I quickly realized how little value the endorsement system in linkedin was when my uncle endorsed me for Groovy. In my mind I like to think he was picking it as a personality trait and not a skillset.
That is great. It shows you the value of the endorsement is really nil. Personally, I'm not as impressed with an endorsement unless it is from someone, who themselves is well respect, or holds a high position. The original concept was good, but it was a low lying fruit, perhaps it is time for some AI by Linked In to try and solve the problem.
"Hey erikj54, pg just endorsed you for "HN Commenting Skills" -- We'd like to ask you (5) questions regading HN commenting! in order to publish this endorsement to your profile:
1. Assuming you just created an account on HN and immediately see a comment you disagree with. Can you downvote this comment? [Y/N]
2. A YC Company just posted a job posting to HN, can you post why you are a perfect rock-ninja for the job as a comment? [Y/N]
3. Can a comment receive greater than -4 comment Karma? [Y/N]
4. Can you downvote a comment reply to your OP comment? [Y/N]
5. How important is being civil in HN threads [Very Important/Not Important]
When I read that I imagined LinkedIn is refering to the groovy programming language http://groovy.codehaus.org/
Of course... that doesn't make a lot of sense for a personality trait either... It makes as much sense as describing someone as C++. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.
Groovy (or, less common, "Groovie" or "Groovey") is a slang colloquialism popular during the 1960s and 1970s. It is roughly synonymous with words such as "cool", "excellent", "fashionable", or "amazing", depending on context.
Well, in my defense, I know what it means to be groovy and sorry if post made it seem otherwise. What I was misunderstanding was the fact that you can actually endorse personality traits on people since I have made a point of staying as far away from LinkedIn as possible. I thought that you were only able to endorse skills, and so when I saw they were endorsed for a personality trait I was a little confused and wondered if they meant that as a skill trait :)
I interpreted the OP as saying that the uncle endorsed "Groovy" as a skill (presumably the programming language), but probably thought it was a personality trait.
No, not at all. I meant in terms of hype and popularity. Otherwise, it seems quite solid to me, and they (Groovy and Grails) are in active development.
Gosu is the language developed by Guidewire, a major insurance software provider :) (I work in the insurance sector. I wish my company bought Guidewire).
I endorsed an old project manager for "Music" because he was a terrible project manager, but a great musician. Though, it was more of a career recommendation than a joke
In case you don't realize it, the reason your Uncle did that is because LinkedIn prompted him to, by fraudulently showing a message that looked like it was from you, asking for endorsement. He was probably no more comfortable endorsing you for that than you were in receiving it, and you are both losers from it (him for looking like he endorses anyone for anything, and you for looking unprofessional to your "real" network who actually know that you are not qualified in that skill but now see you "claiming" it on your profile). The only "winner" is LinkedIn, who get to sell more ads and referrals to their recruiters.
Yeah - I am not sure how people don't realize what is really going on here... Linkedin found a great way to entice user engagement - by asking pointed questions about people you know and may have insight on their skills.
I don't see anything "shady" about this as much as I do see it as a targeted use of their system, in a germane method.
If you are not keeping linkedin as a silo of professional, superficial, contact with the many many many people you will work with over your career - and you don't understand why things like endorsements both happen and are a part of the linkedin ecosystem, then you're not using linkedin correctly.
Firstly, you shoul unsub from all notifications from linkedin aside from who has viewed your profile.
Second, its not facebook, thank god. You're not there to impress people by the content you create. You're there to show that your influence in your field is a positive attractor via the quality of your network; if you have good people and companies recommending you - then you have more marketability for your CV...
The people posting to linkedin groups really frequently telling you what to follow and what valuable BS skill/fad thing thats new - they are typically marketing, sales, bizdev and unskilled folks... stay away from the idea that you're going to show the world how farking smart you are via a linkedin post.
Work hard - build a good network. Have strong ACTUAL skills. People who know you will hit "yes, they DO know this" when linkedin asks this...
Keeping track of that network is enabled via linkedin. You do NOT need to follow all the personal lives of people you work with. You should keep a pulse of where they move to and what position they hold over the years.
