>> Linked-In seems to have the same problem that all the early social
>> networking sites had: Once you've filled out all the fields in your
>> profile, there's nothing left to /do/.
>
> Yes, there is.  There are groups that host discussions.  There are job
> postings posted (and it even recommends "jobs you might be interested
> in".  I used that to find one position that I applied for and interviewed
> extensively for - even traveling out of state for an in-person interview.

Either this stuff is /extremely/ well hidden, or they've changed the 
site design since I last logged in 3 years ago (or whenever it was).

>> When I first created my profile, I used to get the occasional call from
>> recruiters who claimed to have seen it. And after a month or so, it
>> stopped. Presumably because profiles are listed in order of activity.
>> (Which is an entirely reasonable way to list them, really...)
>
> False assumption, unsupported by any amount of evidence.

Looking at evidence and reaching a conclusion isn't a "false 
assumption", even if the conclusion turns out to be incorrect. An 
/assumption/ is when you draw a conclusion without /any/ evidence. :-P

> It does help to keep your profile current.

No argument here.

> Building a career isn't a passive activity.  It requires some effort.

Sure. But as I say, Linked-In doesn't appear to allow you to /do/ 
anything. Consequently, I haven't done anything.

Basically, I used Linked-In for a while, and eventually came to the 
conclusion that it doesn't help me get where I want to go. So I stopped 
using it. (Although admittedly I didn't actually shut down my account - 
I should probably go do that, just in case...)

 From what I can tell, Linked-In seems to be aimed at high-powered 
business executives, rather than at normal people like me. Which is 
fine, presumably it's useful to those people. But it doesn't seem to be 
useful to me.

> If you don't update your profile with recent accomplishments and such,
> recruiters are going to look at it and say "yeah, this hasn't changed, so
> he's lost interest or isn't doing anything" and move on.

I've been alive 30+ years, and I don't have /any/ accomplishments yet. :-P

(It's bad enough that every time I view my profile, Linked-In insists 
that I should put in my previous job, because I'm 77x more likely to be 
contacted. Er, yeah, I don't *have* a previous job. :-P )

> But listed in order of activity?  No, that's not really the case AFAICS.

OK. That's how most search sites of this type work. But I haven't 
actually checked. (Searching for other people isn't something I need to 
do, so I haven't tried. I'm not even sure if it's an option for people 
who aren't registered recruiters...)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 18:21:17 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>> Yes, there is.  There are groups that host discussions.  There are job
>> postings posted (and it even recommends "jobs you might be interested
>> in".  I used that to find one position that I applied for and
>> interviewed extensively for - even traveling out of state for an
>> in-person interview.
> 
> Either this stuff is /extremely/ well hidden, or they've changed the
> site design since I last logged in 3 years ago (or whenever it was).

Of course, such a dynamic website would never ever be updated. m-/

Maybe you should have a look before making such declarations.  (Oh, wait, 
I forgot who I was talking to. ;) )

>> False assumption, unsupported by any amount of evidence.
> 
> Looking at evidence and reaching a conclusion isn't a "false
> assumption", even if the conclusion turns out to be incorrect. An
> /assumption/ is when you draw a conclusion without /any/ evidence. :-P

By your own admission, you haven't looked at it in 3 years.  So you've 
drawn a conclusion based on outdated knowledge.  Therefore, a false 
assumption and a poorly drawn conclusion are present.

>> It does help to keep your profile current.
> 
> No argument here.
> 
>> Building a career isn't a passive activity.  It requires some effort.
> 
> Sure. But as I say, Linked-In doesn't appear to allow you to /do/
> anything. Consequently, I haven't done anything.

Invalid assumption (that it doesn't appear to allow you to do anything) 
because you HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN 3 YEARS.

>> If you don't update your profile with recent accomplishments and such,
>> recruiters are going to look at it and say "yeah, this hasn't changed,
>> so he's lost interest or isn't doing anything" and move on.
> 
> I've been alive 30+ years, and I don't have /any/ accomplishments yet.
> :-P

Bullshit.  We've been over this before.

>> But listed in order of activity?  No, that's not really the case
>> AFAICS.
> 
> OK. That's how most search sites of this type work. 

