Bernhard Warner thinks so in a recent Times article. He his rooting for Facebook against Linked-In, which he finds too “stuffy” and prone to macho “
my network is bigger than yours” attitude. By contrast Facebook users are more laid-back and you get to know more personal stuff about them.
I've been on Linked-In for a few years and signed-up to Facebook recently, as most people I know in the UK (network effects?). I receive a lot of “spamvitations to connect” from Linked-In, mostly from people with whom I have no real affiliation to or no desire to connect with. I always politely refuse and explain that I rather have a small network of people I really know and trust rather than a loose constellation of passer-bys, only interested in their “500+” networkers’ badge.
Networking is not about collecting “connections” but getting to know people beyond what’s written on their business cards. Too many Linked-In users treat the network as a customer database. Facebook, at least for the moment is indeed a better tool than Linked-In for quality of relationships, which determines a personal network's value.
I agree with you but isn't that how their makers have marketed it?
You mean Facebook? I agree.
Can't say that I agree with you. Personally I prefer LinkedIn over Facebook, just because it's more focus on business functions, and less widgets, zombie bites, tv-shows, group invitations.
The two sites fills two completely different purposes
The two sites initally filled different purposes (although that could be argued as well) but recently people are using Facebook more for business networking, which directly compete with Linked-In's focus.
I would say they still fill different purposes. I don't argue that Facebook can be used for business networking and social networking. But it requires more work for the user. An option with less work would be using two sites.
This is of course my very personal opinion, and I my world there is room for two networking sites. The question is if the users are as picky as me when it comes to focused purpose of the site and functions. Perhaps not.
The question of how many network can one user cope with is a good point too. I am spending most time on Linked-In and Facebook but I would be less keen to invest time in another network. I registered to quite a few, either for research or through invitations but somehow it feels like I would be spreading my network too thin. Concentration allows for easier connections and references between people.
I completely agree with you Joel regarding the number of contacts. What's more, I've been debating this for years with people.
I also agree with johnny go that there's room for more than one network (I'm a member of dozens and I actively use about four). LinkedIn is really useful as an online Rolodex, whereas I don't use FB for business and don't plan to (I reject requests to join businessy clubs).
My personal limit is about 350 people on any given network and I actively 'manage' that number, staying in touch with most of them - the LinkedIn Outlook tool is particularly useful in this - although I admit I've got a couple of 'contact collectors' so that I can access their networks.
One last thing: if you're receiving spamagrams on LinkedIn, change your personal settings. I used to, but never do now.
350! Borderline case ;-)
Post a Comment