So basically LI is a huge sales/marketing/MLM echo chamber with 19 out of 20 users there against their will.
So basically LI is a huge sales/marketing/MLM echo chamber with 19 out of 20 users there against their will.
To do that I'll post a few comments over a week, which seems to make LI think you're an active user, and then I'll post the most relevant / well written brain-think from my collection. If I'm feeling frisky I'll post two. A few days later my inbox will be flooded with recruiters spamming me with random useless stuff. Like this or that great Java opportunity (I haven't worked with Java in 15 years), but usually there is something interesting in the ocean of shit. Some of my colleagues use it actively and dislike it, but use it because they think they have to. In my experience that's not the case at all. The 500+ may be true, I crossed that long ago even though I've generally worked in non-tech enterprise so 80% of my connections have nothing to do with SWE.
Maybe this means that I do fall under the 4%, but even if you hate LI, you should know that you can play it extremely casual.
> A few days later my inbox will be flooded with recruiters spamming me with random useless stuff. Like this or that great Java opportunity (I haven't worked with Java in 15 years)
Ditto, except I'm not even a programmer and never have been but I still get a flood of Java programming offers. I actually get so many I have "java developer" as a filtered phrase in my email. I get 50+ a month, every month, for a decade now.
And really that's what most people get on LI, oodles of connection or sales spam, and irrelevant communications from people casting nets rather than actually being good recruiters and finding good people. That's why most people "hate" it, it's junk mail we actually have to interact with sometimes. I spend maybe 2 minutes a month there, and wish I didn't have to at all.
The actual "job" site of LinkedIn is terrible for me though. It's probably because I worked in the public sector and was involved with medical software, but LI seems to think I'm a doctor, a nurse and a firefighter (for whatever reason) at the same time.
I went through business school once and every second was a little worse than the last one. I’m good without LI.
Or if I understand your comment correctly, the quality of content on LinkedIn doesn’t really matter because you use it infrequently – as an online resume?
On the flip-side I don't really use HN for anything job related but here I only engage in things I think are interesting and that I think I can contribute to. So in a way HN is actually much more "unhealthy" for me than LI, as it's my SoMe drug of choice and I should probably spend less time here.
To me, LinkedIn is a place to post my resume and communicate with recruiters, and that's it. Why would you ever use it for anything else?
I mean, go log in and literally scroll down on the main page and you'll get it.
to me, it seems like the facebook for the working class. a vast portion of the "500+" club might be those with that many followers and not connections. a lot of them post stuff that your grandma who also works in your industry might do.
if you filter the noise out, there is a lot of benefit to having some networking opportunities. but personally outside of job hunting, i would prefer not to partake.
I swear I never found a job (or client now that I'm freelancing) nor I have found decent candidates on it.
I'm consistently spammed by Indians and middle eastern devs every time I open a position, it's just endless which my current client does not want to hire due to timezone and language issues and definitely some bias for the quality of their coding and task understanding abilities.
There's no racism involved, African applicants are very welcome as they live in the same timezone as most of Europe do.
I don’t think anyone was blaming you personally, nor am I.
> that the experience with developers coming from those areas has not been good and my current company does not want to repeat the mistake.
> There's no racism involved, African applicants are very welcome as they live in the same timezone as most of Europe do.
Whether or not racism is involved in this case, it is absolutely possible to be racist against Middle Easterners and Indians without being racist against Africans. Racism is not a single binary yes/no question.
Also, is the time zone (whether of residence or of work) really the determining factor, or is it where the person personally or ancestrally comes from?
For example, would the client consider someone personally and ancestrally from India or the Middle East who currently lives in Germany or Africa and works in the local time zone there, or who lives in India or a Middle Eastern country but nevertheless can work at the same times that the Europeans work instead of asynchronously?
(Tangent: Egypt is usually considered to be both in Africa and in the Middle East, and it’s in a Europe-compatible time zone like the rest of Africa. The rest of my comment will ignore this, but it highlights how weird it is to exclude the Middle East but not Africa for time zone reasons.)