On what factual basis do you make this claim?

> But I haven't
> actually checked. (Searching for other people isn't something I need to
> do, so I haven't tried. I'm not even sure if it's an option for people
> who aren't registered recruiters...)

Yes, there is.  How do you expect to find and connect to people you know?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Either this stuff is /extremely/ well hidden, or they've changed the
>> site design since I last logged in 3 years ago (or whenever it was).
>
> Of course, such a dynamic website would never ever be updated. m-/

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.

>>> Building a career isn't a passive activity.  It requires some effort.
>>
>> Sure. But as I say, Linked-In doesn't appear to allow you to /do/
>> anything. Consequently, I haven't done anything.
>
> Invalid assumption (that it doesn't appear to allow you to do anything)
> because you HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN 3 YEARS.

I didn't expect something as stagnant and unchanging as Linked-In to 
actually, you know, change. I will admit that expectations do not always 
match reality...

>>> But listed in order of activity?  No, that's not really the case
>>> AFAICS.
>>
>> 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.

>> But I haven't
>> actually checked. (Searching for other people isn't something I need to
>> do, so I haven't tried. I'm not even sure if it's an option for people
>> who aren't registered recruiters...)
>
> 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? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 19:50:05 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Either this stuff is /extremely/ well hidden, or they've changed the
>>> site design since I last logged in 3 years ago (or whenever it was).
>>
>> Of course, such a dynamic website would never ever be updated. m-/
> 
> 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-/

>>>> Building a career isn't a passive activity.  It requires some effort.
>>>
>>> Sure. But as I say, Linked-In doesn't appear to allow you to /do/
>>> anything. Consequently, I haven't done anything.
>>
>> Invalid assumption (that it doesn't appear to allow you to do anything)
>> because you HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT IN 3 YEARS.
> 
> I didn't expect something as stagnant and unchanging as Linked-In to
> actually, you know, change. I will admit that expectations do not always
> match reality...

*THREE YEARS* have passed since you last looked at it, Andy.  By your own 
admission.  Making an assumption based on no evidence?

>>> 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.

>>> But I haven't actually checked. (Searching for other people isn't
>>> something I need to do, so I haven't tried. I'm not even sure if it's
>>> an option for people who aren't registered recruiters...)
>>
>> 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.

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> 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

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 09:32:25 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> 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.

"It didn't change while I was using it, so it won't have changed since I 
stopped using it" - that's a bad assumption to make.

>> 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?

I don't know that there are "dozens" of sites like LinkedIn.

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

Have those dozens of sites failed to change in any way in the past 3 
years?  Somehow I doubt that - stagnation on the 'net isn't good for 
longevity.

>> 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.

Not really.  What you take for evidence is often provably false 
information.  Like the 'impossibility' or even 'difficulty' of removing a 
tripod from a 360 degree photograph using off-the-shelf software (and 
even free software, at that).

> 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

Only by pure chance.

> , or for quite correct information to lead you to a false
> conclusion. 

Sure, that I'd agree with.  Invalid indirection or falsely assuming that 
correlation implies causation could do that.  (Of course, those both are 
logic faults in and of themselves)

> The fact that a conclusion is wrong does not _make_ the
> evidence wrong, and it certainly doesn't make the evidence cease to
> _exist_.

Confirmation bias is what it seems you're applying here. ;)

> 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.

I guess it's been my week to pick fights with people.  Sorry about that 
(it happened on a mailing list I participate in as well - with a known 
troll, even.)

You have to admit, though, that you do have a history of making bad 
assumptions and then drawing conclusions that are nonsensical.  (Which, 
given it has happened recently, is probably a good indicator of near 
future behaviours - moreso than a web site that didn't change noticibly 
between the time you started using it and stopped using it - and then 
doing nothing with it for three years is. ;) )

> 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.

I didn't think it sucked then.  YMMV.  You should take another look at 
it, but if past behaviours are any indicator, you'll probably still think 
it sucks.  You might consider if the reason it sucks is because of how 
its set up, or of how you're using it.  There are millions of people who 
do use it with some success, so it seems logical to infer from that that 
perhaps there are better ways to use it than the way you're trying to.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.
>
> "It didn't change while I was using it, so it won't have changed since I
> stopped using it" - that's a bad assumption to make.

