Asking how to get work or extra work or how to advance a career and eventually LinkedIn is mentioned. LinkedIn has been sold as a professional networking solution however no attempt has ever been visibly made to ensure that only professionals use the network. This is amply evidenced by the number of accounts listing non-jobs as the individual's "occupation".
There are several schools of thought on building a LinkedIn profile. One is that every item should be filled out as completely as possible. That sounds good until it becomes obvious that there is no reason for further questions to be asked. A profile needs to be intriguing enough for viewers to want to discover more.
Another school of thought is that no information should be given out on LinkeIn and that the profile should be concealed from public scrutiny. This is definitely suspicious behaviour and such profiles should be regarded with great suspicion since after all, LinkedIn is allegedly there to connect professionals. If the profile is effectively invisible then there is no reason for anybody to allow the user concerned access to their own profile.
The final school of thought is that minimal information should be entered into the system with just enough to complete the basics. Care should be taken to ensure that only positive information is given without seeming false.
Generally, it's a very good idea to use a nom-de-plume for all online accounts. This includes LinkedIn. If a nickname is to be used then let it be a realistic nickname. As far as other accounts, Facebook etc then the name used on LinkedIn should not be used elsewhere. There are data-mining companies out there that systematically mine data on people. Individuals that do this used to be called creeps, stalkers, perverts or voyeurs but somehow it's now OK when it's a company doing it.
The problem with data-mining is that it is not an exact science and that a load of garbage can be discovered and attributed to the wrong person. Thus, anonymity is the best bet for all online postings. This links into yesterday's posting about domain names. A domain name can be traced back to an owner as it seems to be a requirement that a real name be used in the registration process. Facebook similarly seems to require a real name though judging by the number of Big Foot entries, this is not enforced. In order to avoid data-mining, generally it's best not to use the same email address for all accounts - just set up a webmail account for each online service used but under a fake name. Similarly, when a cellphone number is required just use a throwaway Tracfone number.
Some companies might use LinkedIn as part of their recruitment process. This can be a double-edged sword. There might be something on the profile that is not to the liking of the company or there might not be enough on the profile for the liking of the company. Generally, the rule of thumb with all online profiles is to say too little rather than too much. The more information that is shown, the more chance there is that there will be an error or a discrepancy with a resume. It only takes one discrepancy or one error for a recruiter to yell "next, please".
Does "photography" have a place on a LinkedIn profile? Not really. To recruiters it's seen as a filler. It's seen as something people put on their resumes to disguise unemployment or underemployment. There are people that claim to be full time professional photographers. The truth of those claims is unknown but it would be wise to regard them with skepticism. The only way of truly telling would be to look at the individual's business licence and submitted IRS accounts.
Do home-based businesses have a place on a LinkedIn profile? Not really - most of the home based businesses are tax avoidance schemes. A large number of business licences are obtained in order that people can buy their toys and get a tax deduction for them from the IRS.
There is no such thing as a perfect LinkedIn profile because LinkedIn is another one of those websites that has grandiose claims and even more grandiose aims and fails spectacularly to fulfill any of those claims. LinkedIn is just like all the other online playthings - Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, MySpace, Reddit etc. It is just a toy. It is not likely to get anybody a new job. It is not likely to do anything worthwhile for anybody. Rather, it is more likely to be counter-productive. The only conclusion it's possible to arrive at is that LinkedIn is more internet nonsense.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Is Facebook worthwhile?
What is Facebook for is a pretty good question. It causes a lot of head scratching to work out an answer to that one. When it was originally started, it was a social network that people in college could use to talk to each other from their lodgings. Facebook them morphed and became bigger and as it became bigger and more convoluted, its purpose became ever less clear. Generally, it seems to be some kind of play area for children, teens and adults of all ages with postings ranging from the absurd to the obscene. It seems more to be a combination of a messenger program and a bulletin board program with a few bizarre extras thrown in.
