On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 09:20:00 -0400, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 9/29/2015 9:02 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:05:43 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 8:58:23 PM UTC-7, slow eddy, a lifelong loser and fraud, lied:

slow eddy lies snipped

Nothing to respond to.

...Bonkers strikes out again...



Give Jon credit! I don't know of anybody else who finds any value in
Linkadink.

It's great for salesmen to sell to each other and to blow smoke up
each other's butts. If you're a strategic marketer, you can make some
hay with it, and you can knock your competition without being seen as
a jerk. People use it to blow off steam while appearing to be civil.
And it's good for job seekers, if you have some credentials.

But the numbers are kind of misleading. Some groups have huge numbers
of "members." Harvard Business Review, an academic business
publication, has over 1,000,000 "members" on LinkedIn. But the entire
magazine circulation is only 250,000. And the amount of activity shows
that only a miniscule fraction of those "members" are engaged in
conversation.

Even the very specialized groups often have a lot of "members." I
check in with a couple in the fabricating/laser fields, and the
numbers are a lot bigger than Bonkers'. But few of them really have
much activity. People seem to check in, and most of them move on after
taking a look. They tend to have a small core of talkers -- like RCM,
sort of. There are over 1,200,000 LinkedIn "groups," which spreads the
jam pretty thin.

So we aren't doing much with it ourselves. I keep a very low profile
because I have no reason to stir up conversation. I just keep an eye
on it.

--
Ed Huntress