What, expecting future events to resemble past ones?

Isn't that ultimately the basis of all scientific inquiry? ;-)

>>> 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?
>
> I don't know that there are "dozens" of sites like LinkedIn.

I don't know that there are any sites that do /exactly/ what Linked-In 
does. But there are plenty of sites that let you search humans for 
various reasons. (Exhibit A: Monster.)

>> 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.
>
> Not really.  What you take for evidence is often provably false
> information.  Like the 'impossibility' or even 'difficulty' of removing a
> tripod from a 360 degree photograph using off-the-shelf software (and
> even free software, at that).

Depends on whether you want to split hairs between "actually impossible" 
and "so insanely difficult that it is _effectively_ impossible".

Sure, there might be some genius who is so skilful that he can edit the 
tripod and its shadow out of a complex image, somehow faking the details 
hidden behind these structures. But for the average person, no, this is 
not possible. (Unless you take a photograph of something so dull that 
there are no details to fake.)

>> It's perfectly possible for
>> incorrect information to lead you to a conclusion that happens to be
>> true
>
> Only by pure chance.

That's my point.

If you do not have all of the information (the usual case), then whether 
your conclusions are correct or not is largely chance.

> I guess it's been my week to pick fights with people.  Sorry about that

No worries.

I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I 
guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just 
ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot. 
I'm not sure that's an improvement...

> You have to admit, though, that you do have a history of making bad
> assumptions and then drawing conclusions that are nonsensical.

Or maybe just a history of not having all the facts... I guess we can't 
all be experts in everything.

>> 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.
>
> I didn't think it sucked then.  YMMV.  You should take another look at
> it, but if past behaviours are any indicator, you'll probably still think
> it sucks.

Heh, the null hypothesis... ;-)

I'll see if I can figure out what my password is. (If not, I guess I can 
look it up on some Russian forum...)

> You might consider if the reason it sucks is because of how
> its set up, or of how you're using it.

Or because - as I already suggested - it's perhaps aimed at somebody 
other than me.

> There are millions of people who
> do use it with some success, so it seems logical to infer from that that
> perhaps there are better ways to use it than the way you're trying to.

OOC, do you have any factual basis for saying that "millions of people 
do use it with some success", beyond the fact that the site still exists 
and hasn't gone bankrupt yet? Or is /that/ merely an assumption? :-P

(Not that a seriously doubt you. But it sounds like exactly the sort of 
statement that's easy to casually make and almost impossible to 
objectively verify.)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:18:24 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>> "It didn't change while I was using it, so it won't have changed since
>> I stopped using it" - that's a bad assumption to make.
> 
> What, expecting future events to resemble past ones?
> 
> Isn't that ultimately the basis of all scientific inquiry? ;-)

Certainly in the space of the physical world.  I don't think decisions by 
people really qualify as a 'reproducible experiment'.

>>> 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.
>>
>> Not really.  What you take for evidence is often provably false
>> information.  Like the 'impossibility' or even 'difficulty' of removing
>> a tripod from a 360 degree photograph using off-the-shelf software (and
>> even free software, at that).
> 
> Depends on whether you want to split hairs between "actually impossible"
> and "so insanely difficult that it is _effectively_ impossible".
> 
> Sure, there might be some genius who is so skilful that he can edit the
> tripod and its shadow out of a complex image, somehow faking the details
> hidden behind these structures. But for the average person, no, this is
> not possible. (Unless you take a photograph of something so dull that
> there are no details to fake.)

For the average person, it most certainly is possible.  There are tools 
in the basic/cheap versions of Photoshop to do this sort of thing IIRC.

>>> It's perfectly possible for incorrect information to lead you to a
>>> conclusion that happens to be true
>>
>> Only by pure chance.
> 
> That's my point.
> 
> If you do not have all of the information (the usual case), then whether
> your conclusions are correct or not is largely chance.

I don't think this is the "usual case".  I've got nearly 42 years of time 
invested in this planet, and I usually make good calls about stuff.  I've 
got a good track record with it.  I don't think it's largely chance, but 
an effective ability to accurately predict outcomes based on the 
available evidence.  The brain does take intuitive shortcuts 
automatically about things.

