Blog of Wade Making Connexions

LinkedIn’s Reputational Aspect

LinkedIn offers a great networking tool for industry professionals. I’m still not sure what the user gains. I’ve read about some agencies based purely off the service, and other users developing contact networks, but I feel they are the exception, not the rule.

I have issues with the one-sided bias with LinkedIn. No page ever displays anything short of outstanding attitude/behavior. Of course this is the case, when the user has the power of Veto. Add to that no one would dare say what they really think; this would tax too much on their real-life social interactions, creating an awkward situation in the elevator at the very least.

There are no balances and checks in place to get a holistic picture. The LinkedIn platform would be greatly strengthened in profile value if a whole full picture could be extracted from a profile, instead of the 1/2 truth that is currently displayed.

Like any optional system only those with strong incentives/feelings will make the effort to comment, ruling out 90% of people. Regardless, this is still of greater balance than allowing only positive feedback.

Controls allowing only 1 user comment, and only if the two users have a 1st or 2nd degree connection should rule out spam or profile sabotage to a certain degree. Ebay’s reputation system has many flaws, but is proof that people will give negative feedback if they believe warranted.

A system where anonymous feedback can be left that can not be touched by the user would allow this to take place. Relations of ‘closeness’ can be derived through factual linkings of shared job histories. The result would become a score card, showing both positive and negative feedback.

I agree with you, in its current form you only see what the user wants you to see. Not ideal if you’re a prospective employer or business contact wanting a more honest picture.

Hey Wade, when I saw the title of the post I expected something different which I’ll come too later.

Interesting comments but gees it wouldn’t last too long if it was opened up like that.

I’d love to hear some LinkedIn success stories. Maybe I haven’t used it enough but I see it as nothing more than a who can show the most contacts on their page game.

The only time I tried to use it for one of the purposes it was meant for - ie; to make a contact through a contact, the 1st degree contact thought it inappropriate and vitoed my request. WTF? “LinkedIn”! - networking, contacts etc etc…why bother being on it if the first time you’re asked to use it as it’s meant to be used, you pull a PC angle on the requester.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a voyeur so I still accept requests to join people’s lists just so I can see who they know. Send me a request. I’ve got Megan Gale and Pamela Anderson on my list of contacts but I will probably pull the PC angle myself and vito the request to make contact with them.

Rock Ape

Hey Draz,

Would love to know what I conjured up by the title.

My model may be the beginning of discussion, or a movement towards holisticism.

~W

Wade,

Nothing major….just saw LinkedIn….had been discussing the service with a few people that day and talking about it’s benefits if anything and then lo and behold, I see a thread here on it. I find your comments interesting and keen to see others thoughts on it.

@Wade

LinkedIn would have to introduce a transparent process to remove libel.

Furthermore Linkedin could be subject to any legal proceeding of libel, depending on jurisdiction.

Have you considered leveraging the People>Reference Search under LinkedIn as an alternate solution?

Hi Cristian, thanks for your comments. Perhaps there’s a bit more to think of.

Your solution is a bit of a work around that may work, but not really a solution to the underlying problem. It’s an exciting space/time/industry to be around.

~W

@Wade

Have you explored the “Service Providers” tab i.e. labeled “Services”?

Christian,

It’s still the same problem; the reviews have no transparency or balance.

~W

@Wade

I understand your statement; I was simply highlighting the “Services” tab as another option to establish ones “reputation”

Under your proposal, LinkedIn would have to provide the facility for the person subject to the criticism to be able to respond - i.e. “balance”.

So now you have three possible scenarios for libel i.e.
1. The reference or responder may not have made the author i.e. their Linkedin “identity” was stolen
2. Their reference was deliberately misleading.
3. The person attacks the referee in their response.

In addition, LinkedIn would be subject to any legal proceeding as they published the “libel” statements on their site.