Quitting LinkedIn
blog.capwatkins.com
blog.capwatkins.com
LinkedIn is just a tool - it's usefulness depends on what your current needs are. It's useless today and useful tomorrow. Just like any other tool - i.e. take hammers for example.
Would it sound absurd for someone to announce that they quit hammers tomorrow? Does any of this make sense?
- Yeah, hammer was really useful to me when I hanged that picture on the wall last year. Not so much any more, I should quit it!
- I'm past hammers - electric drill with screws can do 90% of it does and for the 10% it does not I should really re-assess whether I'm doing the right thing in the first place.
- I tried to make a cereal with a hammer this morning, but it did not work! WTF???
- I watched this movie where someone was killed with a hammer. What an evil tool, I should quit it as it stains my karma!
- I don't use it any more, but every time I pass by the toolbox it reminds me that I still have it and I get this strong urge to get rid of it. It depresses me so much, that I want to throw away the whole box or move out of the house!
Don't mean to be harsh on Cap Watkins, I'm just tired of reading this kind of posts. Oh wait, I know - I should quit the Internet!
"The usual way in which we plan today for tomorrow is in yesterday's vocabulary. We do so, because we try to get away with the concepts we are familiar with and that have acquired their meanings in our past experience. Of course, the words and the concepts don't quite fit because our future differs from our past, but then we stretch them a little bit.... It is the most common way of trying to cope with novelty: by means of metaphors and analogies we try to link the new to the old, the novel to the familiar. Under sufficiently slow and gradual change, it works reasonably well; in the case of a sharp discontinuity, however, the method breaks down: though we may glorify it with the name 'common sense', our past experience is no longer relevant, the analogies become too shallow, and the metaphors become more misleading than illuminating. This is the situation that is characteristic for the 'radical' novelty." (EWD 1036)
Hammers don't care if we use them or don't. There isn't one big Hammer.com that produces all of them. Hammers are not constantly acquiring new features. Hammers aren't useful or not on the basis of how many other people use them. Hammers do not even have significant overlap with other tools. Hammer.com doesn't need to convince anyone to try hammers. Companies that make hammers want you to buy their brand, but they don't bother with trying to convince people they need them.
Look at all the differences from social networks. Unlike a hammer, if nobody else is using LinkedIn, it's not useful to you anymore either. If everybody quits using LinkedIn but you, LinkedIn won't have any revenue, even though you're not paying to use the service. If everybody quit using hammers for stupid reasons, there wouldn't be anything stopping you from using them; in fact, any hammers you already own would continue to work. LinkedIn could just vanish despite your protests.
LinkedIn is pretty unlike a hammer, so I don't find your argument holds all that much water. It's a social network, so it's of interest and on-topic here when people decide to leave. It's interesting, because many people here are building their own startups and many of them are social networks. They survive or die on being used. If there were great insights in this article about how to retain users, it would be especially interesting, but knowing that there is a general malaise about this one is still information, and the article is still well-written and I still feel I got my nickel's worth from it.
This commonality (both being tools) is crucial to the reason that I chose hammers and not apple pies, "Dance Dance Revolution" games, Iron Man animated series or the Federal Reserve as examples for my analogy. These would not hold any kind of substance at all (liquid or otherwise).
Each tool has its own place and time. If there's a recession and Cap finds himself unemployed, then LinkedIn will be much more valuable to him despite the minor inconveniences that it might cause (i.e. spam). In fact these inconveniences might become a welcome and even desired feature of the product.
My point is that renouncing tool X when you can't find a use case for it has become a fashion of sorts that irks me.
Please note, that I don't deny anyone the right to follow this movement, but I also reserve the right to be annoyed by it and share my emotional state and receive validation that such state is shared by a large number of other people, at least according to the upvotes on my post.
When I joined LinkedIn, I did so because I wanted to keep in touch with people I worked with, like you know, a curated Facebook - which works well, because the people I worked with aren't necessarily interested in pictures of my baby boy or of me getting drunk this Holiday season and this goes both ways.
