Reinke Faces Life

FROM AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH A LINKEDIN CONTACT

>and LinkedIn stays on my personal e-mail which is second priority. I’m cleaning e-mail today .

Well, just as long as you remember, that one’s first duty, the 2008 Prime Directive, is to find your “next” job! Too many times, as you’ve probably heard me blog, I hear my turkeys tell me that “they were too busy with work to … …”. With unfortunate results. Both in family life and earning power.

>I agree with your blog comments. I think one interesting question is how “linked” are we through affiliations.

I think that “affiliations” can lead to “linking”.

> I would not hesitate to recommend you or introduce you, based upon my view of your work on XXXXXXXXXX and your writings I’ve seen.

Thanks for the kind words. If one can’t be “good”, be “persistent”? :-)

>I wouldn’t offer the same to someone just because they XXXXXXXXXXX.

No, but I bet you might be inclined to take a Lucht-style networking meeting with them. See that is the theory of the “granfalloon” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granfalloon where one can parlay an “imaginary connection” into a chance to create a weak link. Which then, over time, you can build to a strong one. I used that extensively first in my career, and later in selling.

>interesting that in at least four – I was linked to these people through you – two or three separations.

Well, in LinkedIn you need to connect to a few “paul revere” types or some of the “mega connectors” to be “findable”

# # # # #

EMAIL ABOUT USING LINKEDIN’S IDKs

>Re: “Running out of invitations…”
>Posted by: “Mario P. Lopez”
>Thu Dec 6, 2007 7:41 pm (PST)
>Should we give the IDK “prize” to canned invitations, forget about it
>(and maybe avoid potential problems) and mind our own networking business?

While I am always up for a good “tar’n’feathering”, I’d suggest that “canned invites” should just be automatically ignores. I’d suggest that IDKing them might “freeze” a newbie who might not know any better. Since it will take a lot of work to determine exactly what is on the other end of the invite, and even more work if it is a newbie, I vote to just archive it.

I do, however, support identifying the spammers who should know better (i.e., the Blue Chip) and collectively determining to punish them for their annoying behavior.

When everyone was citing the Blue Chip spam, I thought that would be a good use of IDK.

# # # # #

Found some one who dropped me. And, I’ve asked why!

# # # # #

FROM AN EMAIL EXCHANGE ABOUT “LIVELINESS”

*** begin quote ***

From: GB
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 8:50 AM
To: John Reinke
Subject: Re: Has anyone tested the “liveliness” of their LinkedIn “network”?

Okay, I read and re-read this.

I am not sure what you are exactly trying to say.

I recognize LinkedIn as a social networking tool. Outside of that, the voluntary and or involuntary act of CHAT or IM exist only where there are willing participants.

I would chat if there was something to chat about.

Perhaps, if you develop a forum that you wish to chat about or subjects that you would like feedback, you might draw the sustainable interest in the participants.

Outside of that, not everyone had a 6 sigma mentality and or even the slightest idea what that entails.

I, myself, am confused at times about the ‘how’s’, the ‘who’s’ and the ‘what’s’.

But, after all, it is only social networking. Not like it is dating or any other real and tangible way to communicate…right?

How you doin’
GB

*** end quote ***

>Okay, I read and re-read this.

Sorry, I wasn’t clearer.

>I am not sure what you are exactly trying to say.

LinkedIn is a “strange duck”. It’s not “networking”. It’s probably more than a “yellow pages for recruiters”. Folks are fooled into an “activity trap”
and think they are “doing networking”.

>i recognize LinkedIn as a social networking tool.

Tool? Hmmm, not sure of that.

>you might draw the sustainable interest in the participants.

I’m not trying to “draw the sustain able interest”. I’m trying to figure out what is the proper place for LinkedIn within my own thinking.

>not everyone had a 6 sigma mentality

OK, if you’re not into 6sig. Then, let me phrase the same question in “plain English”. If LinkedIn is a tool, then what value has it provided me that justifies the attention, work, money, or time that I put into it?

>But, after all, it is only social networking.

SO, it should be considered like MySpace, Facebook, or Friendster? I bet that’s a minority opinion.

> Not like it is dating or any other real and tangible way to communicate…right?

Maybe?

>How you doin’

Get ready for the next layoff, jobsearch, and my next to last job. :-) Fatalistic. But, best not to be surprised.

