LinkedIn: Search Less and Less Relevant?
September 24, 2013
I read “Today I Deleted My LinkedIn Account”. One of the goslings handles my LinkedIn account. If a comment is required, the gosling alerts me. One of the researchers snags relevant material and crafts either questions or a statement based on my previously published writings. One research librarian filters requests to be my “friend.” The policy is to ask, “When and where did we meet?” For the most part, the system works, but the information flowing through LinkedIn is not directly relevant to the work we do. Like any social media service, the process helps prevent abuses. We did experience a script kiddy who routed our tweets of articles in this blog and our other online publications through Miley Cyrus’ account. When I looked at what the clever teen had done, I learned a great deal about Ms. Cyrus. Great parenting at work I suppose.
The main point of the “Today I Deleted” write up is that LinkedIn is annoying to the author of the write up. I sympathize with folks who are annoyed at online information services today. The good old days of paying to access File 15 on Dialog are long gone. The hassles were mostly the cost of information and the silliness of the dial up terminal with bunny rabbit ears. I bet you don’t know what bunny rabbit ears are, do you?
The numbers the author presents are astounding. LinkedIn, according to the write up, has 225 million “members.” I am not sure how many are like me, operating through research professionals who are paid to ride herd on social interactions. I am not sure how many are human resource professionals looking to make a buck by referring a person whom the HR professional does not know to a company about which the HR professionals knows only a bit more.
I surmise that the majority of the 225 million are people looking for:
- Work
- Human contact albeit digitally intermediated
- Information about something that will yield money, power, or prestige
- A way to kill time whilst “looking at potentially high value content”
- Horn tooting.
The write up focuses on what LinkedIn does to a particular user. For example, LinkedIn emails are annoying. A more interesting aspect of LinkedIn surfaces in this statement:
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).
You should read the original post.
What struck me is that search or finding information within LinkedIn is not mentioned as an issue. LinkedIn hired a Googler to supplement their open source search team. I find that looking for content using the LinkedIn search box is a very interesting process. A direct query leads to the request to log in. (I call the gosling to find out what my user name and password are.) Once logged in, I am asked to upgrade to a paying service. I ignore that and go to third party search systems.
I can access some interesting LinkedIn information using the services which I highlight in my ISS World lecture this week. It appears that some LinkedIn information is indexed by third party services. A click on a link from some of these third party services displays the person’s profile. In some cases, I can view the people in some way “related” the the person about whom I seek information. I find this interesting because I have not been able to answer these questions:
- What services index LinkedIn content?
- How much information is available to third party services either via the LinkedIn tools, deals, or just clever spidering?
- What are the constraints on the use of the LinkedIn data within the third party indexes?
It makes sense to me that LinkedIn would want some of its content in various third party indexes. Because LinkedIn’s search function is unsatisfactory for my purposes, I find the third party approach more helpful to me.
What annoys me about LinkedIn is not its play to make lots of money. I don’t care too much about spam which is easily filtered. I don’t care a whit about the ego centric nature of the system.
I care about search, and I sure hope that LinkedIn improves its search system and I hope it makes explicit what services index LinkedIn content with or without explicit permission.
But saying, doing, and appearing are very different things in today’s challenging business environment. I may get a gosling to look into third party indexing of LinkedIn. For now, I boil down much of an online system’s value to search. For me, that’s the key function. LinkedIn, like other social media systems, wants to focus on other features. Too bad. I think that part of the value of LinkedIn is its content, however flawed. Access would urge me to pay more attention to a service fueled by financial need/desperation, professional branding/visibility, and sales/marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, September 24, 2013
Bing Offers Users a New Product Search
September 17, 2013
Microsoft’s version of search tries to remain competitive with Google, but lately it has been in the shadows compared to the new Google Glass and practically everything else the search giant does. Bing, however, had made the news again according to Search Engine Watch with the headline: “New Bing Product Search Launches.” The Bing team has decided to integrate shopping results into regular search results so users can see product features, specifications, reviews, related products, and make some more dough from those who pay to have their Web sites driven to the top.
Bing has also change the dashboard to feature three columns to display the shopping results:
· “The larger column will contain the main search results with the familiar blue links.
· The second column contains the Snapshot information complete with image, overview information, reviews related searches and paid ads.
· The third column is the Bing Social Sidebar, when users are signed in. The Social Sidebar adds information from Facebook, Klout and other social networks to help searchers make decisions based on friend or industry-leader recommendations.”
Bing denies that its new search is not pay-to-play and the results will not be skewed in favor of one Web site over another. Do we believe it? Who knows what goes on behind company doors? Paid ads will still appear in new shopping results and there is a new product ad option called Rich Captions for advertisers to add a meta description into search results. And there is the new way to make money. The new product feature has not launched yet, Bing is still tweaking the bugs.
