit and we're on a better footing. On the flip side, if an interviewer checks me out before I go in for an interview, it shows actual interest and makes me consider the company more seriously. So I actually appreciate it when an interviewer drops by my linkedin and I can see that they did. It's a plus. Like a pre-connect before an interview. Outside of that, I'm not sure.
- scrabble 12y ago
  I can think of one. My current director viewed my profile and didn't contact me during my employment with my last employer. I took a look at the company he worked for and contacted him myself about an opportunity. Now I work for him (he's an excellent leader too). Had I not seen that he viewed my profile, I wouldn't be working for his company now. As an aside, I will generally always view profiles in an incognito window.
samstave 12y ago
I saw this recently to, where i had done a google search of the person: the google search result showed their full nam in the actual link to linkedin - after clickingto go to the linkedin page, from the full name link, it withheld the last name. Idiocy.
- shostack 12y ago
  Isn't that considered cloaking and a direct violation of Google's Webmaster guidelines? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355 https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355 That's the kind of thing expertsexchange.com was busted for amongst other sites. Or is LinkedIn simply "above the law" because of their search volume?
  - Netminder_EE 12y ago
    DISCLAIMER: I'm Experts Exchange's senior volunteer administrator. That's just one of the things EE was busted for. For logged in members, they would see the pages from a Google SERP one would expect to see; for non-members (or those who weren't logged in), they would see a page that said "sign up". It's not unprecedented -- the New York Times does the same thing -- but the way EE did it (over strong objections from the user community) was singularly creepy. That EE's competitors had Matt Cutts on speed dial just hastened the imposition of the Panda et seq. penalties. The good news -- at least, for those of us who aren't natural born haters -- is that a change in management has resulted in the paywall coming down, and the penalties imposed are slowly but surely being overcome.
    - samstave 12y ago
      They still exist?
      - Netminder_EE 12y ago
        Why wouldn't EE exist? Despite the best efforts of some well-known bloggers whose site wouldn't exist if it had to depend solely on actual income, EE exists because it has a business model that DOES work.

by yahelc 12y ago

hga 12y ago

Might you find some value from the person, and LinkedIn, knowing you looked at that profile? I can't offhand think of any, but that's one difference between these two use cases.

lstamour 12y ago
Except anonymous users get the benefit of being both anonymous and able to view the profile. LinkedIn pushes users to either upgrade or sign out. Works for me, I don't like signing in often either.
- andypants 12y ago
  They only really push users to upgrade. They don't let you know that you can view the full profile if you sign out. That's just an obscure (possibly temporary) workaround.
antjanus 12y ago
Yeah, small bits of value. Before any interview, I'd check out the people I'd go see. They would know I looked at their profile (which shows interest and due diligence) and if they had not checked out my profile already, they would now which helps me imprint on them better, if that makes sense. I'd also check out the people I'd be working with, and if they see that I checked out their profile, they'd probably check mine out too (just to see who this guy is that visited their profile) thus that makes me stand out a bit and we're on a better footing. On the flip side, if an interviewer checks me out before I go in for an interview, it shows actual interest and makes me consider the company more seriously. So I actually appreciate it when an interviewer drops by my linkedin and I can see that they did. It's a plus. Like a pre-connect before an interview. Outside of that, I'm not sure.
scrabble 12y ago
I can think of one. My current director viewed my profile and didn't contact me during my employment with my last employer. I took a look at the company he worked for and contacted him myself about an opportunity. Now I work for him (he's an excellent leader too). Had I not seen that he viewed my profile, I wouldn't be working for his company now. As an aside, I will generally always view profiles in an incognito window.

samstave 12y ago

I saw this recently to, where i had done a google search of the person: the google search result showed their full nam in the actual link to linkedin - after clickingto go to the linkedin page, from the full name link, it withheld the last name. Idiocy.

shostack 12y ago
Isn't that considered cloaking and a direct violation of Google's Webmaster guidelines? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355 https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355 That's the kind of thing expertsexchange.com was busted for amongst other sites. Or is LinkedIn simply "above the law" because of their search volume?
- Netminder_EE 12y ago
  DISCLAIMER: I'm Experts Exchange's senior volunteer administrator. That's just one of the things EE was busted for. For logged in members, they would see the pages from a Google SERP one would expect to see; for non-members (or those who weren't logged in), they would see a page that said "sign up". It's not unprecedented -- the New York Times does the same thing -- but the way EE did it (over strong objections from the user community) was singularly creepy. That EE's competitors had Matt Cutts on speed dial just hastened the imposition of the Panda et seq. penalties. The good news -- at least, for those of us who aren't natural born haters -- is that a change in management has resulted in the paywall coming down, and the penalties imposed are slowly but surely being overcome.
  - samstave 12y ago
    They still exist?
    - Netminder_EE 12y ago
      Why wouldn't EE exist? Despite the best efforts of some well-known bloggers whose site wouldn't exist if it had to depend solely on actual income, EE exists because it has a business model that DOES work.