>> I guess it's been my week to pick fights with people.  Sorry about that
> 
> No worries.
> 
> I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I
> guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just
> ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot.
> I'm not sure that's an improvement...

Well, no, it's not my intention to say "Andy, you're an idiot" - I hope 
you know that.  What you do tend to do, though, is start from a very bad 
premise and then make wild assertions that are not accurate and very 
easily verifiable.

I'll admit, sometimes it feels like you're doing it intentionally (though 
I think I know better and know you're not) just to wind people up.

>> You have to admit, though, that you do have a history of making bad
>> assumptions and then drawing conclusions that are nonsensical.
> 
> Or maybe just a history of not having all the facts... I guess we can't
> all be experts in everything.

Nobody's an expert in everything, but as I said above, when you make bold 
assertions that are easily verified as being false, you affect your 
credibility.  It's one thing to make a bad guess about string theory and 
how it affects the world.  It's another thing to make a bad assertion 
about the cost and purpose of auto insurance (pulling a random example).

A good rule of thumb I use is that if a large group of people use 
something successfully and I don't, then the problem isn't with the thing 
I'm using, it's with how I'm trying to use 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.
>>
>> I didn't think it sucked then.  YMMV.  You should take another look at
>> it, but if past behaviours are any indicator, you'll probably still
>> think it sucks.
> 
> Heh, the null hypothesis... ;-)
> 
> I'll see if I can figure out what my password is. (If not, I guess I can
> look it up on some Russian forum...)

LOL

There is a forgotten password link you can use to reset it, of course.

>> You might consider if the reason it sucks is because of how its set up,
>> or of how you're using it.
> 
> Or because - as I already suggested - it's perhaps aimed at somebody
> other than me.

That's certainly possible, but you are a "job seeker", and that's part of 
the target audience.  But jobs typically don't fall out of the sky into 
your lap (as you know), you have to work to find them (which you also 
know) and it can be difficult (which you also also know).

>> There are millions of people who do use it with some success, so it
>> seems logical to infer from that that perhaps there are better ways to
>> use it than the way you're trying to.
> 
> OOC, do you have any factual basis for saying that "millions of people
> do use it with some success", beyond the fact that the site still exists
> and hasn't gone bankrupt yet? Or is /that/ merely an assumption? :-P

Oooh, he's got teeth, this one does. ;)  That's a fair question.

Look at the number of people I'm connected to.  I follow a number of 
companies and see people taking positions at new companies that had jobs 
posted on the site.

My network (out to three degrees) consists of nearly 5 million people.

Every job search professional I have talked to (recruiters, placement 
agencies, etc.) has said that networking is something that's generally a 
good predictor of success in finding employment.

It seems reasonable to build the case that with (a) a good set of data 
(not necessarily a large volume of data, but a good set - in fact, a 
large set can be a deterrent, just ask anyone who has a 35-page CV how 
successful they are at finding work) on an individual basis, (b) a large 
network of people in your field, and (c) someone in a company knowing 
about a position that's a good fit for you because they know you, that 
such a site is going to be successful in helping lots of people find work.

> (Not that a seriously doubt you. But it sounds like exactly the sort of
> statement that's easy to casually make and almost impossible to
> objectively verify.)

See above. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2012 6:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> >  I've noticed, on multiple forums, that I seem to piss people off. I
>> >  guess I'm just a bad human being. In the past, people used to just
>> >  ignore me. Now people talk to me, but only to tell me that I'm an idiot.
>> >  I'm not sure that's an improvement...

You're doing it again, I am sorry to say. You are not a bad human being. 
You don't even come close. "Godwin's law" person was a bad human being. 
You just piss people off with your wild assertions as Jim said.

> I'll admit, sometimes it feels like you're doing it intentionally (though
> I think I know better and know you're not) just to wind people up.
>

You are right, it is almost troll-ish.

BTW Andrew, have you ever tried to play Grieg's In the hall of the 
mountain king? ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 18:36:13 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> "Godwin's law" person was a bad human being.
> You just piss people off with your wild assertions as Jim said.

I don't think Michael Godwin was a bad human being.  Or do you mean 
Hitler? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message