Unfortunately LinkedIn failed and failed hard at being that kind of social network. Nowadays the only thing I receive in return for my membership is Spam from incompetent recruiters that don't even bother reading my profile, and no matter what I do I can't turn those emails off (a perk you get for paying them), which is why I simply flag all LinkedIn emails as Spam.
I feel like LinkedIn missed a great opportunity here and now it's too late, their role being filled in my life by Twitter, GitHub, Google Groups and even Facebook.
That's really not what the "spam" button is for, and you probably know that. You most certainly could turn those emails off - just go to email settings and click "introductions only". There's even a link at the bottom of each email to adjust your settings.
Don't make it more likely that my LinkedIn messages get marked as spam through Spamhaus or gmail algorithms just because you don't want to click twice to unsubscribe or prove some kind of hate-point.
(source: used to take care of an opt-in service's email spam rankings and had tons of people not use the "easy unsubscribe", and others angry they couldn't get their expected/important notifications sometimes when it got sent to a spam folder)
The thing that infuriates me the most is when they send me a "reminder" email about an invitation I've already ignored. It's like they expect me to immediately log in and immediately respond to every piece of recruiter spam and "connection request" from people I don't know.
Dear LinkedIn: If I'm ignoring an "invitation", it's because I don't care about it, and I'll just click the "decline" button the next time I happen to log in. I don't want the "invitation reminder" emails, and there is no setting that I can find to unsubscribe from the "reminders".
At this point, I gave up and started marking all LinkedIn emails as spam.
This all happened a while ago, so they may have fixed it by now. But quite frankly, I don't care. I would delete my account, but many legitimate companies I've interviewed with specifically ask for my LinkedIn profile to keep in touch. It's kind of annoying.
I've been using careers.stackoverflow.com as an alternative for an online resume, but it's unexpected to potential employers.
I'm sorry if it hurts your experience, but they absolutely deserved to be punished for their flagrant disregard of the law. When they realize that their abusive email tactics actually hurt their users, maybe they'll stop - and then we'll all be better off.
Why would anyone go through 5 steps and 15 clicks when 1 click achieves the same goal? Do you really expect users to consider and care about the side effect?
And then there are people who consider this side effect and completely don't mind it, or even find it desirable.
There is a reason PG has talked about e-mail being broken, this is a perfect example.
I have used linkedin since its early days (06-07ish) along with facebook. I learnt that "keeping in touch with ppl" is quite different b/w fb which is personal vs. linkedin which is professional. fb is more engaging where u can share pictures, stories, wall posts, fun stuff whatever. But it is extremely difficult to keep oneself engaged on linkedin just to keep in touch. Other than sharing a status update and checking linked profiles, what else can you really do on linkedin actively? Thats why, if you try and use linkedin thinking along lines of facebook, you will fail.
In my opinion and experience, linkedin is more effective about keeping track of who is who in the industry specfiically in industries/domains you are interested in. Lets say you found a job listing for a company somewhere. You can actually go to linkedin and try a search "Company xxx recruiter" or "company xxx talent aquisition" etc. You can probably get a result of actual recruiters who are on linkedin for that company. You can then try and reach out to them directly (through linkedin or whatever). Btw, I did this successfully once for a job posting that I was interested in and this possting was on the company's direct careers section. Insteaed of filling out "Apply now" crap, I found a direct recruiting contact in the division through some search skills on linkedin and called the guy directly. He was happy to talk to me since I was a good fit for the role. He said that the online application portal is probably going to reject me auto (dont ask why) and hence it was a good idea to find him.
Hammers are individual tools. LinkedIn is purely social. Most people only used it because other people were using it. If people are quitting it, then it might be good to announce that as well. Certainly that's the only significant way to pressure LinkedIn into improving things.
Of course, this being the internet, people do talk about which hammers they use: http://kk.org/cooltools/archives/1659
If hammers were a very recent invention that had become a cornerstone of the modern workplace, then yes, it would be interesting to read a well-argued post about why someone was "quitting hammers."