Thanks for the thoughts

# – # – #

Addendum:

Regardless of how solid one thinks one is in the job they are doing somewhere, it’s wise to be “aware”. I’ve pontificated often on the need of “salarymen”, as the Japanese wisely call those of us who are working for a paycheck, that you are only sure of the last paycheck that cleared the bank! It’s nice to believe in mutual loyalty between employer and employee, but, like most myths, hitting that “iceberg of reality” can put a big hole in YOUR boat. Bear in mind, it may not even be the employer’s “fault”. But even if it is, you must be prepared for when “the show closes”.

You always have to see the NEXT layoff in your future. It maybe next week, next month, next quarter, next year, next decade … … but be assured there WILL BE one! Sooner or later. Like a snowstorm, flood, or tornado, there’s going to be one. Salarymen must be prepared for it!

Give 100% to your employer for that is what you bargained for. Then, give 100% to finding your next gig. Never ever get caught by surprise.

In my patented copyrighted super-secret Coke-like formula for “how many months will I be burning not earning”, I have a factor for your to rate your employer. Factor is ONE for gooferment workers. (Although that may change if your work for the IRS and Ron Paul gets elected. But you get the idea.) Factor is FIVE if you work on WALLSTREET. How likely are you to get NUKED? The point is there is always some probability that you’ll get tossed out on your year. Just yesterday, I heard a senior exec at my employer tell a room full of folk “no job is safe”. So, I’d be a fool not to heeded my own advice.

:-)

And I may be a the big fat old turkey hisself and a FOWG to boot, but Mama Reinke didn’t raise no fool. (Where do you think my obsession with working comes from? Her Scarlet O’Hara-like dream of never being hungry gain!)

So, it’s get busy NETWORKING to prevent NOTWORKING!

# # # # #

FROM AN EMAIL EXCHANGE ABOUT “LIVELINESS”

Thanks for your insight. I’m not so sure what LinkedIn is, or isn’t.

In it’s public professions, it tries to be a “silver bullet”. Being wise old far … individuals we KNOW that the Lone Ranger took Silver and the bullets with him. I went into LinkedIn many moons ago with really no expectations. I didn’t discontinue any of my other activities, projects, processes, or methods — just squoze in LinkedIn.

Over the years, in my blog, I have wrestled with it. It more of a Yellow Pages than the Phone Book — or books. It doesn’t update my address book like Plaxo used to do very well. It doesn’t have lots of kids on it like MySpace or Facebook. It’s not Lucht style face 2 face networking. It’s not “job search” a la Monster, or “What Color Is Your Parachute”.

So, while it may be a “tool”, like the aboriginal contemplating the Coke bottle that fell from a plane, I’m left wondering what it is. :-)

Part, of figuring what it is or is not, is assessing it usability as a “networking tool”. (Some call it “not working”! Which I thought was clever. Of the measurements, that I have heard one claimed a 90% response rate and two said it was too much trouble to measure.)

Lord Kelvin said something like “If you can’t measure it, you don’t understand it”.

I also admit that on the rare occasions when I sing I am “off key” so why should this be different?

# # # # #

On November 1st, I hit upon the idea of “Liveliness” testing of my LinkedIn “network”.

(We can chat why my “LinkedIn network” is NOT my “network”. And, if what one does with LinkedIn is “networking”. It’s not Lucht’s version of face to face networking. But, it is doing “something”. Just don’t know if it should be called “networking” except in the loosest sense of the word.)

This test was aimed at all contacts older than one month. And, folk who LinkedIn with me — based on old invites — one was a year old — during the test are excluded from the results.

My LinkedIn network is a disappointing 37%!

My original focus was on “breakage”. That was 6%! I had, from LinkedIn, a bad email address, then that clearly that was not going to work very well!

While I was doing it, I became concerned that perhaps I was too heavy on:

* >1% SuperConnectors (little value in the traditional networking sense) ;

* 11% my Current Employer (little value if you get nuked); and

* 2% Hunters (little value in accessing the hidden job market).

During the test, I had the concept of “reaching around” the breaks. That’s how I describe sending an InMail directly to a contact of the “broken contact”. I was able to “repair” seven breaks.

Also, during the test, I was able to give some help: identifying in one case a inadvertent DUPLICATE; in several cases “unpersonalized” urls; a slew of typos; and some “broken” profiles (i.e., profiles with an obsolete email). So, it wasn’t just me bothering people; patheticly begging for a response.

Since my first formal try only got one third to respond, I’ll have to figure out a better approach. Clearly, if this is to be useful, it’s going to need MORE care and feeding.

Sigh. Always more to do!

I feel sorry for anyone, blithely sailing along, thinking that they are “networking” with LinkedIn, and then need that “network” for something, and get these type of results.

