This Blog Has Moved!

Right, so yes, five years ago I moved to github pages, and never bothered to redirect any of these pages there. Now I've moved on from there, and... Finally I am using my real domain, trishagee.com . My blog is now at trishagee.com/blog .  See you there!
Post a Comment

LinkedIn Etiquette

For no reason other than LinkedIn communications are starting to irritate me, here's my personal LinkedIn Etiquette guide.  Feel free to disagree with it all.

  1. I'm not going to accept invitations from recruiters.  Not just because I'm not looking for a job (who knows what the future holds?), but because I believe it shows a lack of respect to my network to bring recruiters one step closer to being able to contact them all.  It's not about Evil or Good recruiters, but I really don't want to make it easier for lazy recruiters to spam people I respect (caveat: there are people who are technically recruiters who I have added into my network, either because I know them personally or because they have proved their worth).
  2. If I get an invite without an introduction message from someone who's name I don't immediately recognise, I'm going to check out that profile to see if we have employers in common or common connections, but usually I won't accept that invitation.  I know LinkedIn makes it easy to click one button and request a connection, but I think my LinkedIn network is valuable and made up of people I know (even if I only met you once at a conference), and a short introduction reminding me of where I know you from (or why you'd like to connect) is going to help my poor, beleaguered memory.
  3. Endorsements - almost a total waste of time.  People I have worked with and respect have accidentally endorsed me for things they know I've never worked on, simply because LinkedIn makes it too easy to click a button and endorse someone for two things they've already been endorsed for and a third thing which, through some LinkedIn magic algorithm, is probably related to what you've done before and LinkedIn hopes is only accidentally missing from your profile.  If recommendations were too easy to game (and they were), endorsements are almost entirely valueless.
However, I do find LinkedIn enormously useful.  I value it more than I think many others do for a few reasons:
  1. It encourages you to keep your CV/resume reasonably up to date.  I personally believe everyone should do this, not because you might want to hop jobs at a moment's notice (although it's nice to be able to do that), but because a) it's really difficult to remember what you did over the last 12 months, never mind a longer period - keeping your profile up to date means you can truly highlight the good stuff you've worked on, and b) if you've got nothing to add to your resume from the last 12 months, that's a good sign that you're not growing and your career needs a bit of love (if you think investing in your career is a Good Thing).
  2. It's enormously useful for retaining a network of valuable contacts.  This is why, in my opinion, one needs to be reasonably selective about who one adds to that network.  If you were looking for a new job, for example, and you'd been selective about the recruiters you'd added to your network, those would be the first ones you'd contact, and you'd be reasonably certain of a quality service.  But regardless of that, because not everyone is constantly job-seeking, if you're looking for a specific person (for example, someone comes to interview for your company; or you're looking for a great speaker for your conference/event; or someone approaches you about a job or an event to go to; or someone randomly e-mails you out of the blue and you're not sure who they are) and they're either in your network or are connected to someone in your network, you know that you either know them or someone you know knows them.  That makes them a Real Human and not a spam-bot or someone who wants something from you without giving value in return.
  3. It's not Facebook. Related to point 2, I am happy to add people I know only professionally (i.e. are not yet friends) to LinkedIn.  I'm even happy to add people I don't know personally if they don't fall under rules 1 and 2 in the "I won't add you if..." section.  In Facebook, I have two (main) rules: I have to have met you in person (there are one or two exceptions but those are people I have known for a long time only over the interwebs); I have to have spoken to you in the last year, or want to speak to you in the next 12 months.  This is for two reasons: 1) I want to keep my Facebook network relatively small so it's more intimate, and therefore 2) I can share more personal things on there without feeling self conscious or wondering who's going to see it.  I have to be able to speak honestly on Facebook.  On LinkedIn, I don't need to be so fussy - I can add you to my network if I like you but you haven't (yet) crossed into friendship; I can add you if I think I can be useful to you, or you to me; I can add you if I want a way to contact you (or want you to be able to contact me) but don't have a pressing need to stay in touch frequently.

So, that's an unnecessarily deep dive into my attitude towards LinkedIn.  It's probably not going to change anyone's behaviour, but I feel better for at least explaining why I won't necessarily add you back - all you need to do is type in the little invitation box to explain why we should be connected.  

I value my connections, and I want to see that you do too.

Comments

  1. Sverre6 November 2013 at 18:05

    Couldn't agree more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Damana Madden15 November 2013 at 00:47

    Good points. The one problem with LinkedIn though is that no matter how much you control your network, if your connections don't then you are going to suffer their consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trisha15 November 2013 at 09:25

      Agreed, and that's one of the motivations for writing this post, to get people to think about their own strategies for managing their network. And to hopefully stop recruiters spamming me :)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Comments have been disabled since this blog is no longer active.

Popular posts from this blog

Dissecting the Disruptor: What's so special about a ring buffer?

Image
Recently we open sourced the LMAX Disruptor , the key to what makes our exchange so fast.  Why did we open source it?  Well, we've realised that conventional wisdom around high performance programming is... a bit wrong. We've come up with a better, faster way to share data between threads, and it would be selfish not to share it with the world.  Plus it makes us look dead clever. On the site you can download a technical article explaining what the Disruptor is and why it's so clever and fast.  I even get a writing credit on it, which is gratifying when all I really did is insert commas and re-phrase sentences I didn't understand. However I find the whole thing a bit much to digest all at once, so I'm going to explain it in smaller pieces, as suits my  NADD audience. First up - the ring buffer.  Initially I was under the impression the Disruptor was just the ring buffer.  But I've come to realise that while this data structure is at the heart of the patte
Read more

Dissecting the Disruptor: Writing to the ring buffer

Image
This is the missing piece in the end-to-end view of the Disruptor.  Brace yourselves, it's quite long.  But I decided to keep it in a single blog so you could have the context in one place. The important areas are: not wrapping the ring; informing the consumers; batching for producers; and how multiple producers work. ProducerBarriers The Disruptor code has interfaces and helper classes for the Consumer s, but there's no interface for your producer, the thing that writes to the ring buffer.  That's because nothing else needs to access your producer, only you need to know about it.  However, like the consuming side, a ProducerBarrier is created by the ring buffer and your producer will use this to write to it. Writing to the ring buffer involves a two-phase commit.  First, your producer has to claim the next slot on the buffer.  Then, when the producer has finished writing to the slot, it will call commit on the ProducerBarrier . So let's look at the first bi
Read more

Dissecting the Disruptor: How do I read from the ring buffer?

Image
The next in the series of understanding the Disruptor pattern developed at LMAX . After the last post we all understand ring buffers and how awesome they are.  Unfortunately for you, I have not said anything about how to actually populate them or read from them when you're using the Disruptor. ConsumerBarriers and Consumers I'm going to approach this slightly backwards, because it's probably easier to understand in the long run.  Assuming that some magic has populated it: how do you read something from the ring buffer? (OK, I'm starting to regret using Paint/ Gimp .  Although it's an excellent excuse to purchase a graphics tablet if I do continue down this road.  Also UML gurus are probably cursing my name right now.) Your Consumer is the thread that wants to get something off the buffer.  It has access to a ConsumerBarrier , which is created by the RingBuffer and interacts with it on behalf of the Consumer .  While the ring buffer obviously needs a se
Read more