Today I Deleted My LinkedIn Account; You Probably Should Too

(Please note corrections after the post)

Today I will delete my LinkedIn account.  I say I will instead of I have because I do not know how LinkedIn’s account settings work; deleting my account may require substantial effort on my part, it may not even be possible at all.  The fact that I have no idea how my account works on LinkedIn should tell you two things: first, that the web services’ account persistence schemas are incredibly dense and durable, and second, that I have never so much as poked around my LinkedIn account.  The first part is generally interesting, and extremely important on a blog like this.  Why and how web apps choose to persist user data is in many ways the essence, or at least an exemplar, of big data and analytics.  It deserves its own blog post, and it will only be addressed here as it connects to the second item: my particular experience with LinkedIn, and why it convinced me to delete my account.

To begin, some statistics:
As of this post, LinkedIn claimed to have over 225 million registered members.  That’s a lot of people. For context, Instagram claims around 100 million users, and world-heavyweight Facebook tops the chart at over 1 billion users.  For those of you keeping score at home:

  • Facebook > 1,000,000,000
  • LinkedIn > 225,000,000
  • Instagram > 100,000,000

That kind of feels right, but something is off.  Facebook is so massive that it distorts just about every metric it touches. It just does.  But the amount of email spam I get from LinkedIn feels MUCH higher than the Facebook flood.  Without thinking too hard about it, there are a few obvious reasons for the disparity.

First, I hate LinkedIn emails.  Seriously, they are by far the most annoying spam I get from a serious organization.  Why is that? Well, for starters, LinkedIn had the terrible idea to route their spam through user email addresses.  Seriously, go check your inbox for an “Invitation to connect on LinkedIn”.  They don’t come from *@linkedin.com, which THEY ABSOLUTELY SHOULD.  To be clear, LinkedIn asked for – and received – my permission to use my email address this way.  Users – myself included – SUCK at managing 3rd party login permissions.  A quick scan of my Google account reveals that I have granted access to 49 different websites.  AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT MOST OF THEM ARE, OR WHAT PERMISSIONS I GAVE THEM.  Worse, I am a (new) web developer, so I have at least a basic understanding of how these authentication systems work.  If you’re like most people, the idea that you would voluntarily give a third party control of your Gmail makes no intuitive sense.  It’s your gmail, why would LinkedIn be sending emails from my.name@gmail.com?  Even worse, if you are a normal person, you probably don’t even have the vocabulary available to ask that question.  Go ahead, try to find your Google account’s permissions. I’ll wait here.  When you give up, you can click here for instructions.

The point isn’t to beat up on Google, or make fun of the average user.  Facebook’s API’s are in some way more invasive than Google’s, or at least, they hold the potential for equally bad abuse by malicious users, and I think software should be targeted to the average “normal” user.  (In fact, I so strongly believe this that I was apparently the only person on Facebook or HackerNews who thought this article was 100% dead-wrong.  I am in fact so opposed to this thinking that I will address it in a dedicated blog post, but let me be clear: abstraction and specialization are the CORRECT ways to design complex systems for common use, and I think the average user should learn as much programming as they do plumbing to fix their sink, which is to say exactly the minimum needed to keep things working for them and nothing more.)

Software that traps standard users, or invites crappy 3rd party developers to trick them is bad software.  Complexity should be abstracted away from users until normal users can reach something like the 80/20 balance – where they can get 80% of the software’s utility with 20% of a full understanding of its functioning.  For what it’s worth, that’s a really hard UX goal to reach, and I respect engineers on the front and back end enormously for the challenge they face.  But that does not mean that it is ok for Google to make it that easy for LinkedIn to email people from your email address, and it certainly does not make it ok for LinkedIn to do it!  Allocating blame is tricky here: Google is the holder of your information and manager of your identity, and so it has the final responsibility not to let spammers get access to it.  But they’ve made a tremendously powerful tool for developers available in their account API’s, and I am more upset with a social network mammoth like LinkedIn for abusing a tool like that than I am at its makers for making it available.  Exactly how you judge everyone involved is up to you, but the point is there’s something wrong.

