Make no mistake.  I am honored when people choose to endorse me on LinkedIn.  I appreciate them taking a few moments to click the button and send a message my way that they think I have a certain positive capability.  I always try to respond in kind.

However, LinkedIn could certainly take lessons from Connect.me, or better still, use Connect.me, when it comes to vouching for and cataloging a person’s capabilities.  Here are some deficiencies in the LinkedIn approach that are much better implemented in Connect.me:

Whom have I endorsed?  On LinkedIn, I have no way to review the people I have endorsed or what capabilities I have endorsed.  I would really like to step through a list of my contacts, see which ones I have endorsed, and for what.

Who has endorsed me? On LinkedIn, there is no way I have found to review a list of my contacts and know if they have endorsed me or what they have endorsed me for.

In your face, with limited information.  I resent that each time I access LinkedIn, I am presented with a grid of four people, each with one capability, asking for me to endorse them. There are two problems here.  First, I link to endorse people as a conscious action, not upon an impulse.  Second, I should like to consider multiple endorsements of a person, rather than just the one LinkedIn suggests.  This often results in a scattered sequence of individual endorsements, rather than a cohesive set of endorsements.

Ease of use.  When LinkedIn does suggest a person to endorse, I can’t easily go to his or her profile page to do a multiple endorsement set.  I must type in his or her name to reach the profile page.

Well, there my rant.  It’s doubtful that LinkedIn will listen to me … but hopefully they will fix their reputation system just the same.

 

I was intrigued by a headline I read this morning, “How Facebook Can Put Google Out of Business,” by Ben Elowitz (@elowitz), co-founder and CEO of Wetpaint.

Elowitz started by stating his admiration for Google:

I used to envy Google and the vast digital empire that Schmidt commanded.  Google had one of the most intricate monopolies of all time. It had the most impressive dataset the world had ever seen; the most sophisticated algorithm to make sense of it; an audience of a billion users expressing their interest; and more than a million advertisers bidding furiously to reach those consumers at just the right moment.

What’s more, it had captured the ultimate prize: increasing returns to scale. Only Google could spread such huge R&D costs among an even more humongous query volume, all while offering advertisers the chance to reach most of the population with one buy. Google had earned its success.

However, he as concluded that Facebook offers more inherent value than Google, and can beat Google at its own game:

While Google has amassed an incredible database consisting of the fossilized linkages between most Web pages on the planet, Facebook possesses an asset that’s far more valuable—the realtime linkages between real people and the Web.What does this mean, and what are the implications here?

Well, in a nutshell, Facebook has stored a treasure trove of distinctive data that, if fully utilized, could put Google out of business.

I’m not astute enough to predict whether Facebook or Google will win, but I believe Elowitz has identified an important distinction between the inherent value of linkages:

“linkages between real people and the Web” [and, I might add, linkages between real people] –  primary Facebook value

or

“linkages between Web pages” – primary Google value

We call linkages between people “relationships”. In my previous post, each line on my LinkedIn connection map represents a real life relationship. Some of my Linkedin relationships are closer in real life than others, just like some of my Facebook “friendships” are closer than others.  But they are real.  They do exist.

My real-life relationships represented by Facebook or LinkedIn have inherent value to me.  Both Facebook and LinkedIn provide real value to me through the services they provide.

Google has proven that there is great business value in “linkages between web pages”.  I believe companies like Facebook and LinkedIn are beginning to how to business value can be derived from “linkages between people”.  Google is clearly trying to catch up in the relationships business, where Eric Schmidt admits they have failed.

It will be interesting to see how they, and other companies of their ilk, will continue to succeed for fail in business as they leverage (in a positive sense) their understanding of my relationships, hopefully without exploiting (in a negative sense), the private information I entrust to them.