Interesting to read Reid Hoffman's take on LinkedIn connections and the pointlessness of that number beyond a point:
So, for example, early in LinkedIn we created a connections game. The number of connections you have with other members was your score. We put that score front and center on your profile so that people would play the connections game. It was an excellent way to drive user growth — and we could have just let that game go on, ad nauseum.
There was just one problem: As users got a bit too hooked on the game — and inevitably, some of them would — then that connection score would signify nothing. It would represent a pointless tally of how many hands a user could shake a day. In fact, I remember one person on LinkedIn who amassed 32,000 connections. There’s no way he knew 32,000 people. So we capped the score at 500. After that, the score remained fixed and you got stuck with a boring old “plus” sign. 500-plus. Game over.
Being among the early adopters of LinkedIn, I have been able to observe the changes over time - in my own behavior and those of others. When I had just a handful of connections, invites often came from people I had known for a while. They would often include a thoughtful message with the invite. There was an expectation that we would meet in real life if we had not already and that we would introduce each other to people we were connected with. All of these expectations were routinely met.
That is such a far cry from where things are today atleast for me. Getting value from my feed is all but impossible - there is an overwhelming amount of self-promotion and people cheering and celebrating it. After a point, it does get old. First time my buddy posted that he had achieved some important certification, I congratulated him. Second time, it was a Like and by the sixth time I had to unfollow him. So if some day in the future C has something interesting to share (which he likely will), I won't know about it.
Comments