Whitney Grace, September 17, 2013
Follow more happenings at OpenSourceSearch
The Rivals Face Off In The Search Ring
September 16, 2013
Here we go again with Facebook and Google. The two big IT rivals have been vying for control of the Internet for years and Yahoo Small Business Advisor informs us that another face off is coming in the article, “Graph Search Vs. Google.” Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has already changed the way people communicate, but now he wants to change how people search. Instead of relying on basic content results, like Google, Zuckerberg wants Facebook’s Graph Search to return results based on its users friends and their likes. Google CEO Larry Page does not think his company and Facebook need to be rivals, but user speculation cannot help but compare the two and the article lists some of the problems Graph Search face.
There are “dirty likes,” which are likes for a business not based on it genuinely being liked but because of incentives it gives users. Also Graph Search will not be helpful to users who have too little or too many friends, because the results could be too big or too broad. The usual privacy concerns are noted and mobile search still has its limitations.
Here is another big factor that users will like:
“And here’s the thing: Google’s social network does not use ads, letting users see only what they want to see. Since G+ users don’t face the same pressure that leads to “dirty likes,” their circles are more likely to reflect their own personal interests. So even though Facebook has a much larger user base than Google+, the latter gives users a more personal experience. Plus, the fact that a person can access Gmail, Drive, and YouTube, all on the same website, while also finding personalized search results thanks to G+, is nothing to sneeze at, either.”
I am not looking forward to the news feed for the next few months as Graph Search comes out of its infancy. The true comparisons can only begin at that time, but then so will the rants and raves.
Whitney Grace, September 16, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Beyond Search
Top New Social Sites and Why Facebook is no Longer Hot
September 16, 2013
According to the recent MakeUseof.com article “Facebook Usage is Changing – So Which Online Social Activities are Growing?” Facebook is quickly becoming a thing of the past. Instead of utilizing social networks that are tied to their real-life identity, today’s teens are flocking towards other networks that allow them to use pseudonyms and avatars.
Some of the hot new social sites that are taking the world by storm are: Tumblr, Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, and (of course) Twitter.
The article explains why Twitter was included in the list, and how it differentiates itself from Facebook:
“There’s some evidence that Twitter is becoming more popular, with usage among teens doubling in the past year. Twitter might seem a bit stuffy, like one of the established social networks, but it has much in common with some of the upstarts. Unlike Facebook, Twitter doesn’t demand your real name — you can use anything you like as your Twitter handle. You can then engage publicly with other people about topics of interest or set your Twitter account to private and have your tweets visible only to your friends, although most Twitter usage is public. You don’t even have to send your own tweets — you can follow other accounts and just view them.”
As with everything in technology, what’s cutting edge today is inevitably going to be old news tomorrow. With this in mind, its no surprise that Facebook is losing its momentum. I wonder if they, like Twitter, will find new ways to stay relevant.
Jasmine Ashton, September 16, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Beyond Search
Avoid Being Red Queened: How to Run Ahead of Social Media Competition
September 10, 2013
The article Using Social Analytics and BI to be a Smarter Social Business on Don’t Mind Rick builds an elaborate metaphor between Social Analytics and Alice in Wonderland. The Red Queen Effect, as the article discusses, refers to those companies that are simply running to keep in the same place. The article encourages companies to avoid this.
“If you are using Social Media data just for history based predictions you are doing yourself a disservice. You now can know what your customer is thinking since they share their thoughts on social media. What your customer is doing, since they share their activities on social media. And you can know what your customer wants, since he is also sharing this on social media”
Of course, this dredges up the inevitable fear of being creepy. For example, Target sending out catalogues to a pregnant woman based on purchase patterns before the woman even told her family. The article also brings up the buzzword web care, or companies responding mainly to negative feedback on social media. Instead of this, the article suggests allowing trial runs of products, since what is a better test of whether you like something than trying it out yourself? At the least, the article is a remarkable collection of social media and business buzzwords.
Chelsea Kerwin, September 10, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Attensity: Pumping Up Effort in Europe?
September 7, 2013
“Steinbrück gewinnt TV-Duell im Netz haushoch” reported that Attensity identified more negative answers in a televised debate. Who were the debaters? Angela Merkel and Peer Steinbrrück. Like many US political debates, the Wirtschafts Woche report suggested there was no clear winner.
What I find interesting is that Attensity is using its methods to analyze political debates in Germany as a marketing tactic. I just returned from Europe, and I formed the opinion that the economy of Germany and a some other large European countries was not exactly in turbo-charge mode.
Will Attensity close deals with this approach to marketing? I don’t know, but if Attensity does book some big deals with data analysis, I anticipate a rush of me-too efforts.