Nailing it down: the first reason I hate LinkedIn emails so much is that they are delivered in an inherently abusive way.  They are sent through the personal email addresses of people I know, despite the fact that they are marketing emails sent from a large company.

The second reason I hate LinkedIn emails so much is that they are marketing emails for a service that I don’t use, and neither do you.  When I get a marketing email from Facebook, the odds are very good that I will intuitively understand the context surrounding it.  The emails describe an action that happened, and the people involved in that action, so that I am brought up to speed before I even click through to the website.  THIS IS A GOOD DESIGN.

Moreover, the average Facebook user is way more likely to be active than a LinkedIn user.  That means that people tend not to lurk as hard on Facebook as they do on LinkedIn.  Think about that for a second.  Sounds crazy right?  Since both companies are publicly traded, you don’t have to take my word for it:

For the quarter ending June 2013, Facebook reported 1,155,000,000 monthly active users.  Calling their original registration numbers ~ 1,300,000,000 which is generous), that means that 88% of Facebook’s users actually use the site regularly.

Compare that to LinkedIn, which claims that 170,000,000 of its 218,000,000 users logged in during the quarter ending March 2013, for a total of closer to 77%.  That number actually understates the disparity, because it just measures unique visitors.
While LinkedIn users spend an average of 8 minutes on the site daily, Facebook users hang round for over 33 minutes, or OVER HALF AN HOUR each.  In fact, LinkedIn puts this problem much better than I can:

“The number of our registered members is higher than the number of actual members and a substantial majority of our page views are generated by a minority of our members. Our business may be adversely impacted if we are unable to attract and retain additional members who actively use our services.” (source)

(traffic stats: Facebook, LinkedIn, SEC data: LinkedIn, Facebook).

The point of all this isn’t to dump on LinkedIn.  If nothing else their engineering team is absolutely amazing. The point is that they’re a company that is already starting with an unengaged userbase, which means they face a higher bar for unsolicited emails they send their users.  When LinkedIn emails me something – let alone by hijacking a user’s email address (see above) – it is not going to trigger the same easy context recall that Facebook’s or Google’s will.

People tend to intuitively sense LinkedIn’s broad-but-shallow userbase problem.  Everyone knows that everyone has a LinkedIn profile, but I challenge you to find three friends who use theirs actively.  Now try it with Facebook.  Until today I had never read the statistics I linked to above, but it just feels obvious when you read your LinkedIn mail that it isn’t being generated by eager friends trying to network.  LinkedIn should not be sending annoying emails like that.  The company is facing pressure because the average user is turned off from deep engagement.  But the way to fix that absolutely IS NOT to spam them, which makes people even more leery, and irritated with your service.  

What all of this means is that LinkedIn faces a serious challenge in a crappy environment.  I don’t envy them.  Overall, there are a small number of very good reasons for me to get rid of my account, which I’ve discussed above.  They more or less boil down to this: I find the user experience annoying and intrusive.  But the real problem with LinkedIn is not that it’s kind of annoying.  There are lots of kind of annoying services that I continue to use, and will continue to use as long as they provide me with something of value.  The real problem with LinkedIn is that it does nothing useful for me.  Nothing.  In fact, aside from generating a boatload of spam, I can’t tell how exactly LinkedIn is even supposed to impact my life.  I know I’m supposed to “network” with it, but I already “network” with Facebook, and Twitter, and beer.

Maybe some people are finding hot job leads through LinkedIn and I’m just missing the party.  That sounds facetious, but the truth is I am willing to believe that I’m just not getting the full value out of this tool.  The problem is I am not willing to put in a substantial investment in learning how to use it (like I said, 80/20) without a decent value proposition ahead of time.  I’d rather spend my time learning Javascript, or blogging.  Useful career tips or leads tend to come from real friends of mine, who I tend to interact with in person or on real social media.  LinkedIn seems just a touch too tone-deaf to be useful for building real career networks for me for now.  The fact that they operate as a borderline spam factory would be bad for any service that I wasn’t completely sold on.  The fact that it’s one struggling with bored users and a weird image makes it downright toxic.  So for now, goodbye LinkedIn, maybe we’ll connect again in the future.