What about a Swedish or British person who lives in India or a Middle Eastern country and works in the local time zone there?
And does the client’s policy treat Israel like the Middle Eastern country that it in fact is, or is “Middle Eastern” a short hand for “majority Arab or certain other ethnicities such as Persian but not African”?
I’ve worked with plenty of good and bad people from all regions - including not only good and bad people from India and the Middle East, but also including good and bad people from Europe and the Americas. The same is true when I’ve interviewed people as a hiring manager.
Your client’s biases are not supported by most data or anecdotes, unless there is something very unusual about the particular candidate pool they attract, in which they should fix their outreach methods.
Rather than true racism, my suspicion is that your client is simply unaware of how to get past the cultural differences that developers from India and many Middle Eastern countries have to overcome in order to work well in European (or American) companies, none of which are inherent to their level of talent or skill. For example, they need to learn that it’s okay for an individual contributor to take initiative, to admit problems, and to (politely and with data) question potentially bad decisions made or proposed by people above them in the hierarchy.
There are ways to either retrain people from that region or to filter at an early stage of the hiring process for candidates who have already made that adjustment.
The average developer in the world struggles at being proficient at its craft and can, at best, poorly glue some APIs in an unreadable mess of code. That's true globally. And that's true regardless of the candidate having graduated in CS/SE or not. In fact we have been so far been happier with self-taught devs rather than people who went into programming just to find a job and never really learned much besides trying to pass the exams.
But Indian/Middle Eastern developers tend to be, on average, even worse. Indian news sites have different articles about that and tie it to the level of education, not just university one.
But on top of that, we couldn't match culturally too. As a German/Dutch company my client is all about straightforwardness and no bullshit, whereas devs from those regions focused on impress and not create issues and would hardly raise their hands in case something got wrong. They would consistently do A' when asked for A.
Even very simple task like add a translation key or a tracking event took eternities.
Obviously there was much we could do to onboard them better, and we tried, but it was always difficult and though, in the end these devs tended to add more work in supervision than what they would accomplish but we simply have no time/budget/patience.
Again, I want to reiterate, that's the experience we have and what we feel about devs from any part of the world, but statistically it was worse in India/Middle East (again, probably for cultural/education reasons).
It's like if you get burned twice/thrice by a car brand, even if stats tell you it's an okay brand, you're not gonna buy it again.
Even other stuff like payments and contracts was complicated. And them being up late at night (for them) when we were still in the morning/early afternoon, was an issue. They were obviously tired and in their circadian low.
And no, we don't hire from any other time zone than Central Europe +-2.
I have 15-17ish years in tech at various levels up to FAANG and over 1000+ connections but nothing crazy, I don't go out to make connections or anything so its purely organic job search/leave stuff. I don't add anyone I don't know and never have.
When I log into it some of those 1000 connections are people from jobs I worked at that were so miserable that as soon as I see their names pop up I'm like, fuck, I'm glad you got away but now I'm reminded of my experience at XYZ.
Then you have the Tony Robbins hustle culture people. They're impossible to avoid. "I sleep under my desk m-f! HUSTLE!" These aren't even my connections usually, it's just LInkedIn doing its for you page thinking I want to read that stuff while writing grpc services.
It feels so much like performative bullshit. Everyone trying to impress one another with nothing impressive. Nobody talks serious tech. I've worked on some incredibly complex distsys stuff and we used to all network with one another on twitter. Never, ever linkedin. We'd add each other for the connection clout but we only discussed projects and real tech stuff on twitter or discord. I DO contribute my knowledge to some LinkedIn posts when I am around to do so, that usually consists explaining to someone how OCI containers or kubernetes or something works or to help them have a better process but those questions rarely start out with any technical depth beyond "this is how I shrink my docker images! Copy vs ADD!!"
I'll log in and "Super Smart CTO Evangelist Hyper 10x Guru" who was a level 2 sysadmin who did piss poor work is still spouting that bullshit 10 years later. And I don't have only one of those, I have tons of those.
