This is probably a good case to remind people: You ("engineers who want to network") are a small fraction of the LinkedIn userbase. You cannot begin to accurately grok how the vast majority of users use and feel about LinkedIn. Your opinions are valid (and I share them fully). But be careful not to assume that the way _you_ interact with LinkedIn is universally shared.
Who are the predominant users of LinkedIn then? Marketing mostly, or is it recruiters? Startup founders? How do you measure "activity" in this scenario - is it public postings or are we including the private messages that people send about jobs?
I see a lot of useless posts end up on my feed - self congratulations and a lot of what equates to a press release for some product - but those have to target a user base of some kind that isn't there to just do that or it ends up being bots talking to bots (effectively), which is arguably bad for the company (e.g. bad for their valuation).
Seems like the largest userbase are mid-career white collar workers, even if they don't make up the majority (or even a plurality) of the public posts/interactions happening.
Similar to a gacha mobile game you need some minimum amount of userbase to create the environment where "whales" will be encouraged to engage with their money - in this case that's advertising revenue through sponsored posts and premium accounts.
Good points, but I would suggest that just because the swamp-dwellers like it that way, does not mean it isn't a swamp.
I very much minimize my time there, because it is the spammiest, clingiest "social" network I've tried. I abandoned Facebook too, but there is at least marginal usefulness on LI, so I log in periodically.
I'd say that those who engage most are either directly recruiting or marketing, or self-annointed "thought leaders". At least the recruiters are unashamed in their role there. I cringe most at the thought leader types who apply the term to themselves. Like "hacker" or "guru", the term should usually be given by other people.
Generally most people don't even get messaged at all on LinkedIn.
One CEO I know mentioned they only hire recruiters for engineers. Other slots are filled in other ways. Some are with job posts, others might be with referrals.
Another mentioned that engineers are like gold. A valuable commodity that's mineable via a process, enough of a commodity that everyone agrees on value.
Forums and chat rooms related to technologies you have experience with, want to learn. Slack and Discord have quite a few.
Some like to complain about projects using Slack or Discord because they’re not open and can’t be archived publicly but really who is pulling value from old IRC logs today? Nostalgic lizard brain is all that is.
> Some like to complain about projects using Slack or Discord because they’re not open and can’t be archived publicly but really who is pulling value from old IRC logs today?
When projects use Slack or Discord (or, for that matter, IRC) as their primary support channel it becomes a lot more painful to search online for solutions to problems.
Spending time reporting issues and care-taking Microsoft is a waste of time.
Don't bother doing things for Microsoft that Microsoft is perfectly capable of doing itself. Nothing is stopping Microsoft from solving problems like this themselves. They don't give a shit.
If Microsoft had not acquired LinkedIn in 2016, it might still be led by people whose lives depended on the health and integrity of the site. Microsoft effectively poisoned Linkedin.
Network directly with engineers where they spend time online. Not recruiters in purpose built HR portals.