———————————-

I have officially shut down my LinkedIn account.  To their credit, “closing” my account was relatively simple.  An odd coda for a pecuilar performance.  If I ever make a new account with LinkedIn, I will be sure to post my experiences.

 

Corrections:

After publishing this post on Monday a few readers took me up on my advice to:

go check your inbox for an “Invitation to connect on LinkedIn”

and called me out because I MADE A MISTAKE.  It turns out I made a technical error, and I’m extremely grateful some readers took the time to point it out, so here are corrections:

I had contended

  1. 1) that LinkedIn is engaged in a spammy practice of sending messages pretending to be from a user when in fact they are from the service itself and
  2. 2) that Google had enabled this bad behavior by making it possible to send email through users’ Gmail accounts.

The first point IS TRUE.  LinkedIn has engaged in the practice of sending users email that purports to be from other users, instead of from them.  Here is a screenshot of one such email as recently as 2012.  But it looks like LinkedIn has made the decision to move away from this route, at least for some of their emails.  This is a good thing.

As some readers pointed out, what they were doing was probably meant with good intentions, but the fact is that they were spoofing, using the same technique that spammers and phishing attacks use to trick users.  The good news is that LinkedIn is (I assume) not trying to steal anything from users.  Instead, they’re trying to sneak past your mental spam filters: when you get an email from someone you know, you’re more likely to read it than if it were from a big impersonal organization, like LinkedIn.  As far as I’m concerned then, the way they send (or apparently – sent) their emails is spammy, and should not be used by a serious organization.  This goes double for any company tha,t like LinkedIn, is literally built on the notions of professionalism and professional-communication.  It’s just wrong.  Thus, my main point remains, and I stand behind it.  With that said, I absolutely did get the technical point wrong there, and for that I apologize to anyone who I accidentally misled.

As to the second point: I have done a little more digging, and it appears that Google does not offer programmatic access to users’ email, and so as I said above, I was wrong.  But again, and this part is actually a bit more worrying, it looks like Google is still at least somewhat at fault here after all. When you spoof an email in Gmail, it usually warns the recipient about what’s happening.  So for example if I did what LinkedIn does, and sent you an email pretending to be from your own account, you’d get a big flag when you read the message, alerting you to the fact that it was not from you, that it was fraudulent.

Gmail does not raise these alerts for LinkedIn messages, which is presumably a choice Google made, to permit them to pass through as if they were real.  (If I am wrong on this point I invite anyone from Google to comment, or send me an email.)  If this is true, then it’s actually more of a problem than my original accusation.  In the post, I argued that Google had exposed users to abuse by spammy organizations like LinkedIn, but that it was an open question to me whether that was an acceptable trade-off for the amazing flexibility it gave developers.  It turns out that Google DOES NOT expose users in this particular way, and so I was wrong on the technical aspect.  But the deeper point remains, and is kind of crappy – that Google permits certain users to abuse their email system to the detriment of users.

Anyhow, read it and make a decision for yourself about whether LinkedIn is a good system to be plugged into.  I said my piece, and I stand behind it.  Next time I’ll work on getting all the moving parts more exactly correct.

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “Today I Deleted My LinkedIn Account; You Probably Should Too

  1. Pingback: I just deleted my LinkedIn, you probably should too. – IzaakNews

  2. Pingback: I just deleted my LinkedIn, you probably should too. | Rocketboom

  3. Latj

    Huh, I never noticed that about the way LinkedIn sends emails. I have them filtered out so I never see a single one and never get annoyed by them.

    Reply
  4. endophage

    Your comments on LinkedIn sending email as you are factually inaccurate. LinkedIn needs no permission from Google or anyone else to send email as you. The SMTP protocol defines 2 headers, one for marking the actual sender of the email (the “Sender”, “Reply-To” or the less supported “On-Behalf-Of” headers), and one for marking the person you are sending on behalf of (the “From” header). Frankly anyone can send email as anyone else, however it is quickly identified as spam when sent without correct certificates identifying the sender, their domain, and their server.