So if you leave a company and had a great rapport with your peer Z -- and they go on to startup X and become head of Y and you are looking to work in a department like Y with a person like Z... then this is a good thing.
So, yeah - i think Linkedin comes in.
Further, assuming you transition to consulting. Recruiters and the like will seek out people with skills on linkedin to fill positions they only know about. If you are strong, you are your own best/worst negotiator when it comes to getting these contracts.
>>Keeping track of that network is enabled via linkedin. You do NOT need to follow all the personal lives of people you work with. You should keep a pulse of where they move to and what position they hold over the years.
This is called "networking" and people have been doing it since long before LinkedIn. If you want to learn how, read Dig Your Well Before You're Thirsty by Harvey Mackay.
Good or big? Commercial companies usually pick big, and history has proven that there is no way to achieve both big and good (MySpace and Facebook being the obvious candidates).
Even LinkedIn looses, as they do get more noise in their data, so that their intel about you, their matching will become worse, when a lot of people are endorsed for things they do not like to highlight, or are endorsed by family even if the skills are not that "good"...
So everyone looses, even recruiters, as they get more false positives when searching for skills.
It is a short business-win for LinkedIn, but a long term loss.
But how do they differentiate between the two. How do they know, that endorsement a is less worth, than say endorsement b?
And how to be sure about the differentiation?
Bit I have to say I'm biased:
I really do not give much on these sites. I tried LinkedIn years ago, but nearly no one used it here in Germany. I used to use the local equivalent, but it really was a big waste of time, at least for me and all the people I know who used it.
Recruiter spam, self-exposers, and so on. Nothing ever came from it. Really nothing.
So these sites ultimately live of the dreams of people and of recruiters with the (imho) wrong incentives.
> But how do they differentiate between the two. How do they know, that endorsement a is less worth, than say endorsement b?
E.g. they know _when_ a user endorsed, and if they endorsed all four or individually. And they know more about the user--ie how often he endorses, and who he's connected to.
And, yes, I agree with your low opinion of linkedIn and co. (Even though a close friend of mine actually got a job with the MathWorks in Germany through linkedIn---she was cold-emailled by an internal MathWorks recruiter.)
The word "fraudulent" is excessive, but when a site asks me a very specific yes/no question like "Did Paul graduate from Stanford on June 6, 1999?," it feels like this is user-generated data rather than Linkedin-generated data.
What is that with family members going on linkedIn? My aunt is a retired teacher and she went on linkedIn under a (religious) pseudonym and tried to connect to me.
And I also got endorsed by a university professor who never taught me (but we knew each other a bit) about ruby on rail that was not yet created when I was a student.
I'm about to call bullshit on professional social networks (yeah, because each country has it's favorite moreover, so I'm stuck with viadeo, linkedIn and Xing), I never got a job or recruited through that, and they are just annoying with alert e-mail.
I turned off the ability for endorsements to automatically appear on my LinkedIn profile. Instead, I highlight the skills I want to highlight.
The fact is your endorsements are going to trail your most recent skills by years in most cases, and so unless you've been doing the same thing year in and year out, endorsements present a distorted picture of your overall skill set.
This is especially true in technology, where your most recent skills are generally your most valuable ones.
Linked-in is a bit like craigslist in that it has huge network effects, lots of flaws and is hard to attack.
Still, I believe that there is a window of opportunity for a determined group to disrupt linked in in much the same way that Google attacked Altavista, by offering substantially better quality combined with a different business model.
I have my profile setup for endorsements in Milking Cats, Fridge Shelves, and Electric Eels. I did this as soon as I realised how dumb this whole endorsements thing was getting.
I deliberately, and almost ruthlessly enough, limit my LinkedIn connections to people I've worked with closely enough to evaluate each other. I really want it to be a career resource. The set of endorsements under the system as currently implemented, bears little correspondence with what those people would say about me if you asked them. This makes the data, and LinkedIn itself, less useful.
The real business of LinkedIn is selling services to employers and space to advertisers [0].
