Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [TopLinkedin] LinkedIn Untruthiness

Expand Messages
  • Danny R. Faught
    ... Marc, I do performance testing for companies like LinkedIn. I think it s plausible that they did not design for accounts with 10,000 connections. In fact,
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 8, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Marc Freedman wrote:
      >> people with massive networks ( over 10000 connections ) are having
      >> problems and it is because the site was never designed to have
      >> individual networks over that amount.

      Marc, I do performance testing for companies like LinkedIn. I think
      it's plausible that they did not design for accounts with 10,000
      connections. In fact, many software organizations are so naive that
      they don't even think about performance issues like that. LinkedIn
      may have designed for accounts with a smaller number of connections,
      and got lucky in that it worked reasonably for you for a while. As
      new features are added, and new users soak up available resources,
      performance tends to decline if they don't add sufficient hardware
      and/or pay close attention to the software performance.

      It's unfortunate that LinkedIn is telling you that they're not going
      to support you. Web sites should not let user accounts get into an
      unsupported state in the first place. That would probably mean
      artificially capping the number of allowed connections, which also
      wouldn't be a desirable solution for you.

      So, Marc, what's your strategy? Cross your fingers that the next
      release is an improvement?
      --
      Danny R. Faught
      Tejas Software Consulting
      http://tejasconsulting.com/
    • Marc Freedman
      Danny, It s a matter of honesty and responsibility. Let us not confuse cause and effect. The system was working fine with people with lot of connections and
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 8, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Danny,

        It's a matter of honesty and responsibility.  Let us not confuse cause and effect.  The system was working fine with people with lot of connections and then suddenly it wasn't.  It's disingenuous to blame those people when it was LinkedIn, not supernetworkers, who broke the service.  The proximate cause is not network size or number of connections, but LinkedIn's incompetence when a change, whether software or hardware, was made to the service without adequate design, planning, and testing. 

        This is the same incompetence we saw in the October when that release crippled key features like the ability to withdraw OpenLink Intros.

        I disagree when you say that LinkedIn was lucky when it worked for supernetworkers previously.  If the supernetworkers were unknown or recent, I might buy that.  But that's not the case.  Supernetworkers are not a surprise.   It's precisely because of supernetworkers that LinkedIn made changes like limiting the display of one's connections to 500+ and restricting lifetime invites to 3000.   With every release LinkedIn increasingly restricts the service for such members.  People with over 10K connections operated fine for 2 YEARS.  To ignore this for so long is intentional, not chance.

        As to my strategy, I can only wait.  As I wrote previously, LinkedIn said they have a cloud computing project to address this.  They had hoped to release this last month but obviously didn't.

        Marc


        At 09:02 AM 2/8/2008 Friday, you wrote:

        Marc Freedman wrote:
        >> people with massive networks ( over 10000 connections ) are having
        >> problems and it is because the site was never designed to have
        >> individual networks over that amount.

        Marc, I do performance testing for companies like LinkedIn. I think
        it's plausible that they did not design for accounts with 10,000
        connections. In fact, many software organizations are so naive that
        they don't even think about performance issues like that. LinkedIn
        may have designed for accounts with a smaller number of connections,
        and got lucky in that it worked reasonably for you for a while. As
        new features are added, and new users soak up available resources,
        performance tends to decline if they don't add sufficient hardware
        and/or pay close attention to the software performance.

        It's unfortunate that LinkedIn is telling you that they're not going
        to support you. Web sites should not let user accounts get into an
        unsupported state in the first place. That would probably mean
        artificially capping the number of allowed connections, which also
        wouldn't be a desirable solution for you.

        So, Marc, what's your strategy? Cross your fingers that the next
        release is an improvement?
        --
        Danny R. Faught
        Tejas Software Consulting
        http://tejasconsulting.com/
      • AGWIII
        Marc, The organization culture of any organization, including Linkedin, comes from the top. Their dislike of supernetworkers is only one of their changes. My
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 11, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Marc,

          The organization culture of any organization, including Linkedin, comes
          from the top. Their dislike of supernetworkers is only one of their
          changes. My experience with the theft of the group I created, with the
          cooperation of LinkedIn, is another such example. Yes, it IS a matter of
          honesty. On that criterion, LinkedIn fails.