    So, while there may be permissions to let LinkedIn send email as you, they don’t need them. I’ve written the code to do it myself for other services (although in my case, it was a very explicit “enter your friends’ email addresses and we’ll email them on your behalf”).

    Reply
    1. aleith

      You’re missing the point. It isn’t the technical feasibility of sending emails as another user, it’s that a company as “prominent” as LinkedIn would do it. It makes them seem tactless and suspicious.

      Reply
      1. mbildner Post author

        A few readers have suggested (probably correctly) that LinkedIn is probably just setting the ‘from’ addresses arbitrarily to match the user they’re sending as. If that’s true then your point is at least partially correct, Google’s oauth enabled permissions have nothing to do with this. But that doesn’t mean Google plays no part here. When you spoof a header within gmail (ie from and to are both gmail addresses) Google typically raises a warning to let you know that the sender may be lying. Those warnings don’t get raised for LinkedIn emails, which suggests that google is letting them through when it should not be. If this is the case then google is still somewhat responsible, but again your main point stands, that this really is a LinkedIn thing and not a Google thing.

      2. endophage

        Limited comment nesting… This is in response to the author’s reply.

        GMail and other email clients will only raise a warning if the certificates for the domain the email is sent from are not in order. In GMail, if you open an email, then from the dropdown menu at the top right of the message panel (click the little triangle thing), you can select “Show original” and see the exact headers set along with various other bits of routing info.

        As I said, I’ve done this before. There is a strong use case for a site sending email as somebody else so it is well supported, as long as your certificates are in order. What you may see in GMail, if it’s done properly is something like “John Smith via @linkedin.com” although I’ve noticed this only seems to show up when you open the email, not in the inbox view.

        If you want to change how Google filter linkedin as spam, get enough people to mark linkedin emails as spam and Google will probably change the heuristics of its spam filter. However, linkedin is well known enough they can probably get Google to flip it back.

  5. Ken Johnson

    Interesting.
    The send-email-as-you issue doesn’t concern me much, I’ve disabled the admittedly VERY annoying messages from them. To address your comments that it does nothing useful for you, before a few months ago, i would have been inclined to agree. The recent addition of ‘endorsing’ skills of colleagues is an understated perk, and is, in my mind the best service LinkedIn provides. With features like this, it allows me to maintain a “living” resume that delineates the progress I’ve made professionally, as well a provide quantifiable way to be validated and validate (albeit in a small way) the skills of other colleagues.

    Reply
    1. Tom

      I actually find the new endorsement feature to be a way that LinkedIn has dreamed up to get click-throughs through wasting millions of people’s time while providing little value. People must endorse for weird reasons, because I get endorsed for skills by people who I’ve never worked with professionally. Those endorsements seem so vacuous that I find it hard to believe that they would even register a little bit on a recruiter or hiring managers’ filters for determining qualifications.

      Reply
  6. Pingback: LinkedIn is evil: Check out this article | Matt Troutman

  7. Arion

    endophage’s comment about how email works is spot on. LinkedIn isn’t doing anything shady: they’re not pretending to be you, and they’re even asking for your permission for the limited way they use your email. I interviewed there a year and a half ago (I got an offer but didn’t end up taking the job), and they seemed like a cool group of people.

    Reply
  8. pb

    This is the dumbest post I’ve read in a long while. LinkedIn doesn’t send emails out through your email account. It simply sets the From label to the sender’s name. It doesn’t even set the From email address to the sender’s as a commenter said earlier. This is actually kind of annoying because it makes it harder to locate the sender’s real email address. LinkedIn even post-pends “via LinkedIn” to many of the messages. Your argument that emails ought correlate with web site activity is the opposite. Since I visit Facebook often, there’s less reason for it to send emails. LinkedIn is the opposite. You typically visit the web site on a need-to basis. So LinkedIn emails are actually quite useful. And Facebook emails are somewhat annoying since they frequently leave out the content and instead just point you back to the web site. Lame.

    The whole post is just kind lame.