This especially applies to our field where new websites, services, platforms, frameworks and even programming languages appear pretty much every single day.
A better analogy for social networking is watching a drama TV show. I don't at all, which is supposedly really weird. But of those who do, they follow a bell curve where most people only follow a couple TV shows. So they've gotta periodically swear one off cold turkey. Like these posts you claim to dislike.
Its much more like swearing off watching Survivor, than like giving up on the hammer.
The first thing to note is it isn't a social network like facebook, it is a business meeting place. It isn't just a recruitment tool it is a place to promote yourself and your organisation in a B2B context.
I know some programmers who sit in their cubicle and have no interest in promoting themselves, fair enough, but I find it a valuable tool for meeting my peers. If I want to contact someone in another company then I can see who of my connections is linked to that organisation. If I need to keep track of where one of my contacts is then LinkedIn is useful for seeing job movements. I even connect to those dreaded recruiters, but only the ones I find relevant and the first time they offer me something offensively irrelevant I shoot them down quickly.
Overall you get out what you put in to LinkedIn. It hasn't made me rich, but I am sure I get value from the time I put in.
really didn't expect to see my college frat in a comment on HN today, or any day really!
When I'm scoping out a position/company, I see who's on the team that I'll be working with ie: Design. Then I hopefully, there's a link to the blog/portfolio/Dribbble/Twitter. This is to get a sense of their work and style, though it doesn't have to match the style of the company itself, but you can an idea of experience of those people.
Then I look at employee insights - which shows those who left the company recently. Again, I dig through till I find the ex designers. I also pay attention to the duration - ie: if the company are churning out alot of ex employees who stay no longer than 3 months, then I'd pay closer attention.
And I never initiate contact though LinkedIn. Twitter, email is the way to go for me, which you can easily find as you dig through their profile.
In short, I don't use LinkedIn to find jobs. I use it to find out more about the company, somewhat culture and its people.
Also I do it all when I'm not logged in - it gives you more info when you're not logged vs logged in (they'll put up upgrade/pay walls). Really, really dumb.
Spot on. I use LinkedIn just like Twitter: 99% of the time I'm in read-only mode and with the privacy settings as locked down as possible.
The author makes some valid points. I mainly use LinkedIn to get an overview about the person who is emailing me or just followed me on twitter. I find that to be pretty useful.
As far as the recruiting emails. The more successful you are the more cold emails you get.
Don't forget quitting Google (that was front page yesterday). And of course caffeine, carbs, 8-hour sleeps, email, fructose, the office, the home, and on and on.
While some of the "my silver bullet" posts seem to hold interesting perspectives, recently such pretense is gone and it is simply people clucking along.
About all it's useful for is knowing when some people are dissatisfied with their current job and looking for new employment... their linkedin activity goes way up and you hear from them through the service.
Also, it's useful for knowing who just lost their job because that's about the only time I see anyone update their page.
I mostly see people updating LinkedIn prior to fusions or other big changes, or when they're just fed up with their position.
All "how to write an effective job application" articles emphasize writing cover letters/emails that show you've read and understood the job requirements and demonstrate how you can fill the position, including a resume with applicable information.
But if you're looking for a job or are recruiting it can pretty valuable. It has its purpose - one it solves reasonably well. It answers questions like: "Do I know anyone who can make SuperWidgets using MagicTechnology?" "I'm interested in working at ABC Corp - did I used to work with someone who can get me a foot in the door?"
It's actually quite difficult in most industries to Google someone's email address, and if there's no profile/background attached to a simple Gmail like there is in LinkedIn, your message gets dumped that much faster.
btw, am I the only one who get's confused by these "I quit xxx" thinking it's a post by a former employee?
Before that, I found it to be completely useless -- sort of like a grown-up version of baseball cards... you collect people for unknown reasons.