Unfortunately, the analyses by Attensity and others are only able to support the no clear winner conclusion. Is this a common problem of next generation analytics programs?
I address some of these issues in my ISS lecture in late September. See the ISS program for more information.
LinkedIn: Content but Lost?
September 6, 2013
I read “All LinkedIn with Nowhere to Go.” The write up discusses the “glorified résumé distribution service.” I am not looking for a job. As I race towards 70 years of age, I just don’t have the stamina to keep up with the wheel reinventing younger wizards. However, lots of people do use LinkedIn. I know because I get invitations to connect with folks whom I don’t know. I also get endorsement about skills which surprise me. After working at Booz, Allen & Hamilton, I have seen some spectacular résumés only loosely anchored in reality.
The author of the write up states:
This frenetic networking-by-vague-association has bred a mordant skepticism among some users of the site. Scott Monty, head of social media for the Ford Motor Company, includes a disclaimer in the first line of his LinkedIn bio that, in any other context, would be a hilarious redundancy: “Note: I make connections only with people whom I have met.” It’s an Escher staircase masquerading as a career ladder.
And this from Ford whose in car automation system is almost as amazing as some of the LinkedIn services.
The article tackles “influencers” on LinkedIn as well:
Still, there’s a distinctly perfunctory quality to the offerings of the charmed circle of “influencers.” They often simply repost things on LinkedIn that they’ve written (or had ghostwritten, in some cases) for their personal sites. Their advice—on LinkedIn, “thoughts” almost always equal “advice”—ranges from the semi practical (embrace three digital media trends; get all of your employees on social media) to the lofty (be on a mission that doesn’t suck; search for a noble purpose) to the downright confusing (how to create time; how do careers really work?). The worst of the bunch reads like management-speak Mad Libs, such as this bit of gobbledygook about the career success ladder: “Failure to make a decision is often worse than making the wrong one. This ability is developed and honed over time based on both successes and failures,” writes one thought leader, who includes a complicated chart that is in no way ladder-like. Cue the vacuous, grammar-challenged sloganeering: “High-level thinking, problem-solving and critical decision-making is the cornerstone of long-term success.”
Then there is the notion of “thought leadership.” The author asserts:
Thanks to such fast-and-louche appropriations of the mantle of thought leadership, even its apostles are denouncing the fast-multiplying apostasies that dilute the essence of the one true faith. “In only 15 years we’ve managed to dumb down the idea of thought leadership from someone who has changed their area of business to someone who can create a marketing plan that implants the idea that they are a thought leader,” wrote sales guru Paul McCord in 2009. “When everybody’s one, nobody is one.”
Okay. I do want to point out a couple of characteristics I have noticed about LinkedIn.
First, I get spam of various sorts. The most egregious comes from recruiters who view me as a candidate for a job. Yo, recruiters! What part of my being almost 70 and residing in rural Kentucky is unknown to you? I know that LinkedIn is selling my email to these folks who just spam away. Profitable? Probably. Annoying? You bet.
Second, LinkedIn owns Slideshare. I don’t see much integration of the content on LinkedIn with the content on Slideshare. For example, the person who manages my LinkedIn presence posts the titles of my for-fee articles. We do this to see if any LinkedIn users follow up. Since we added this “content” a couple of years ago, we have received exactly zero inquiries about a full text copy. Furthermore, the input form for the content does not make it possible to list the articles in reverse chronological order. Careless? Nah. I think LinkedIn is just snagging content in the hopes that it will be useful in the future. But why not integrate the content from the two services so a person could snap between the two services, find related content, or better yet, find other LinkedIn folks who have written about a related topic? On a related note, we learned yesterday that for certain queries from behind our firewall, Slideshare would not process the query. We solved the problem by using a different Internet service and registering for a new account. Filtering? Sure seems like it to the law librarian and professional tech journalist who watched the LinkedIn system block my queries. Anomaly? Sure, why not say that?
Third, I find the entire idea of sending me emails from folks I don’t know interesting. The purpose is to get me to click a link and then try to figure out how to get past the different messages displayed to me. I usually just delete the LinkedIn emails. Too much hassle. I wonder if the youngsters whom LinkedIn is now chasing as “members” will get into the LinkedIn swimming pool. Even Facebook is less annoying says the gosling who manages my LinkedIn account.
Fourth, the content in the groups is pretty darned amazing. I see folks asking questions which can be answered via a Google or Yandex query. More interesting are the long dissertations about some topics by folks who want to show off their knowledge. I have instructed the analyst who looks at the LinkedIn content to post only questions in response to the most wacky write ups. Remarkably some people try to answer my questions. Fascinating and usually uninformed are the “answers.”