    Reply
  9. Abe

    In my opinion, not being on LinkedIn is about the worst move you can make. It’s not a perfect platform (not by a long shot) but it’s about the best thing we have for business networking. It has been an invaluable tool, personally, in my job hunting–and now independent contracting–efforts. I see LinkedIn as just one tool a professional keeps in their arsenal. Besides which, learning to use it takes very little time, and once it’s set up, it maintains itself for the most part. You only have to update it when things change in your life professional…which hopefully isn’t too frequently. Just my two cents. LinkedIn is useful for me.

    Reply
    1. blackwatertown

      I agree with Abe. (That has a good ring to it. A bit like I like Ike.)
      Perhaps you could alter your settings. I don’t get any of the annoying spam-type mail you mention. Nor (as far as I know) is my account used as a route to get at my friends.
      I won’t repeat what Abe said – but will add this. When people or companies or recruiters go online to look you up, they may keep looking until they find something. And then they may stop – happy to have carried out some background research. Would you prefer that they find your Linkedin page or, in its absence, go trawling through your Facebook or Twitter output? It wouldn’t be the end of the world in my case if they trawled through my social media output – even my blog at http://www.blackwatertown.wordpress.com – but I’d prefer they go the Linkedin version.

      Reply
  10. CsTom

    Well, of course you have all your rights to remove your digital self from LinkedIn, I’m just saying, that it was due to the wrong reasons 🙂

    ad1, as others already pointed out, the seemingly most annoying thing for you — the e-mailing stuff — is not quite as you’ve described. Eg. I am always getting e-mails from [member|connections|discussions-reply|etc]@linkedin.com address, and only the “reply-to” is set to the original contact’s e-mail address (if the person let me see it), so I can reply directly, yet the mails are correctly marked as coming from LinkedIn. I don’t see any more correct and convinient way to do this.
    From: X Y via LinkedIn
    Reply-To: X Y

    ad2, you can set the frequency of the spam in a range from “individual e-mails” to “no email at all”. You don’t need to receive “spam” if you don’t want to…

    ad3, “Useful career tips or leads tend to come from real friends of mine, who I tend to interact with in person or on real social media”
    I think I am not the only one, who divide the acquaintances to different networks. My work-related contacts goes to LinkedIn, and the “real-life”-related ones to Facebook. (There is no business for my boss to know where I drank last night, right?) But my collegues, business contacts are the ones who know how I work, what are my strengths (and weaknesses), it is more likely that a relevant job-tip is coming from that direction.

    ad4, yes there are hot job leads there. I’ve got my most recent job via LinkedIn. And yes, it did help that with the hiring manager we’ve had a common acquaintance (no ‘friend’ for either of us, ‘just’ a collegue, but we did work together a few years back, apparently with good memories left behind and thus it did pay off to have that person in the “network”.) It couldn’t have happened on Facebook, as I wouldn’t have that person in my contacts, but even then, a “far away person” (the hiring mgr) couldn’t see my “friend list” anyway.

    Ps: I don’t quite see, why LinkedIn wana be more and more “social”, while the goal of the site is supposed to be way different than twitter/faceborg. You — usually — don’t hunt job every day, so obviously most of the accounts will be “lying around” for a longer period, then used vigorously time-to-time, when the urge arrises to switch to something better. This move towards the “social” thingy led to increased amount of e-mails, which turns to be very annoying (if the default “individual e-mails” setting is left in place), and thus drives away some (excuse me) more lazy account holders (who don’t care to set the things right). So it seems to me this strategy is shooting in their own foot, but that’s an other story 🙂

    Reply
    1. CsTom

      Hah, the blogengine took away the “less than” “greater than” signs with the e-mail addresses 😐 Here, how it supposed to be — replaced by normal parentheses:
      From: X Y via LinkedIn (member@linkedin.com)
      Reply-To: X Y (x.y@gmail.com)

      Reply
  11. Matt Antonino (@mattantonino)

    When I started taking Linked In seriously I got a *record* number of great clients, job interviews and an excellent agency job that I have loved every minute of so far. So no, I’ll deal with setting a custom filter. I think you swatted a housefly with a TV.