Linkedin is just another tool like many others. You have to know how to use it to your advantage or usefulness. Yes there are countless and pointless groups/recruiters who just spam (I get a lot of them as well) but if you create a highly targeted profile, chances are that you also will get invites from good recruiters or professionals in general. The percentage is more like 95% crap, 5% good. I am happy with the 5% part.
I'll be interested in what the endorsements do in the long-term as well. In my circles, I've already seen a lot of people endorsed for skills they don't have, and it is only getting worse. Because of the way LinkedIn coerces people to endorse, lot of non-technical co-workers of mine have tried endorsing me for things they've never even heard of, assuming that LinkedIn is making this assumption based on something else I have written on my profile, which I think is a big part of the problem.
I almost wish there was a way for me to approve them, because depending on who the endorsement comes from (i.e. if they are someone I've never even worked with before or like the aforementioned scenario, I don't even work in the same department as that person), it means absolutely nothing and I'd expect smarter employers to pick up on that.
I'm already concerned that if it looks like I'm farming endorsements, I won't be taken seriously.
It would be tantamount to sending out hundreds of resumes with a typo in your email address.
I think Michael O Church may have more complex reasons to avoid linkedin.
LI launched before FB and years before FB opened to the public.
And when I ask you about it in a tech. interview, what then? Will you have the balls to tell me why it's all crap?
LinkedIn - sold you to recruiters. OK, I got 1'000+ connections, most with the people I never met [80%?], but who heard about me, or we share connections, or work in similar fields [finance, multinational company, senior management, etc]. I mainly use LI as an extended address book and public CV. So any recruiter, who calls me, knows pretty much all about my skills / experience / etc. Got bunch of interviews through LI. Yep, quite often see some spammy stupid invitations to connect. So what? Just don't accept those. I login 2-3 times per month.
Facebook - FB is a timekiller, so I log in 2-3 times per month to kill some time, exchange with people I know.
Twitter - info flood, cutting access to API, sold you to advertisers, etc, etc. Sorry, never bothered to learn how to use it. Never made one tweet. Have no time for Twitter, since I am already using FB 2-3 times per month.
To sum it all up - just understand how the tool can be useful for your needs and use accordingly. No overlap, don't use the tool or build your own.
Sure, you can better target me for a small-time sale because you saw that I "liked" some nuanced TV show on FB, but that's chump change compared to having pretty much unfettered access to 1000's of executives....execs who write checks on a monthly basis that are larger than what most households spend in a year.
There's also the worry that if they become a sort of de facto hiring platform, then we'll be forced to ante up for a premium membership in order to simply be considered for an interview.
Warranted fears or not, I don't trust them and never will.
_ | _________
\ | / \
\ | / \
\|_______/ \_______
- 0 +That decision isn't without consequences. I've greatly reduced my possibilities for networking by doing this. If I had to do it over again, I probably would not have deleted my account.
But, on the other hand, when I now get contacted by recruiters they find me through StackOverflow, github or my website; and thus they have infinitely better opportunities for me and generally seem to be higher caliber recruiters to boot.
(also, hi, former coworker!)
I had a lot of friends who insisted I would not be able to get a job in the future by not being on LinkedIn. I haven't looked since I quit, but I think being "hard to get" usually makes you more desirable rather than less.
https://www.linkedin.com/settings/?trk=hb_acc
I know that's not the author's entire point, but the "tragedy of the commons" argument becomes less compelling without all the spamming complaints.
Usually something small, like: Here is my LinkedIn profile, with recommendations from previous coworkers: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jwbridges
(I know, I need to re-write that summary pretty bad.) The only thing that leaves me scratching my head is that my profile is stuck at 90%. It asks me to fill in my current position, and describe my current position. I don't have one. You'd think a site focused around looking for jobs would have that as an option.
Instead of complaining and wastint a few hundred bytes and CPU cycles and more important..your energy, you could simply delete account and move on. Expecting something extra ordinary personalize from a social network is nothing but day dreaming.
I give them credit for that.
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/why-i-wiped-m...
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the sun will still rise tomorrow, just as it rose when people "quit Facebook" ...Google, Twitter, iPhones or whatever.