With LinkedIn chasing more money via a stock offering, I look forward to more bobbing and ducking. See “Linked In Cashing In: Social Network to Raise $1 B in Share Offering as Stock Flies High.”
In the meantime, LinkedIn will continue to make my “pulse” beat more rapidly. (See “LinkedIn’s Acquisitions of Pulse Promotes Role of Game Changer.” Wait, wait. I meant make my pulse beat more “vapidly.”
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2013
Best Social Monitoring Tool Depends on Who Is Asking
August 28, 2013
Confused about social media monitoring? A thread at Quora, “Which Are the Best Social Media Monitoring Tools?” suggests that like search, social media monitoring is pretty tricky. The overall consensus statement makes it clear there is no simple answer: “No overall best tool. Pick the best fit for your needs.” Hmm.
Several respondents share their thoughts. One had compared Radian6 and Sysomos, and found the latter much easier to use. Another liked Engagor for its low price point. Perhaps the most comprehensive (though admittedly promotional) answer comes from Web Liquid account executive Ben Semmar, who shares:
“[. . .] Over the past couple of months, I’ve been involved in the creation of a Social Media Monitoring Buyer’s Guide. We began with a list of over 40 vendors, and based on a variety of criteria, whittled it down to a list five ‘finalists’ that we then conducted hands-on trials with. We found that some tools perform better than other tools in certain areas (but, really, doesn’t everything?) and so we don’t proclaim one tool king of them all; suffice it to say, though, that the five tools we tested are, based on our experience with and objective evaluation of the market, the best out there. You can find the study here: http://www.webliquidgroup.com/social-media-monitoring-tool-buyers-guide.”
Note that the guide he mentions is free, but requires a name and email address to view. Semmar goes on to assert one important caveat: We have not reached the point where algorithms can make reliable judgments about which insights a business should focus on, and how to use them. Though quality monitoring software can be a useful tool, the human mind is still required to wield it. (For now.)
Cynthia Murrell, August 28, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
Text Analytics and Semantic Processing Fuel New Web Paradigm
August 27, 2013
Often, we look more specifically at various apps and applications that address search needs. Sometimes, it is refreshing to find articles that take a step back and look at the overall paradigm shifts guiding the feature updates and new technology releases flooding the media. Forbes reports on the big picture in “NetAppVoice: How The Semantic Web Changes Everything. Again!”
Evolving out of the last big buzz word, big data, semantic Web is now ubiquitous. Starting at the beginning, the article explains what semantic search allows people to do. A user can search for terms that retrieve results that go beyond keywords–through metadata and other semantic technologies associations between related concepts are created.
According to the article hyperconnectivity is the goal for promised meaningful insights to be delivered through semantic search:
For example, if we could somehow acquire all of the world’s knowledge, it wouldn’t make us smarter. It would just make us more knowledgeable. That’s exactly how search worked before semantics came along. In order for us to become smarter, we somehow need to understand the meaning of information. To do that we need to be able to forge connections in all this data, to see how each piece of knowledge relates to every other. In the semantic Web, we users provide the connections, through our social media activity. The patterns that emerge, the sentiment in the interactions—comments, shares, tweets, Likes, etc.—allow a very precise, detailed picture to emerge.
Enterprise organizations are in a unique position to achieve this hyperconnectivity and they also have a growing list of technological solutions to help break down silos and promote safe and secure data access to appropriate users. For example, text analytics and semantic processing for Cogito Intelligence API enhances the ability to decipher meaning and insights from a multitude of content sources including social media and unstructured corporate data.
Megan Feil, August 27, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Beyond Search
Companies Now Able to Purchase Ad Space on LinkedIn
August 24, 2013
The article LinkedIn Selling More Marketing Content Into Users’ Feeds on ComputerWorld states that LinkedIn, the professionals social networking site, has recently introduced “sponsored updates”. Companies are now able to purchase ad space that will appear on LinkedIn user feeds. Users have the choice of liking, ignoring, sharing or commenting on the posts. The article explains,
“The aim of the sponsored updates program is to let businesses engage select communities of LinkedIn members with useful information that can come in the form of an article, blog post, video or presentation, LinkedIn said. Marketers will be able to target any segment of the site’s 225 million members based on professional profile data… There are currently more than 3 million company pages on LinkedIn.”
Of course this is a common enough resource for social sites including Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr. These sites have largely dismissed the risk of annoying the users with these ads. LinkedIn will have the ability to control who gets what ads, and keep them relevant to the users based on their jobs or interests. For the past six months LinkedIn has been testing the step with such companies as Nissan and Xerox. Soon, any business with a company page will be able to buy sponsored updates, which will be clearly marked.
Chelsea Kerwin, August 24, 2013
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