The more data points they have on each user, the more numerous results they can return to recruiters and more specific targeting they can do with ads.
Endorsements are a way to easily, indirectly expand a user profile by turning the additions into 1-click suggestions and consents rather than requiring real action by the user.
If it were socially acceptable I expect they'd ask users to upload profile photos and estimate salaries for their connections too.
> The more data points they have on each user, the more numerous results they can return to recruiters and more specific targeting they can do with ads.
The thing is that endorsements at least are pretty noisy data. What's the point of shooting for quantity at the expense of quality?
I happen to think the endorsements are part of one of the dark patterns. They get a set of endorsements from someone, because hey, I know that guy/gal and want to give them a boost. Then they get to email the person being endorsed, and say "hey, so and so endorsed you, you should put those on your profile!". So far, fairly banal, if cheesy. But I believe they hold them back. They don't just email right then, they save them, or some of them, so they can trickle out the info over time and keep emailing you. The amount of useless email I get from Linked-in is silly. They also do the auto opt-in to new (email intensive) features. Lately a lot of the useless info has been endorsements.
I think the problem is that LinkedIn makes it too easy and the incentives are out of whack. LinkedIn figures out what you may be good at, and then presents it as a button to all your contacts. Brain dead simple. That's fine, but the problem is that people are incentivized to endorse you, either because they may think it's something nice they can do for you (and doesn't hurt them and takes no effort), or because they may be looking for reciprocity. It's just a terrible system.
In all seriousness though, I think it's a UI change they did. It didn't seem to be this bad until lately. I've noticed whenever you login it asks you with a one click button if you want to endorse these people for these skills, randomly.
I think their goal was to create more 'value' in their product but in fact made it less reliable and therefore less 'valuable'.
I got one endorsement for Ruby (I have it in my profile that I am learning) despite not listing it as a skill, and I'm now occasionally getting messages from recruiters.
We actually had an "endorsement war" between my coworkers last week.
Some of the results: Memes, Poetry, Salads (ten endorsements!), Tree Identification, Punk, Pickles (not to be confused with Cucumber), Shampoo, Extortion, Glitter Tattoos.
I don't think endorsements are meant to be true endorsements. If they were, LinkedIn would have written a weighted endorsement system by now (where an endorsement from someone with expertise in some field means more than, say, an endorsement from your realtor about your JavaScript skills).
It's just crowdsourced tagging with a different name. This way, recruiters who pay LinkedIn $10k/yr can more easily search profiles for keywords.
I think this is absolutely right on. But a smart recruiter would realize that some measurable chunk of endorsements are selected by people who have no clue as to your skill set or level of ability in that particular area -- people who, for example, logged in, saw four possible endorsements they could give people in their network at the top of their screen, were feeling beneficent that day, and clicked on all of them. Or someone who you just endorsed for a skill, and they see that you did, and want to endorse you for something but already endorsed you for the 10 skills you preloaded, and so they just pick the first thing LinkedIn recommends.
Presumably LinkedIn has some algorithm by which they look at people with similar skill set groupings, and say ah, statistically most of the people with this set have these three additional skills, and then farm that out to your network to see who endorses it. New endorsements tweak the skill set, which feeds back into the algorithm. It's almost like a glorified, twisted game of The Game of Life.
"But a smart recruiter would realize that some measurable chunk of endorsements are selected by people who have no clue as to your skill set or level of ability in that particular area"
I don't use LinkedIn to do keyword searches really, but if you're into that sort of thing, I imagine that having tagged profiles is still much more useful than not having them.
Presumably, if you're a typical recruiter, you'll combine a keyword search with a list of schools or companies that your clients agree are a good proxy for aptitude.
Or you'll do a bit of manual pruning, blast some subset of the search results, and see what sticks.
The issue there is that the value of those tags decreases if the majority just accept those tags suggested (which from what I've seen, most users do). There's no penalty to giving a tag, so if someone says "What to help one of your mates get a job by spending <1 second hitting a button" there's no reason not to (beyond your personal principles at least).
