It's surprising that I should even think to ask the question, given the service boasts more than 20 million profiles and is arguably (fire away) the first online professional network many people join. But one tweet yesterday and the first response sparked a modest volume of email, further musings here, and perhaps soon elsewhere. As @mrgingold noted, 140 characters truly only takes you so far.
The initial thought, from @abfdc, is that LinkedIn is two years passed its effectiveness date. It's a big database, but there's no genuine engagement. People seem to be connection hogs or want to link to you to get to someone in your network. All you can see is a digital résumé, but there is no depth to the profiles. With Twitter, by contrast, you can get a more well-rounded view of someone through her posts and links. A glorified online address book another called LinkedIn. Since its primary communication tool is email, there's no immediacy, thus no community or social networking characteristics. In sum, a decent recruiting tool and missed opportunity.
I don't disagree with most of the above, but I do disagree
with the notion that LinkedIn has already jumped the digital shark. I have
benefited professionally from my network on LinkedIn. Even prior to that
though, I found myself going further out of my way than I ever did when I
receive LinkedIn requests for an introduction or help filling an open position.
Maybe, subconsciously, I thought it was a pay-it-forward type of situation. Or
that through its interface, it is very easy to make an on-the-spot electronic introduction or jot down some
notes for a recommendation. I scan my LinkedIn home page daily to see who has
been active, if old friends or colleagues have emerged from the fog, and know
that newly posted recommendations are usually indications that someone is
looking for a change of scenery. Tip-offs my address book doesn't give me.
There is plenty of opportunity for
better engagement among those with common threads be it an industry or a former
employer. If I was an employer or especially in an HR capacity, I'd set up a
group and encourage alumni to join it. It would be a readymade network of institutional
knowledge, referral bank, and a means to keep in contact with those who might
want to return to the fold. There are similar collaboration opportunities to
pull subject matter experts and attendees for barcamps and similar rather than the existing Q&A widget that seems forced. And perhaps imitation, or enhancement, is the sincerest form of flattery as at least one company is deploying company-specific alumni portals.
I don't think LinkedIn is two years past its sell-by date. It's very of the moment and, given its database, ripe for new extensions of the concept.
Tim -
I'd have to agree with you on the relevancy of LinkedIn, not only 2-3 years ago, but now and likely still in 2-5 years. I've been using LinkedIn quite successfully for networking, business development and job hunting, as well as just generally keeping track of people.
LinkedIn is a facilitator of connections, and the fact that I often make/pursue those connections outside of LinkedIn doesn't diminish LinkedIn's role in the process. I might even argue that by not trying to do too much, LinkedIn has far more value than if it tried to do more. I am one of the many paying customers of LinkedIn, and while my usage is cyclical, I have found it to be more trustworthy and useful than virtually any other social network. While it is true that Twitter is rising into a comparable space, it is a parallel space, and hopefully will remain as such.
Finally, a quote from Dan Schwable's blog entry about personal vs corporate brands that is relevant:
Great info! I learned a lot of new materials Thank you
Awesome information! I just want you to know that this blog really gonna help me to broaden my knowledge.