Slashdot Mirror
LinkedIn Profiles Contain Fewer Lies Than Resumes
RichDiesal writes "New research reveals that personal information provided on LinkedIn may contain fewer deceptions about prior work experience and prior work responsibilities than traditional resumes. However, LinkedIn profiles contain more deceptions about personal interests and hobbies. This researchers believe this may be because participants are equally motivated to deceive employers in both settings, but perceive lies about work experience on LinkedIn as more easily verifiable."
my linkedin has me working at aperture science as a research facilitator and a security guard at black mesa
Reagan said it best: Trust, but verify.
Even it were true, folks who were checking up on you would find folks linked to you and well to make a long story short, eventually they'd find out the truth.
Then you'd be known for the bullshitter that you are.
A resume is typically viewed by an employer so the incentive is to be honest about hobbies and lie about experience.
LinkedIn is typically viewed by friends and acquaintances so the incentive is to be honest about work and lie about hobbies.
Nothing terribly profound.
Although not a lie per se, what does checking a box labeled "Troubleshooting" mean in the context of an automation engineer? I've been at this since 2003 and have seen a *wide* range of troubleshooting skills both high and low. LinkedIn encourages everyone to go ahead and check that box. So while it isn't full of lies, I believe is full of exceedingly watered down truths.
You can say "I worked there" but its harder to get a bunch of other people to say the same, especially people with active profiles.
I trust a LinkedIn reference more when a person has several links to people who also worked there.
I heard someone say the looked at candidates' "net tracks". They looked for forum contributions, blog entries, Google results, etc.
Nobody really believes the stuff on linkedin will be checked.
We used to look at our former coworkers profiles and laugh. Sure, they're full of exaggerations, lies, etc. The problem with verifying them is that most employers have a strict policy that they will only verify the start and end dates an employee worked, nothing else. In some places it's the law, in other places they just don't want lawsuits from former employees. And in some cases, they're just hoping that their biggest competitor hires the t*rd and ends up costing them a bundle.
If someone called, there was no way we would say "that's a lie." We would confirm only the duration of employment, say that they left with no hard feelings, we wish them the best in their new endeavors, thank you very much have a nice day click!
There's nothing to stop a dozen people creating fake linkedin profiles, as well as a phony website (what - $8 a year?) and giving each other references.
They want to call head office? A burn phone is $25 a month. Split the cost among the dozen and it's $2 a month each. Or just list your former employer as a recent corporate bankruptcy - there's enough of them around.
Faxes? "We don't do faxes - what is this, the stone age?" Create the head office in some area far enough away, and all they can do is google earth it.
"But if the employer finds out, they can fire you!" ... so what - in the meantime, you have a job. And they won't even bother if you list a bankrupt biz no longer in operation as your former employer.
To paraphrase Tennyson:
I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better* to have had a job and lost
Than never to have had a job at all.
*or at least more profitable.
Now, would I lie? Are you kidding? The truth is awesome* enough :-p
*disclamer: chocolate required for proper functioning. valid for some very non-standard value(s) of "awesome." ymmv. batteries not included. avoid elevators, operating heavy machinery, and slashdot. seek professional advice if non-professional advice doesn't work. ignore previous sentence as it is non-professional advice. all rights reserved. parking reserved. reservations reserved. Why yes, I do have reservations, serious reservations, but everyone here else seems to think this place is good enough to eat at.
Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
I would hope that this would not be a factor in recommendations or endorsements among technical colleagues. Of course, the inaccuracies would be more than enough to decline giving a reference.
When giving a reference, I try to imagine that the person I'm talking to hires the person we are talking about (independent of if I give a positive, lukewarm or, even, a negative recommendation) and, two years hence, I'm interviewing with the same company and they remember both the content of my reference and how the person turned out. I'd like to hear:
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
I had a grad student last year who stopped showing up after the first few weeks, and eventually had his studentship discontinued.
Being a student here gave him an email address here and one at a university with which we had a collaborative arrangement.
While he had it, he created a LinkedIn profile listing himself as a "Research Scientist" here and a "Software Development Consultant" at the other university. He then proceeded to connect through LinkedIn with others who work at both organisations who didn't know him, but who probably thought they should, given the relevant email address and link requests. He was careful not to try to link this fraudulent account with anyone who did know him and his real position here.
The profile is still there. I don't know whether it is to protect his ego (he seems to have problems in that area) or whether he is using it to fraudulently get consulting contracts. Guess I should do something about it, but I don't want to stir up trouble.
In the aftermath of an acrimonious divorce, someone pointed out my ex-wife's Linkedin profile. (I don't do social networking of any kind, so I never see nor go looking for these sorts of things.) Said ex-wife was an unemployed/underemployed "small business owner" with a penchant for dishonesty. For some time on Linkedin, she'd been listing the fictitious "John Smith Construction" (with my name in place of the obvious) as her employer, with "owner/wife" as her position. Yeesh.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
I am on the "interview" team at work (interviewing candidates,) and I usually try to search for each applicant on LinkedIn, etc. I have noticed that when job titles differ from resume to LinkedIn, they are almost uniformly less-inflated on LinkedIn. (One applicant's resume read as almost completely different than their LinkedIn history - it even took effort to realize that the LinkedIn profile showed the contract agency, with the client company in the small print, while the resume showed only the client company, in nearly every job.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I have a bogus name on my LinkedIn account. I've about half filled in my stuff, stopping when I felt it was too intrusive. I look once in a while, to see what garbage is on there for me to look at. LinkedIn == Myspace for "professionals"
If you don't take it seriously and you just put in bogus info and/or collect connections like business cards, then yes, it is useless and noisy (unless you are a headhunter). But if you take time to setup a proper profile, disable noisy features and maintain a relevant network of connections, it can bring interesting opportunities. For my last two contracts I was contacted via a LinkedIn reference and never sent a resume. (And I'm not talking about mass-mailing from head hunters but contacts from actual connections).
I don't buy much into the "give a reference" feature, but I know that potential (and current) clients have been looking at who are my connections to get an idea of who I am. Which is why I have only a handful of high-quality, relevant connections.
But hey, if you enjoy doodling around in Word every time you want to switch jobs or apply for a RFP, be my guest.
lucm, indeed.
The "privacy is for old people"-line from LinkedIn founder made me quit the site - there's nothing profesional about LinkedIn - jut another "social" site hoovering info about you.
http://www.cenedella.com/job-search/privacy-is-for-old-people-says-linked-in-founder/