Facebook is a double-edged sword. Many people will use Facebook under their real name and place photographs of themselves on Facebook. This can lead to employers looking to see who is there that has just applied to them for a position. Generally the best thing seems to be to have a profile under a nom-de-plume and to delete the profile once a year in order to start afresh. That way, all the updates that might be embarrassing vanish in one fell swoop.
A good way to think about Facebook is "if this was written on a noticeboard at work, would it be embarrassing"? If the answer is affirmative then the resolution would be not to put it on Facebook. Private and hidden data on Facebook has had an awful tendency to be revealed in the past. Indeed there are many lawyers that love Facebook. One lawyer was reported to say that work as a divorce attorney was so much easier with Facebook because the other party would frequently have a photograph with a paramour on a beach instead of being at a business conference.
Is Facebook worthwhile for a photographer? Maybe, maybe not. The big turn off about Facebook is that Facebook tends to be very casual about using photographs posted by users in their own advertising, without crediting the user. On the other hand, since photography is not a real job, does it really matter anyway. Nobody is likely to have ever paid for the photographs in the first place. Some photographers do use Facebook to drum up the small bit of business that photography gets though never enough to live on and certainly not often enough to consider turning it into a business.
For the job-hunter, perhaps deleting one's Facebook and LinkedIn profiles are a smart move. That way nothing can ever be held against the job-hunter. Indeed, it could well be worth just deleting all online accounts so that nothing could be held against the job-hunter in search of work. Recruiting officers have some very strange ideas so a complete web absence could be beneficial.
On the whole, Facebook probably has more downsides to upsides. There are the messages posted that could be embarrassing in the cold light of day, the messages that future employers won't like to see and the messages that might be upsetting to those looking for a reason to be upset. There are plenty people like that around!
Facebook is a double-edged sword. Many people will use Facebook under their real name and place photographs of themselves on Facebook. This can lead to employers looking to see who is there that has just applied to them for a position. Generally the best thing seems to be to have a profile under a nom-de-plume and to delete the profile once a year in order to start afresh. That way, all the updates that might be embarrassing vanish in one fell swoop.
A good way to think about Facebook is "if this was written on a noticeboard at work, would it be embarrassing"? If the answer is affirmative then the resolution would be not to put it on Facebook. Private and hidden data on Facebook has had an awful tendency to be revealed in the past. Indeed there are many lawyers that love Facebook. One lawyer was reported to say that work as a divorce attorney was so much easier with Facebook because the other party would frequently have a photograph with a paramour on a beach instead of being at a business conference.
Is Facebook worthwhile for a photographer? Maybe, maybe not. The big turn off about Facebook is that Facebook tends to be very casual about using photographs posted by users in their own advertising, without crediting the user. On the other hand, since photography is not a real job, does it really matter anyway. Nobody is likely to have ever paid for the photographs in the first place. Some photographers do use Facebook to drum up the small bit of business that photography gets though never enough to live on and certainly not often enough to consider turning it into a business.
For the job-hunter, perhaps deleting one's Facebook and LinkedIn profiles are a smart move. That way nothing can ever be held against the job-hunter. Indeed, it could well be worth just deleting all online accounts so that nothing could be held against the job-hunter in search of work. Recruiting officers have some very strange ideas so a complete web absence could be beneficial.
On the whole, Facebook probably has more downsides to upsides. There are the messages posted that could be embarrassing in the cold light of day, the messages that future employers won't like to see and the messages that might be upsetting to those looking for a reason to be upset. There are plenty people like that around!
Friday, June 6, 2014
The way forward for meetings?
In conversation today, instant messaging systems came to mind. More importantly the discussion centered around Microsoft Netmeeting which was software on most pre Windows Vista machines. With the cost of transport and the easy availability of laptops, phones, desktop machines with cameras, the question became a matter of when will physical meetings be replaced by online, on camera meetings?
Experience of multi-user online video meetings is not always wonderful due to communication issues. A few months ago, I had experience of one where connection had to be severed then reinitialized several times before a good connection was obtained. Having said that, for simple things like one to one conversations or discussions, online video meetings are wonderful. I use them most weeks with places as far away as Moscow and Vladivostok.