I have a new manager as of about 6 months ago. He's horrendous. I made the mistake of not interviewing him (I'm staff level so it would've been me and 2 others yes/nos) and he got hired. I finally looked at his LinkedIn (not logged in, because I don't want that creepy site to tell him I'm looking at him) and he had the "SWE Manager Guru" bullshit and I just.. sighed.
LinkedIn is a vastly different culture from the actual tech social media/communities I'm in. It's straight up performative sell-yourself bullshit. I just think it's gross.
That site is made for recruiters and sales people.
I went through and whittled the list down to about 150 people I would either consider a friend or.close colleague.
My homepage is still useless as linkedin shows me random trending posts, so that effort was a complete waste of time.
It hadn't occured to me that recruiters would see less than n connections as a negative trait. I'd expect the opposite, someone with 1k connections (e.g) seems like someone who connects regardless.
If that’s what some company cares about, then I’m glad they won’t message me.
How long ago was this? I’ve been talking to lots of recruiters and the most common points I hear are
- add every skill
- keywords in your descriptions so you show up in searches
- gaps and job tenure
Remote jobs apparently get a ton of fake candidates so some recruiters have started checking for verification and profile age as additional signals.
It's the opposite. If you have less than 500 connections as I intentionally do it's a filter for fools who think that number means something. If someone is that shallow I don't want to have anything to do with them.
How is this supposed to be correlated with employee quality? I doubt there's a positive correlation
Saying this cause connections can be fakely increased so it's a dumb metric that shows pretty much nothing.
Would think it's more useful seeing how that person expresses themselves or which posts shares rather than how many people has accepted into their "network".
I have to ask, have you interacted with many recruiters?
Maybe recruiters after all also look a the connection number, could be, but its like saying a photographer is better than other cause he just simply posts more pictures.
Would I? No, but I also have never once looked at someone's LinkedIn when in the hiring process. I used to carefully curate who I connected with so that when looking at my connections, you could see it was a list of respected people in their fields, but I had barely over 100. Several recruiters told me point blank that doesn't matter at all. So I stopped bothering to care about my LI profile and connections, and suddenly had a LOT more activity with recruiters when I added more connections. Seemed quantity is truly valued over quality there.
> Saying this cause connections can be fakely increased so it's a dumb metric that shows pretty much nothing.
Yes, that was my point.
> Would think it's more useful seeing how that person expresses themselves or which posts shares rather than how many people has accepted into their "network".
You would think so, yes, but it's not how things work in the end.
Maybe a high number of connections causes a better first-impression, but if the candidate does not know how to write or articulate a word makes things much harder. Overall, seeing how a person expresses their ideas in their natural language gives you a better impression of how a person thinks/operates.
Which in the end matters, cause you are dealing with persons, not statistics.
For first instance recruiters, having a large number of people in your LI can get you into the first recruitment stage, but you won't pass if you don't know how to communicate, express and confront ideas, that's how it works.
My connection number is mostly driven by how many times I accept recruiters' requests to connect. I don't think accepting these more often would make me (or anyone else) a better person?
I could easily inflate that number further, by pro-actively reaching out to recruiters. But I feel, if I want to do self-promotion, my time is better spent eg contributing to some random projects on github.
However, I only have about 100 connections mostly because I feel weird about adding people on any social network. Which I know is weird, but, I am. But I only add people I personally know or have a good reason for trying to connect with me.
And now you're saying that's basically worthless. Which, sure, I'll buy that. My LinkedIn hasn't really provided me with much worth.
But, what I'm curious about is why the number of connections is important? Is it just a measure of potential engagement/reach etc. like any other social media network?
The benefit of LinkedIn (for now) is that it actually respects the user's choices and curates the feed rather than filling it with whatever junk it wants (like Facebook)
I enjoyed learning a bit about Tedium. Its mission reminds a bit of the book Outside Lies Magic[0].
[0] https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/john-r-stilgoe/ou...
Here I was accepting connections judiciously after lightly researching their connections..
Maybe my SE niche is different but I've never gotten a job where they cared about my LinkedIn profile. To the point where I deleted it last year because it was totally worthless.