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.
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.
No, he's not bullshitting. I remember working with this guy at Black Mesa. He kept fraternizing with one of the scientists and got fired for it. It was strange because that scientist never said a word...
You just generally have to hit 'em about center-mass. Not a lot different from most other engineers. I usually shoot when they mention "unit testing."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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 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.
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.
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/