LinkedIn is far from useless. Someone who has that opinion is clearly someone who doesn't actually use the site.

In my years of using it, I haven't seen anything interesting apart of spamming from everyone's "success stories" (that I don't care). I only use it to keep in touch with some relatives from old jobs, but now I've been added by unknown people offering stuff that I'm not buying or people that wants my help for free, so, IMHO, yes, it is useless.

That response made my day

Good point, you've got my upvote :)

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

I aggressively link to people to find clients, and in doing so I get at least once a week a head hunter wanting to place me in their company. Like anything else, the more you use it the more effective it becomes.

I used it to hook up with an ex girlfriends younger sister.

From what I can tell, the only people who use the site are recruiters and people currently looking for a job. It's basically Monster.com under the guise of a social network. So yeah, it's very useful as a job site but as a social network, it's pretty awful.

Uhm, if it gets you a job when you're looking for one, it's a lot more useful than any of the social networks....

If you have ever used Monster as a recruiter, you would know it is a cesspool by comparison.

LinkedIn routinely sends me postings of interesting jobs that I might actually be interested in applying to based on my current skills and endorsements. It also helps me keep track of a growing network of past coworkers that have no business being facebook friends or on my phone contact list, but who are still invaluable professional references and potential door-openers at prospective employers.

Even better is when you have the skill, but your uncle is endorsing you for something he's never seen you do or even know what it is. Those are priceless endorsements!

I remember spending 10 minutes endorsing people I've never heard of for
skillls that I have no idea they possess and wondering how I could widen
the fields to include skills such as 'Alpine Yodelling', 'Public
Nudity' and 'Advanced Hide and Seek'.

You can easily turn that feature off.

I think it is useless for most people because they don't really participate in anything and just wait for good things to happen. I have been guilty of this since I signed up but a few colleagues have told me how useful it can be so I am to make more of it.

While the "sponsored" nature of this is up for dispute; what is not up for dispute unfortunately are clickbait headlines written only to capture users and accuracy is way down on the list. Kind of sad how media's increasing reliance on analytics and metrics is working against good journalism.

Some tech jobs are hard to find unless you know they are open. I have found LinkedIn totally replacing job search sites like Careerbuilder and Monster that just post scams and junk jobs these days. I was able to connect with real recruiters much easier and quicker than any other resource I had currently. Sure I could BS my credentials..but so can anyone else on any other site really. The truth comes out in the interviews anyways. Some are a fit, some aren't. The total BSers who have no skills, but say they do simply won't get hired if the interviewing company has any clue how to interview, and filter out the junk.

At least have the decency of letting readers know this is a sponsored article

How does one find out if an article is sponsored?

Years of experience, and high IQ.

So somebody told you?

Isn't there a reason-hole that needs fisting?

Well, hell. Somebody has just won the internetz today.

Low hurdle.

Gold star for participation, I guess.

Set the bar higher next time.

You don't want to get on the field with me, FMP.

Only room for your ego. Yeah, we know.

So you AND your ego. Got it.

Got nothing.

Offering less.

Thanks, troll.

Was being absolutely serious.

Sponsored content is rarely flagged or noted. But it's prevalent across not only online media, but television, print. The practice is decades, if not centuries old.

The only way to discern when content is a cynical attempt at manipulation on behalf of a product, service, religious or political ideology is to be widely read, widely traveled, widely experienced in the real world.

And smart as f*ck.

Which am I.

In other words, you have no evidence of this being sponsored content. Nor any logical deductions.

Precisely.

But then... I don't recall asserting that this was sponsored content. Only that I possess the experience and intelligence to spot such things.

Do you wish me to turn my eye of Sauron upon this article and to parse it for the taint of sponsorship?

Also my "years of experience, high IQ" remark does not just apply to me. I am saying that in general those who have experience and intelligence to apply it will be able to more readily spot "sponsored" content than those who merely rely on such articles being flagged.

Go for it

In general, it's difficult to know if content is sponsored. Only possible to suspect.

I assume all content is sponsored, or motivated beyond simple journalistic inquiry. All. That's an assumption I make about all events in the United States, where virtually all interactions have a corporate or commercial component. So deeply encoded into our behavior that few even know they practice it. Even in their most intimate moments and thoughts.

I'd have to take some time to comb through the posting, writing history of this Issie Lapowsky to see if similar articles reference this WeWork company, its founders, investors. I assume she is likely an intern. That's common not just for Wired, but also most commercial blogs. I suspect that interns on the lowest rung are simply handed a laundry list of content that may or may not be labeled sponsored. Meaning even they don't know, though I'm sure they suspect.

So, an intern might get a list of three topics: WeWork, Taco Bell's new Bacon Double Gigante Enchulindo Supreme, and Interstellar (the movie). The sales and marketing division already sorted out the payola and now the writers get to write up the "story." Editorial will edit to make sure it fits the tone, i.e. strikes the required talking points and casts the product in a flattering light.

WeWork seems to be located in Dumbo in Brooklyn, the writer of this article is also in New York City. That's hardly a smoking gun, but it could prove relevant if one wanted to comb through her LinkedIn and attempt to find a connection to WeWork's founders Matt Shampine, Jesse Middleton, and Adam Neumann.

The building where WeWork resides in Brooklyn is also occupied by Etsy. Formerly owned by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Unlikely this is relevant. But one could poke around that to find connections.

Essentially, you just get on Google, enter names, locations and explore connections between investors, founders, holding companies, and see what shakes out.

That's if one has the time and interest.

I've also been in tech for twenty years. So draw upon my own professional experience as well as conversations with colleagues, friends, relatives in tech and other related businesses like advertising and publishing.

Do I think this article is sponsored AKA straight pay-for-play? I frankly don't know. But there is other currency. Social quid pro quo. Someone who works at Wired knows someone involved in this venture, maybe even holds shares (doubtful it's Lapowsky. She's just the beard. Someone higher up. Whoever handles the Lapowskys).

Anyway, no one is paying me to pull the strings on this sweater so that's about as far as I go.

Wow - thoroughly impressed with all this detail. But just to set the record straight, this isn't a sponsored article, nor do I have any connections to WeWork, personal or otherwise.

Bam! You go, Issie! tommaile just lose IQ points.

Let's peg the number at 20 points lost.

That still puts me above 97% of the population.

But can you admit you were wrong?

About?

Pro tip: Attempt clarity at the onset.

Saves time. And embarrassment.

Given that this entire subset of comments has been about your claim that this was a sponsored piece, there is precisely one issue at the heart of all of the comments leading to my question.

If you want to call something a "Pro tip," don't come off as a rank amateur.

You are the waste of time here, not I, and I am not embarrassed, except on your behalf.

For tommaile's very existence, world, I apologize. It was not my fault, but since his ego can't let him admit what an error he was, I shall.

>> your claim that this was a sponsored piece

Wrong.

I very clearly stated unambiguously in early and multiple comments that -- and even directly addressed to you -- I never once claimed this is a sponsored piece. Nor do I now.

That doesn't seem to deter you in your birthday-party-of-one mission to pin the tail on this donkey.

You are a dishonest and irredeemable sh*tpaper.

Well technically, tommaile admitted: "Do I think this article is sponsored AKA straight pay-for-play? I frankly don't know." So there's nothing to be gained indulging further.

Exposing him is always worth it, though it has become so commonplace as to be a little less interesting than before.

I'm starting to see that for myself. And you're right, its less interesting. Thanks for the heads up.

U r a genius n could get hired for a meaty project, right on this page!