To fix the system you either need to limit the number of endorsements you can give (e.g. you're allowed to give 3 endorsements (to anyone) for each contact you have), or have some way to force a comparison (e.g. is A or B a more competent Java developer in the context of Gaming?).
I have a similar problem: I am endorsed for skills that I do claim on my profile by people whose endorsement I do not want. You can remove individual endorsements without removing the skill itself. Here are the instructions a friend of mine found for this:
Login to LinkedIn;
Hover over "Profile" and click on "Edit Profile";
Scroll down to "Skills & Expertise";
Click on "Edit";
Click on “Manage Endorsements”. It is not highlighted but it will accept a click when you hover.;
Click on the skill where you want to remove endorsers and then uncheck any endorser you want to remove.;
When you’re done, click on “Save”;
Following the same procedure, you can also choose not to display your endorsements in one shot: rather than click "Manage Endorsements" instead click the down-arrow next to "Display your endorsements" and choose "No, do not show my endorsements."
The truth is, Does it really matter. People look at your skills or skills people think you're good at, and it allows you more breadth and job opportunities.
166 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 219 ms ] threadI laughed harder than usual at that. I wonder what a "groovy" professional would be? :)
1. Assuming you just created an account on HN and immediately see a comment you disagree with. Can you downvote this comment? [Y/N]
2. A YC Company just posted a job posting to HN, can you post why you are a perfect rock-ninja for the job as a comment? [Y/N]
3. Can a comment receive greater than -4 comment Karma? [Y/N]
4. Can you downvote a comment reply to your OP comment? [Y/N]
5. How important is being civil in HN threads [Very Important/Not Important]
---
This might work....
http://grv.microsoft.com/
Of course... that doesn't make a lot of sense for a personality trait either... It makes as much sense as describing someone as C++. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groovy
edit: for clarity
[ Groovy ][ Chilled ][ Fights "The Man"]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlW4bEjB5A
Nowadays, Groovy seems to fading as well.
Our requirements are that whatever I choose must be Java-based, and have some nice framework.
Within those constraints, is there a good Grails replacement?
There is another interesting jvm language: http://gosu-lang.org/compare.html
Web framework for gosu: http://ronin-web.org/
But it is even less popular and I'm not sure if it even has an active community.
But yeah, it's much smaller than Grails.
(It's intended for chefs, not game developers.)
I don't see anything "shady" about this as much as I do see it as a targeted use of their system, in a germane method.
If you are not keeping linkedin as a silo of professional, superficial, contact with the many many many people you will work with over your career - and you don't understand why things like endorsements both happen and are a part of the linkedin ecosystem, then you're not using linkedin correctly.
Firstly, you shoul unsub from all notifications from linkedin aside from who has viewed your profile.
Second, its not facebook, thank god. You're not there to impress people by the content you create. You're there to show that your influence in your field is a positive attractor via the quality of your network; if you have good people and companies recommending you - then you have more marketability for your CV...
The people posting to linkedin groups really frequently telling you what to follow and what valuable BS skill/fad thing thats new - they are typically marketing, sales, bizdev and unskilled folks... stay away from the idea that you're going to show the world how farking smart you are via a linkedin post.
Work hard - build a good network. Have strong ACTUAL skills. People who know you will hit "yes, they DO know this" when linkedin asks this...
Yes. But linkedIn doesn't come in there at all.
Keeping track of that network is enabled via linkedin. You do NOT need to follow all the personal lives of people you work with. You should keep a pulse of where they move to and what position they hold over the years.
So if you leave a company and had a great rapport with your peer Z -- and they go on to startup X and become head of Y and you are looking to work in a department like Y with a person like Z... then this is a good thing.
So, yeah - i think Linkedin comes in.
Further, assuming you transition to consulting. Recruiters and the like will seek out people with skills on linkedin to fill positions they only know about. If you are strong, you are your own best/worst negotiator when it comes to getting these contracts.
This is called "networking" and people have been doing it since long before LinkedIn. If you want to learn how, read Dig Your Well Before You're Thirsty by Harvey Mackay.
Good or big? Commercial companies usually pick big, and history has proven that there is no way to achieve both big and good (MySpace and Facebook being the obvious candidates).