          Grayson

          It's a matter of honesty and responsibility. Let us not confuse cause
          and effect. The system was working fine with people with lot of
          connections and then suddenly it wasn't. It's disingenuous to blame
          those people when it was LinkedIn, not supernetworkers, who broke the
          service. The proximate cause is not network size or number of
          connections, but LinkedIn's incompetence when a change, whether
          software or hardware, was made to the service without adequate design,
          planning, and testing.

          This is the same incompetence we saw in the October when that release
          crippled key features like the ability to withdraw OpenLink Intros.

          I disagree when you say that LinkedIn was lucky when it worked for
          supernetworkers previously. If the supernetworkers were unknown or
          recent, I might buy that. But that's not the case. Supernetworkers are
          not a surprise. It's precisely because of supernetworkers that LinkedIn
          made changes like limiting the display of one's connections to 500+ and
          restricting lifetime invites to 3000. With every release LinkedIn
          increasingly restricts the service for such members. People with over
          10K connections operated fine for 2 YEARS. To ignore this for so long is
          intentional, not chance.

          As to my strategy, I can only wait. As I wrote previously, LinkedIn said
          they have a cloud computing project to address this. They had hoped to
          release this last month but obviously didn't.

          Marc
        • Marc Freedman
          Grayson, I wouldn t characterize the adversarial relationship with supernetworkers as a change. It s been that way from the beginning, ever since the rise of
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 11, 2008
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Grayson,

            I wouldn't characterize the adversarial relationship with
            supernetworkers as a change. It's been that way from the beginning,
            ever since the rise of supernetworkers 3-4 years ago.

            I don't know the facts about the theft of your group. That does sound
            ominous and unfortunate.

            It absolutely comes from the top. The staff in many cases is
            supportive of LinkedIn members and even supernetworkers. But clearly
            the past CEO Reid Hoffman and current CEO Dan Nye have not made member
            considerations an important part of how they do business.

            Marc




            --- In TopLinkedIn@yahoogroups.com, "AGWIII" <agwiii@...> wrote:
            >
            > Marc,
            >
            > The organization culture of any organization, including Linkedin, comes
            > from the top. Their dislike of supernetworkers is only one of their
            > changes. My experience with the theft of the group I created, with the
            > cooperation of LinkedIn, is another such example. Yes, it IS a matter of
            > honesty. On that criterion, LinkedIn fails.
            >
            > Grayson
            >
            > It's a matter of honesty and responsibility. Let us not confuse cause
            > and effect. The system was working fine with people with lot of
            > connections and then suddenly it wasn't. It's disingenuous to blame
            > those people when it was LinkedIn, not supernetworkers, who broke the
            > service. The proximate cause is not network size or number of
            > connections, but LinkedIn's incompetence when a change, whether
            > software or hardware, was made to the service without adequate design,
            > planning, and testing.
            >
            > This is the same incompetence we saw in the October when that release
            > crippled key features like the ability to withdraw OpenLink Intros.
            >
            > I disagree when you say that LinkedIn was lucky when it worked for
            > supernetworkers previously. If the supernetworkers were unknown or
            > recent, I might buy that. But that's not the case. Supernetworkers are
            > not a surprise. It's precisely because of supernetworkers that LinkedIn
            > made changes like limiting the display of one's connections to 500+ and
            > restricting lifetime invites to 3000. With every release LinkedIn
            > increasingly restricts the service for such members. People with over
            > 10K connections operated fine for 2 YEARS. To ignore this for so long is
            > intentional, not chance.
            >
            > As to my strategy, I can only wait. As I wrote previously, LinkedIn said
            > they have a cloud computing project to address this. They had hoped to
            > release this last month but obviously didn't.
            >
            > Marc
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.