Reinke Faces Life

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!

# # # # #

SHARED WITH ONE OF MY LINKEDIN CONTACTS

May I suggest that you might want to add more contacts to your LinkedIn profile?

LinkedIn is the “find” and “be found” site. But your profile has to be “real”. There are many suspicious profiles on LinkedIn. My taxonomy is: ghosts (abandoned), strawman (owned by a recruiter advertising a real someone and who will “toll booth” you to make contact), scarecrow (owned by a recruiter who will try to sell you a substitute), a zombie (an identity of potentially a real person setup by someone else for other purposes like expanding a contact list to look more popular), and an alter ego (a second profile to feature a different persona). One characteristic they all share is a single, or sparse, contact list. Your contact list is like that. If you’re not getting the results you want, that might be the reason.

# # # # #

“Network Drafting” as defined as noticing that someone you trust in your network connects to another person, and you attempt to connect as well. You’re drafting in the sense that you follow their lead to improve your situation – drafting the race car or bicyclist in front of you.

— Steve Glaiser, Product Quality Executive Management

# # # # #

FROM AN EMAIL TO ONE OF MY LINKEDIN FIRST LEVEL CONTACTS

*** begin quote ***

Hi XXXXX: Well, it’s a quiet Sunday morning and I’m working on my current LinkedIn project “how live is my network”. I’ve been reviewing all my contacts to see if there are people I can help. (Yeah, I know “get a life”!) While I’m not “out” now, I could be. So prep is always in order. Pay it forward. I was looking at your LinkedIn profile and I was struck by the “recommendations” of YYYYYYYYYY. Yours is the first negative recommendation of anyone I think I have ever seen. (It kinda puts an interesting question about what does the word “recommendation” mean?) Is it a joke? If not, were you really that mad at him? Now I have no other agenda other than curiosity. As I said, never saw such before and just had to know more. If you have a moment and care to elaborate, I’d love to hear more. Of course, if there is anything I can do to help, please advise. Thanks, your “LinkedIn version of the Vulcan mind meld” mate fjohn

P.S.: I’m adjusting my tin foil hat so you’ll get better reception.

*** end quote ***

Seems like something that is very dangerous to do.

# # # # #

May I suggest that you have your own domain?

The common wisdom, or is that common whizdumb, is to own your own name as a domain name. I own “reinke.cc”. (I like saying “sea sea me at reinke.cc”!) I gives one quite a bit of control. And, it’s very cheap. I know three solutions at 15$/year using wordpressdotcom with gmail, 25$/year email only with 1and1, and 60$/year for domain + email + webspace also at 1and1. My point is not that you should use 1and1. I could care less. It’s that getting on to your own email is cheap and easy.

# # # # #