So everyone looses, even recruiters, as they get more false positives when searching for skills.
It is a short business-win for LinkedIn, but a long term loss.
And how to be sure about the differentiation?
Bit I have to say I'm biased: I really do not give much on these sites. I tried LinkedIn years ago, but nearly no one used it here in Germany. I used to use the local equivalent, but it really was a big waste of time, at least for me and all the people I know who used it.
Recruiter spam, self-exposers, and so on. Nothing ever came from it. Really nothing.
So these sites ultimately live of the dreams of people and of recruiters with the (imho) wrong incentives.
E.g. they know _when_ a user endorsed, and if they endorsed all four or individually. And they know more about the user--ie how often he endorses, and who he's connected to.
And, yes, I agree with your low opinion of linkedIn and co. (Even though a close friend of mine actually got a job with the MathWorks in Germany through linkedIn---she was cold-emailled by an internal MathWorks recruiter.)
Citation needed.
I never saw a message like that
What I've seen is "Does Person knows about Technology/Skill" and then you can click to endorse that
Well, today I got one "fake" endorsement, not far from what I do, but not what I had added to my list of skills
Alright, the system's a joke.
The fact is your endorsements are going to trail your most recent skills by years in most cases, and so unless you've been doing the same thing year in and year out, endorsements present a distorted picture of your overall skill set.
This is especially true in technology, where your most recent skills are generally your most valuable ones.
What you can't do is prevent getting endorsements in the first place. LinkedIn will not let you disable receiving endorsements.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/justin-nash/26/7aa/163
Still, I believe that there is a window of opportunity for a determined group to disrupt linked in in much the same way that Google attacked Altavista, by offering substantially better quality combined with a different business model.
The real business of LinkedIn is selling services to employers and space to advertisers [0].
The more data points they have on each user, the more numerous results they can return to recruiters and more specific targeting they can do with ads.
Endorsements are a way to easily, indirectly expand a user profile by turning the additions into 1-click suggestions and consents rather than requiring real action by the user.
If it were socially acceptable I expect they'd ask users to upload profile photos and estimate salaries for their connections too.
0: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomiogeron/2013/08/01/linkedin-q...
The thing is that endorsements at least are pretty noisy data. What's the point of shooting for quantity at the expense of quality?
Personally, the endorsements I receive are fairly noisy, but I'm acting as the second level of informed filter by choosing what to accept.
The endorsements which make it to my profile are accurate.
Unless I'm unique, I'd expect the resulting graph of accepted endorsements to be reasonably useful.
I think their goal was to create more 'value' in their product but in fact made it less reliable and therefore less 'valuable'.
Some of the results: Memes, Poetry, Salads (ten endorsements!), Tree Identification, Punk, Pickles (not to be confused with Cucumber), Shampoo, Extortion, Glitter Tattoos.
It's just crowdsourced tagging with a different name. This way, recruiters who pay LinkedIn $10k/yr can more easily search profiles for keywords.
Presumably LinkedIn has some algorithm by which they look at people with similar skill set groupings, and say ah, statistically most of the people with this set have these three additional skills, and then farm that out to your network to see who endorses it. New endorsements tweak the skill set, which feeds back into the algorithm. It's almost like a glorified, twisted game of The Game of Life.
I don't use LinkedIn to do keyword searches really, but if you're into that sort of thing, I imagine that having tagged profiles is still much more useful than not having them.
Presumably, if you're a typical recruiter, you'll combine a keyword search with a list of schools or companies that your clients agree are a good proxy for aptitude.
Or you'll do a bit of manual pruning, blast some subset of the search results, and see what sticks.
Nobody said the smart recruiters are their target market.
Login to LinkedIn; Hover over "Profile" and click on "Edit Profile"; Scroll down to "Skills & Expertise"; Click on "Edit"; Click on “Manage Endorsements”. It is not highlighted but it will accept a click when you hover.; Click on the skill where you want to remove endorsers and then uncheck any endorser you want to remove.; When you’re done, click on “Save”;