    Reply
  12. Pingback: LinkedIn: Search Less and Less Relevant? : Stephen E. Arnold @ Beyond Search

  13. Bev Robb (@teksquisite)

    Thanks for writing this – this is not a “dumb post” and you helped me in sorting out one area = [Google permissions]. The one thing that I do pay attention to on all social media is to not give my contacts to anyone.. While scrolling through my Google account permissions I noted that http://www.linkedin.com has access to my Google contacts. [revoked now] I was floored over that one – then I noted that other sites have access to my Google contacts too = including Facebook. [revoked that too] So, now I am left wondering how this contact dilemma crept past me…

    Reply
  14. ThisIsCaitland

    I love and hate LinkedIn. I hate it for the e-mails. I hate it for the fact that jobs in my field are rarely posted. I hate it for the strangers that send connection invitations. I love it for the fact that I can stay in contact with hiring managers at places I’d potentially like to work again or as a new venture. I love it for the fact that I can connect with my deans and stay in their line of vision, which is helpful when an opportunity for advancement comes along (I work in higher ed and my deans, aka my bosses, have around 200 or more faculty members in addition to me to keep track of, so daily interaction is not something that happens). I love it for the forums that allow the opportunity to discuss pedagogy and work related matters with a broad community. LinkedIn has its ups and downs, but it really depends on how you use it.

    Reply
  15. Nicky Castermans

    It does seem to me that you just aren’t using LinkedIn for what it can potentially be used. A lower activity seems fairly logical to me because people are not job-hopping at the same pace as Facebook users are taking pictures of their kids or crazy cats. A lower member count seems reasonable because we are talking about professionals with a special interest in the internet, social media and jobs that have a hint of IT/computer use. You have to be honest about this and conclude that your average FB user is not by default someone that belongs to this particular group of people. Someone who works in construction is not going to find a new job through LinkedIn fast, because usually those companies themselves have no presence on LinkedIn.

    For me, I like that LinkedIn provides me with a way to just keep an eye out on opportunities that are out there. Be it from new recruiters that are browsing the LinkedIn database in search of professionals by specific keywords, or friends in my direct network that are advertising a new job opening on behalf of their current employer. I’ve had a couple of interviews arranged through LinkedIn before and am bound to have many more in my future. Oh, and endorsements do help. (yes even the ones from people that might actually have no idea how good you are at that specific skill)

    Reply
    1. mbildner Post author

      One thing that’s fascinated me is a number of people have reported since I published this post that they’ve gotten good results with LinkedIn. I’ll address this more fully in a follow up piece, but for now I just want to say, if you use it and it works for you then great! I recommend people switch out because I don’t like their communications practices and because I had never until this post heard any success stories from users.

      If you don’t mind the way they operate, and more importantly if you’re getting good results out of it then by all means stick with it and keep making it happen!

      Reply
      1. CsTom

        “I don’t like their communications practices”
        Yep, but the presumption was false, they’re not communicating in a way as you’ve described in your post (= sending e-mails in your/your friends name) and that was the main reason you’ve left. So you’ve left due to… I don’t know 🙂 but certainly not because they have falsified emails (since they don’t)…

      2. mbildner Post author

        Yes and no – I was wrong about how they were doing it but they absolutely were sending email as if it were from users, see here for a screenshot:

        http://imgur.com/fapPDhZ

        Where I was wrong is that I had assumed they were using a google provided API for the gmail users (which I would have realized was not what was happening if I had taken that screenshot earlier 😉 ), instead they’re just changing the email headers (spoofing) which as far as I’m concerned is actually worse. It’s the same tool essentially as spammers and phishers use to to trick you. Now, I have heard feedback from some users that they are ok with this system, and that some even prefer it. I am very clear on this point though, LinkedIn is a huge company that is literally built around the notion of professionalism, and they have a high bar for honesty and transparency when addressing their users. Spoofing email headers to make them appear as if they are sent from a user when in fact they are sent from LinkedIn fails to meet this bar, and is therefore bad practice.

        Google’s responsibility here is what gets murky, because they appear to be letting LinkedIn get away with shady use where they really should be alerting users about what’s going on (and which they usually do in cases like this). But I’m still very disappointed in the way LinkedIn manages this.

