Post by account_disabled on Dec 24, 2023 9:24:45 GMT
Overall, people are pretty honest when they list their skills, but there's no way of knowing how good they are at the skills they highlight. This is a mistake I see often. Many candidates fixate on the number of recommendations they have, when the real issue is the chosen skills. But LinkedIn doesn't know if you're good at what you do Ask recruiters what they don't like about LinkedIn, and many will tell you that it's extremely difficult to determine which candidates are a match for their profiles. LinkedIn could develop a reputation graph on top of its connections graph. LinkedIn knows who has worked with you and these people could validate your know-how. Unfortunately, neither of these 2 products gives a useful sign of reputation.
The recommendations are rare and empty and most of the time they mainly tell you that the Email Data person who has a recommendation was not afraid to ask for it. As for endorsements, LinkedIn pushed quantity over quality, leading hairstylists to endorse their clients for Java. This weakness is an opportunity for a new entrant A new company couldn't fight LinkedIn on quantity. It should actually target LinkedIn's weak point directly by giving a reliable signal of what people are good at. This would be a real serious alternative to LinkedIn instead of fighting for a smaller database. Opportunity 1: Assess people’s skills There are quality signals in LinkedIn, but they are quite crude. Employers look at school, previous employers, but it's raw and biased data. Employers rely on interviews to assess a candidate's skills.
It’s a costly process and one that includes many biases. Candidates shouldn't have to prove their skills to every company that meets them. They should have relevant skills validated by a third party and include those assessments in something that resembles a LinkedIn profile. Why isn't LinkedIn adding this review feature? The problem is that LinkedIn already has half a billion profiles. Even if LinkedIn persuaded millions of users to obtain these ratings, coverage would only be partial. LinkedIn would also risk penalizing the vast majority of members with unevaluated profiles. On the other hand, a new company could create a critical mass of evaluated profiles. It could target profiles that do not have the school or employer brand that attracts masses of recruiters. And, no need to manage the evaluations itself.
The recommendations are rare and empty and most of the time they mainly tell you that the Email Data person who has a recommendation was not afraid to ask for it. As for endorsements, LinkedIn pushed quantity over quality, leading hairstylists to endorse their clients for Java. This weakness is an opportunity for a new entrant A new company couldn't fight LinkedIn on quantity. It should actually target LinkedIn's weak point directly by giving a reliable signal of what people are good at. This would be a real serious alternative to LinkedIn instead of fighting for a smaller database. Opportunity 1: Assess people’s skills There are quality signals in LinkedIn, but they are quite crude. Employers look at school, previous employers, but it's raw and biased data. Employers rely on interviews to assess a candidate's skills.
It’s a costly process and one that includes many biases. Candidates shouldn't have to prove their skills to every company that meets them. They should have relevant skills validated by a third party and include those assessments in something that resembles a LinkedIn profile. Why isn't LinkedIn adding this review feature? The problem is that LinkedIn already has half a billion profiles. Even if LinkedIn persuaded millions of users to obtain these ratings, coverage would only be partial. LinkedIn would also risk penalizing the vast majority of members with unevaluated profiles. On the other hand, a new company could create a critical mass of evaluated profiles. It could target profiles that do not have the school or employer brand that attracts masses of recruiters. And, no need to manage the evaluations itself.