Note, that I am NOT an open networker, but have only added contacts that had a perceived value. Maybe, this is a very telling about the value of LinkedIn. AND, social networking in general.

Maybe Lucht is more right than I used to think?

Anyone else studying this?

# # # # #

FROM AN EMAIL EXCHANGE ABOUT LINKEDIN AND A DEATH

> Re: Interesting what does LinkedIn do … …
>Posted by: “WashingtonDCLobbyist”
>Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:57 am (PST)
>LI has clearly thought this through – and they have a well-used
>policy in place. Sadly, with the numbers were talking about on LI,

Well they clearly have something in place. It just doesn’t meet my needs. Not that it has too. Not that they have ever been overly concerned with my suggestions.

I’d call it the “your call is very important to us (Yeah, right!)” thinking. Like the resume writer who foolishly thinks that the objective section on a resume refers to HIS objective and not that of the reader. Or, the “post office – dmv – take a number move along” service attitude.

Instead of LinkedIn using it as an opportunity to make LinkedIn less like a recruiter’s phone book and more like a true community, they have “a well-used policy in place”.

It’s far too easy to just say that “LI has clearly thought this through”, when fmpov it’s not “thought through” the eyes of this end user.

That’s why I say that LinkedIn is at risk to competition. (If I was the rumored buyer of LinkedIn, I’d take off a few points or a few grazillion bucks because it’s very vulnerable.) And, it’s not MySpace / Facebook / Plaxo / Ryze or such. It’s the new disruptive upstart who figures out that what the Universe needs is a true business social network community site. And, then delivers it flawlessly. :-)

# # # # #

My taxonomy of things you might see on LinkedIn

===beginning of list===

ABILLGATES – high value contact, who may or may not have authorized it, guarded by a troll, who doesn’t permit access to the contact except by preapproval.

ALTEREGO – a second profile of an individual to feature a different persona; seen by a doctor musician or was that a musician doctor.

BEAUTY – recruiter creates an identity, with all the characteristic of someone they wished they represented. When people connect, they then try to form up a solid opportunity with the person so they can represent to the real person.

CLONES – recruiting troll takes a profile that is liked and “replicates” it into his geographic hunting zone for the purpose of finding “buyers” and like minded “sellers”.

DUPLICATE – a second profile to segregate their “open” and “regular” networking. Or, created in order to “start over” with LinkedIn from a clear slate. Or, a just blunder.

EMPTYSUIT – just abandoned

GHOSTS – really deceased, like my high school chum

PRANKS – people set up profiles of people for hahas responding or not as the spirit moves them.

PSUEDOS – I’ve seen no degree candidates create a virtual “clone” of themselves and add a degree. Then, control access to the “psuedo” and, when approached, they will try to sell into the opportunity.

RECRUITER – executive search, retained, contingency

SCARECROW – recruiting troll creates a mythical person as “bait” with the characteristics they see in “their” candidate. They do this to encourage connections from inside or outside recruiters where they can then “switch” in their candidate.

STRAWMAN – owned by a recruiting troll, advertising a real someone, and who will “toll booth” you to make contact)

ZOMBIE – an identity of potentially a real person setup by someone else for other purposes like expanding their contact list, looking more popular, or writing their own recommendations)

===end of list===

One characteristic to look for is a single, or sparse, contact list.

Another is there are several “stubs” found “close by” a single recruiter:

I only tumbled to this “barbara streisand” when I tried to reach an old College friend and hit a toll boother.

Another time I found my “credentials” on LinkedIn copied to someone in Kansas City. Exactly; my babblings are pretty distinctive, so they do show on searches. So my curiosity was piqued, I pinged, and never heard anything again. I deemed that was a “clone”, designed to flush out a buyer in that area?

This is posted not to give you ideas, but to give you an insight as to what you might find.

Remember, on the net, no one knows your a dog!

I’m just an injineer; not a hunter, nor a seeker, and I haven’t stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately.

# – # – #

20071215 Found a new type of troll — POLITICIAN — like a “doll”?

There’s a “Hillary Clinton” and a “Ron Paul”!

Those have to be a violation of the LinkedIn TOS, contrary to the spirit of LinkedIn, and injecting your politics into an inappropriate venue.  IMHO.

# # # # #

Does anyone else not like how the number of your LinkedIn contacts can change silently?

I come form a “production mentality”. If my database has a 1,000 records, then tomorrow it should have 999. This “silent disconnect” feature makes me wonder if LinkedIn didn’t just drop one by accident.

Argh!

What’s the big deal of sending me a message that “Joe Blow dropped you like a dead fish”? They send messages for everything else!

# # # # #