      3. CsTom

        Hmm, interesting, how they seem to work. (sorry it will be a bit technical, but still.)
        When someone tries to connect with me, I am geting e-mail from member@linkedin.com, and even the subject is different: “CsTom, please add me to your LinkedIn network” (versus your “Invitation to connect on Linkedin”)
        Now I’ve checked my archive and indeed there are a few “Invitation to connect” messages last year (what’s the difference? I don’t know, maybe they have evolved, new release and stuff like that 😛 ). But even those were coming from messages-noreply@bounce.linkedin.com.
        These in Outlook look like as “From: messages-noreply@bounce.linkedin.com; on behalf of: X Y (XY@gmail.com)” I don’t know how they look like on Gmail I haven’t save these mails there. But the last such mail was from 2012 March, even Your example is in that range. In 2012 April (and ever since) I am getting these “From: messages-noreply@bounce.linkedin.com; on behalf of; X Y via LinkedIn (member@linkedin.com)” {notice that both the sender and the “behalf of” are linkedin addresses…}

        So again, it seems to me that the behaviour you’ve described and loathed was either a temporary glimpse last year or by design, I don’t know; but apparently they don’t do it ever since (at least not for me). Then one and a half year later(!) you just wake up and spank them for it? 🙂

      4. CsTom

        Hi Moshe, I am happy that you made some corrections, thanks. Please send me an e-mail (you see it with the comment on the admin site), I’d like to show you some interesting examples, but I don’t like to further spam your blog comments 🙂
        Cheers!

      5. mbildner Post author

        Hi sorry for the delay with this – I switched gears and haven’t been paying great attention to the blog, what’s up?

  16. Tudor Rickards

    I have had similar misery from linked In, and was planning to blog, not so much about the email, but the difficulties in changing to my organization’s new email address. When i was eventually successful all the old Links had vanished somewhere. This week I received an invitation to become linked in to myself….I am intermittently able to accept new links, more often some service denial message.

    Reply
  17. Pingback: URL

  18. Trisha

    Blah blah blah…all I know is Libkedin has done nothing for me and bores me and I am basically deleting it becos I believe all the asshole scumbag scammer nigerians/not nigerians are finding people on linked in to msg to facebook and the idiots always have same story. Pic of a wh man and child and his a widow and he from UK and his life so tragic and the dumbass supposedly born white english ma can’t even speak english, so hell yeah I wanna del linkedin.
    I’m techno-challenged so all the PC jargon aint my thing,
    but its time to say Adios to linkedin! (Yes I’m a poet)

    Reply
  19. Angel

    The emails don’t bother me. I just change the filters/settings and don’t receive anything.

    THAT BEING SAID, Frankly I don’t like the fact that anonymous users can view your profile at any time, even as a paid member. What’s the point of someone lurking on my PAID profile other than to be nosy? Let’s see, I give you all of this information and PAY for an upgrade and I don’t even have the option to hide MY profile from anonymous or specific people? Heck, even the Old Monster allows those kinds of options. For example, Facebook, while more of a “social” media platform (not as business-oritented)… it does give the option to hide your profile in varying aspects. Currently nor has there ever been the option, to hide your LinkedIn profile and force people to connect with you FIRST before they see all of your information. You may say, oh, if you are looking for a job, you want people to see your information DUH! Not so fast, there are quite a few of us on LinkedIn who really aren’t looking for a job. We jumped on the bandwagon because it seemed like a decent/new platform years ago, especially for entrepreneurs. Wonderful news for those of you who have found jobs or leads on here but I personally have not (I don’t wanna even discuss the ridiculous prices for posting ONE job on LinkedIn!!!!!!!!!) and I have found when I was searching for specific people to perform jobs (I own a VERY small business), half of them didn’t read their emails in a timely fashion so I’m assuming they don’t visit that often anyhow.

    LIKE ANY OTHER PAID SERVICE, premium accounts should have the flexibility to turn on/off ability for anonymous members to view their profile. Just like Pandora, you can listen but you will get ads every 5 songs. Don’t like it, pay for the service and we will turn it off. Seems reasonable. But somehow LinkedIn doesn’t get it. Their paid service feature is a flat out joke. For these types of reasons and more, I’m highly tempted to get rid of the account altogether.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s