Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Keith D. Halperin on January 9, 2014 at 2:29pm

IMHO, similar to Microsoft in the '90s, LinkedIn will do anything it can to stop anything that it thinks will weaken it's dominant position.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daren J. Mongello on January 9, 2014 at 5:19pm

Nameless defendants?  Seems odd.
 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Spagnola on January 9, 2014 at 5:56pm

@Keith - great comparison. 

@Daren - I completely agree. Very odd.

I appreciate you both commenting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Ferrante on January 14, 2014 at 12:31pm

It seems like they are grasping at straws.  The problem is they are starting to look desperate.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith D. Halperin on January 14, 2014 at 2:19pm

@ Tim. Thanks.

@ Linda: As long as the money keeps rolling in, the stock goes up, and WE HAVE NO REAL ALTERNATIVES, they don't really care how they look.

-kh

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daren J. Mongello on January 14, 2014 at 3:11pm

Keith...

I am not sure I understand  WE HAVE NO REAL ALTERNATIVES.
There are plenty, depending on what you're sourcing for. 

You can do searches for free within Google. 
I dont use LinkedIn unless a client pays for the LIR seat. 

And here's the thing....this law suit is about FAKE profiles.
Fake profiles are useless unless they make connections. This is where you can stop them. 
Allow your users to flag fake profiles (easy to spot) and you will eliminate many of them. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith D. Halperin on January 14, 2014 at 3:33pm

@ Daren: If there are many viable alternatives, then why aren't major clients cancelling  their LIR in droves If they were, I think we'd start to hear about it after a while), and why do we so often talk about what LI does? I never pay for the LIR seat either, but I can still complain about how they squeeze the folks that do.

Whether or not this particular lawsuit has merit, it's another example of LI's ongoing effort to use a very heavy hand in establishing and maintaining its market dominance and limiting what we recruiters want to use it for.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daren J. Mongello on January 14, 2014 at 4:00pm

@keith:  you're drawing a conclusion based on the absence of evidence. Just because major clients arent fleeing does not mean alternatives dont exist. And it doesnt mean clients are bound to LinkedIn exclusively. Many clients employ more that one approach to sourcing. TalentBin, Entelo, Gild, Facebook, Google+ and Quora are all making inroads. 

This space will continue to grow and viable alternatives are popping up all the time, especially when it is becoming so easy to create social profiles.

As far as the lawsuit....whats the issue? LI is protecting the integrity of their database from being filled with phony profiles. Who wouldn't want them to do that? Do you want to spend money on Inmails to phony profiles?

Probably not....as they dont interview very well. :) 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith D. Halperin on January 14, 2014 at 8:26pm

"@ Daren: "you're drawing a conclusion based on the absence of evidence." A valid argument: Absence of evidence, isn't...."

At the same time, I like to think that while I don't have my finger on the pulse of leading-edge recruiting technology by any definition, I'm not completely isolated and ignorant of what's going on in that area. (After all, I read RBC!) I think if there were SOMETHING like a LI-killer starting to come around, I would have heard at least rumors of it, and if not me, somebody like Matt who does have his fingers on the pulse (or around the neck) of leading edge recruiting tech almost certainly would have heard.

I’ve used a couple of those that you've mentioned, and one in particular would be a good substitute for LIR IF ALL YOU NEEDED WERE SWES- it costs about as much as a LIR seat. I still haven’t seen something that has hundreds of millions of  various types of (business-oriented) profiles easily accessible in one place. (I also use Boolean Google searches and boards.)

 

“What's the issue?” As I said earlier, the suit may be completely full of merit- that's not my concern here. Some of MS suits had merit, too.

 

"Do you want to spend money on InMails to phony profiles?" WE ALREADY DO, and with the complete backing of LI:

Whenever I reach out to someone, I look to see if they are open to an opportunity based on their status. (I don't reach out to them if they've indicated they're NOT open.) However,* THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO SAY THEY ARE OPEN, REALLY AREN'T. Why not? Because you have to "opt out" of that (and perhaps other ) categories- if you don't it shows you're open/interested. Consequently, I spend much of my time and companies' InMail credits on people who:

1) Aren't going to get back to me to say they're not interested (in anything, not just my particular position) or

2) Do get back to me to say they're not interested and use up my company's InMail credits.

 

 

Cheers,

Keith

 

*Based on my experience of sending THOUSANDS of InMails out over time. Your results may vary. Void where prohibited.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daren J. Mongello on January 14, 2014 at 10:40pm

@Keith

If EVERYONE is using LinkedIn, what advantage are you creating by using it too?

Regardless of what type of recruiter you are...there ARE better tools out there than LinkedIn (in its present form), you just have to find and use them.  

Best,
DJM

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion