Why LinkedIn is More Valuable than Facebook

blogs.forbes.com

6 points·andymism··2 comments

The article is pretty much a joke. It argues for the analytics and processes LinkedIn can help enterprise customers with. In reality, LinkedIn really is more like a replacement for Monster, Dice, etc. Most people use it as a way to either get their resume out or for people hiring to find people.

As a user, unless I pay, the site really offers me little. Groups are kinda eh, I can hook in my twitter stream, etc. The amount of content generated beyond one's profile is significantly lower than that of Facebook. Is a lot of what is posted on FB fluff? Maybe, but people generate content and engage with the service.

Furthermore, what LinkedIn provides the user is pretty stagnant. There isn't a way to determine if someone claims proficiency in a certain skill or a certain role, how good are they actually? We've started to finally see some interesting competition / augmentations with BranchedOut (on FB, of all things) and MixTent (built a top of LinkedIn).

Agreed. On top of that, the discussion about time in app is an implicit straw man. It's no surprise that one set of metrics might be more important to LinkedIn versus for Facebook, but the relative importance of a set of metrics for two different businesses targeting different audiences is a weak argument for their relative valuations.

Facebook has fundamentally changed the way millions interact with their social circle; LinkedIn's impact is smaller by far. I find this a pretty simple explanation for much of the difference in their valuations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com