>> I've seen websites which are dynamic and ever-changing. Linked-In
>> appears to change at roughly the speed of plate tectonics. I suppose in
>> three entire /years/ they might have made visible changes though.
>
> So you make the assumption that because /some/ websites are static and
> never change, that a site you haven't visited in 3 years must not have
> changed one bit.  m-/

No, I make the assumption that because Linked-In never changed at all 
during the time I was using it, it won't have changed during the time I 
haven't been using it. Or at least, won't have changed much.

>>>> OK. That's how most search sites of this type work.
>>>
>>> On what factual basis do you make this claim?
>>
>> OK, I rephrase: Every website I've ever used which allows you to search
>> for human beings seems works in this way. No, I haven't tried every such
>> site in existence. But I've tried a fair few of them. Hence the claim
>> that "most" such sites tend to work this way.
>
> Again, on what factual basis do you make this claim?  Restating your
> point doesn't actually answer the question.

I've used dozens of sites that all work the same way? That isn't a 
"factual basis" somehow?

Sure, it doesn't prove that Linked-In works this way. But it makes it a 
reasonable extrapolation.

>>> Yes, there is.  How do you expect to find and connect to people you
>>> know?
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure you can search by name. Recruiters won't be searching for
>> you by name though, will they? ;-)
>
> Which is why it's important to keep updating your actual profile with
> relevant keywords and whatnot.

OK.

> But you're doing a typical "Andy" thing - you're making broad assumptions
> and assertions with no evidence to back them up.
>
> You really need to stop doing that.  Doing so won't get you far in life.

And you seem to be doing the typical Jim thing of asserting that if the 
conclusion is incorrect, then all of the evidence is invalid. But that 
isn't how logical deduction actually works. It's perfectly possible for 
incorrect information to lead you to a conclusion that happens to be 
true, or for quite correct information to lead you to a false 
conclusion. The fact that a conclusion is wrong does not _make_ the 
evidence wrong, and it certainly doesn't make the evidence cease to _exist_.

I'm not sure why you're so keen to pick a fight anyway. I did not say 
"Linked-In has not changed in 3 years", I said "I would not have 
_expected_ Linked-In to have changed in 3 years, based on a history of 
not changing in the past". I did not say "Linked-In lists results by 
date", I said "Linked-In _probably_ lists results by date, given that 
similar sites do it that way". And so forth.

Fundamentally, what we have is this: I used Linked-In for a while. It 
didn't seem to be helping me. So I stopped using it.

I was just curious as to why other people apparently do use it. If the 
answer is "they changed it so it doesn't suck now", then that's fine.

Post a reply to this message