Imaging a world where strangers didn't have to be invited onto the premises to interview them or a world where a job interview could be carried out from the applicant's own home. Think of the time and money not to mention environmental savings. For those in countries where travel to interview expenses have to be paid by the company this cuts down on costs tremendously. For countries where expenses are not paid, it cuts down on risk - not having to have strangers on the premises. How a potential employee's desk in their home looks could be an indication of their way of thinking. A scruffy, untidy desk could mean total disorganization. This by the way is how my desk at home looks.
A video conference doesn't completely replace a second interview but it surely can replace the first interview. With each candidate given a precise time to call or be called, not just money but time can be saved. This is something that's just beginning to happen with some of the more enlightened companies. Spark Hire is just one of many companies that provides video interview services.
Gas is $3.50 a gallon at the time of writing. Many people are willing to relocate to a different state to find work. There are large pools of untapped talent going to waste because the people who would be willing to relocate aren't willing to gamble the money needed to travel long distances in order to attend an interview. If somebody living in Podunk South Carolina had the skills needed by a company in Michigan yet had no opportunity to use those skills locally and was thus relegated to filling grocery bags in Publix could do a video interview, that could match them to their ideal position and the company could get the talent they needed. Most have the funds to move from one side of the country to the other but are unwilling to risk travelling on the chance that they might get a job out of it. As an example, a flight from Columbia SC to Detroit MI would cost about $400 or the equivalent of 3 weeks working for Publix. That $400 would cover just the flight, not taxis nor parking nor sustenance nor a room for the night. However, that $400 would go a long way toward hiring a truck to drive one's belongings to Detroit in a cross country move to a guaranteed new position.
It makes a lot of sense for all companies to start using video interviews. Not just that it saves the interviewee money but it enlarges the pool of talent that can be drawn from. It saves the company money and seeing the background of a candidate's home may also influence their suitability for employment. Would you hire somebody who had a Soviet flag on their wall? How about somebody who had a pentagram stencilled on their wall? It's time to start doing video interviews. When are you going to start?
Experience of multi-user online video meetings is not always wonderful due to communication issues. A few months ago, I had experience of one where connection had to be severed then reinitialized several times before a good connection was obtained. Having said that, for simple things like one to one conversations or discussions, online video meetings are wonderful. I use them most weeks with places as far away as Moscow and Vladivostok.
Imaging a world where strangers didn't have to be invited onto the premises to interview them or a world where a job interview could be carried out from the applicant's own home. Think of the time and money not to mention environmental savings. For those in countries where travel to interview expenses have to be paid by the company this cuts down on costs tremendously. For countries where expenses are not paid, it cuts down on risk - not having to have strangers on the premises. How a potential employee's desk in their home looks could be an indication of their way of thinking. A scruffy, untidy desk could mean total disorganization. This by the way is how my desk at home looks.
Gas is $3.50 a gallon at the time of writing. Many people are willing to relocate to a different state to find work. There are large pools of untapped talent going to waste because the people who would be willing to relocate aren't willing to gamble the money needed to travel long distances in order to attend an interview. If somebody living in Podunk South Carolina had the skills needed by a company in Michigan yet had no opportunity to use those skills locally and was thus relegated to filling grocery bags in Publix could do a video interview, that could match them to their ideal position and the company could get the talent they needed. Most have the funds to move from one side of the country to the other but are unwilling to risk travelling on the chance that they might get a job out of it. As an example, a flight from Columbia SC to Detroit MI would cost about $400 or the equivalent of 3 weeks working for Publix. That $400 would cover just the flight, not taxis nor parking nor sustenance nor a room for the night. However, that $400 would go a long way toward hiring a truck to drive one's belongings to Detroit in a cross country move to a guaranteed new position.
It makes a lot of sense for all companies to start using video interviews. Not just that it saves the interviewee money but it enlarges the pool of talent that can be drawn from. It saves the company money and seeing the background of a candidate's home may also influence their suitability for employment. Would you hire somebody who had a Soviet flag on their wall? How about somebody who had a pentagram stencilled on their wall? It's time to start doing video interviews. When are you going to start?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)