« Bank Rant Update | Main | Russell Moves Blog »
June 24, 2005
The Value of Online Social Networks
For many people, size does matter. In the context of social networks like LinkedIn and OpenBC, some individuals will boast a huge number of 1st degree contacts. The more, the better.
As far as I can remember, I think that 150 is the maximum number of an individuals manageable "personal sphere", as it were. As for social networks, maybe 150 is a watershed number. I'll happily believe that those are real and good quality contacts. If this individual were my 1st degree contact, I'd willingly go through him to introduce me to one of his contacts.
But what about someone with 3,000 contacts? Hear this:
I have over 3,000 direct connections and reach 2 million LinkedIn Executives and professionals. If we connect, both of our networks will grow. To add me as your connection, just follow the link below.
Which is an invitation I got through LinkedIn. I have no interest whatsoever in connecting to this individual, simply because I don't think that he really knows most of these 3,000 people that well. I might as well google the "target" and save myself the stress of going through this person. And I am completely positive none of the two million executives stated above will attach any or much importance to this referrer.
So, whilst some people might be impressed by sheer number of contacts - and let themselves be added to the list - it is valid to question whether such "connected" people actually don't water down the social network model.
As for this specific invitation, it does feel like spam to me (let me stress "feels like" again, because technically it is OK). This is the introduction to the invitation I received:
Hello. I had forwarded one of your requests. Since we have mutual connections, let's make it direct! I'd be happy to offer you the reach of my network.
This might be bollocks, or not. Presumably the sender spends all his time sending out such invitations and therefore has no time to actually write down which of my requests was forwarded. If he'd done that, I'd be more inclined to trust him.
Martin Röll went through the same experience. Here's the invitation he received:
7000+ connections in private equity and venture capital weighted towards communications, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, IT, business to business services, media, and internet sectors
Whether 3,000 or 7,000, it's the same. At least my invitation didn't include links to "Cheater's guide to LinkedIn" and "Right-Sizing your LinkedIn neetwork". Martin's did. These links sort of validate my point about the (non-)value of such connections.
As for LinkedIn, I have primarily used it to reconnect or stay in touch with business acquaintances. I haven't used i to get hold of certain individuals - especially not if there is a 3000+ node in between.
Posted by Irakli at June 24, 2005 01:53 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rakeman.net/mt-tb.cgi/564
Comments
I believe the Right-sizing post addresses your concerns. LinkedIn is an application which is driven by connections NOT your currently active network (CAN). Quality is a property of your relationship with your CAN (the actually 150 to 200 people you can actually have a quality relationship with) and with people in your FAn (your formerly active network -- these where all part of your CAN at one time)
So quality has nothing to do with linkedin ... quality is how you treat your relationships and this is not the problem LinkedIn address -- which is why it is not a social network but an application.
Large numbers of Linkedin Connections are usually a composite of your PANs (potentially active) and FANs (formerly active) with only a few CANs thrown it. LinkedIn is very effective tool for reminding you about and leveraging formerly active and allows new potentially active contacts.
Scott Allen and I both agree that how you construct your LinkedIn connections depends on your objectives.
For me it's really whether or not you what to be found or need to find. In either case, having a few super-nodes in you list of contacts helps with LinkedIn searcch engine performance (ie reach) ... but has not real effect on quality.
As I VC, I need to be found but rarely do I go Prospecting on LinkedIN ... for a job searcher, it's exactly the opposite ... but in both cases they need reach to get full value from LinkedIn
The quality vs Quantity debate will never die -- because it's true if you are comparing apples with apples ... but not when you are comparing apples with oranges ---
Quality wins hands down over quality on your actual social network
But quantity of connections wins hands down when talking about LinkedIn -- in fact, the term quality doesn even apply to LinkedIn since it's either on or off -- all connections are identical by design -- so where is the quality? If linkedin really cared about quality they would use the Spoke methodology of at least measuring volume of email between correspondence as a proxy for link strength -- the shortest path is not always the strongest which is a weakness in the referral path routing method LinkedIn uses -- Spoke doesn't have this methodological flaw ... In fact, on spoke, you don't even go out and invite people to "join" your "Linkedin network" -- spoke uses you actual network -- which includes all of the people you correspond with via email (ie your actual email network)
Anyway, that my thinking and I'd advice people to take a closer look at the Right-Sizing Post to sort out some of the confusing retoric related to "trust" "quality" etc whic are terms which are applicable to your actual social network but irrelevant to LinkedIn application performance.
Posted by: Christian Mayaud at June 25, 2005 05:20 PM