My LinkedIn Principles, how to manage the waterfall

The first installment of this post describing my 5 principles of working with LinkedIn (link) has proved very popular, which shows how important it is for all of us not to go mad with a clear code of conduct; how to communicate, so that it is still communication, and not just shouting out your own reasons; how to cooperate and not just play winners and losers. The first article focused primarily on interactions or principles of real-time discussion.

Now let me share some practical experiences of dealing with LI as a tool – but not as a tool for selling, promoting your greatness or building an overinflated and empty "personal brand", but simply a tool for acquiring valuable information, even knowledge. That is what LI's purpose used to be and, thankfully, it still can be. I'm not going to create a general theory of everything here, just systematically share a few of my own experiences. I am also counting on feedback and tips from other users.

Today, the topic of optimization of contents we receive.

Contents of your dashboard/waterfall

LinkedIn uses an automated functionality: when connecting directly to a new person, both users, by default, receive the "follower" status. In the desktop version we can still choose to activate this option on the screen (it's important); in the smartphone version, however, when accepting the invitation, we immediately start following that person.

Most people show no or almost no activity on LI, so we do not see the consequences of following them. But, as people used to say when I was in the army, all is cool, as long as it's cool... Over time, the number of our contacts grows, reaching several thousand. Statistically, even if our contacts are not particularly active, still their few activities accumulate and our dashboard is flooded with tons of information, mostly completely uninteresting. For this reason, I prefer to call it a waterfall. This name reflects the character of what is happening in front of our eyes in a better way. Initially, I accepted it all, the way it is. I saw it as a good introduction into the life of LI and observed the processes taking place. I do not regret it, because it allowed me to see the full spectrum of human activities on LI. It also helped me to tell what I was looking for from an utter waste of time, even if I mainly use the "scroll" function. Having gone through this phase (and let me repeat, I do not regret it because I understand the tool now) I decided to optimize my waterfall.

One way to do it is to open the list of people you're following and disable the function for the selected ones. The advantage of the method is simplicity. However, it is often difficult to associate a person with specific content they deliver. Let me remind you that we can already have thousands of contacts and not everyone is an easily recognizable celebrity... There is a danger that we will stop following activities and comments of someone interesting.

For this reason I've chosen a different method for myself. I have defined criteria that disqualify the content visible in the waterfall. If a person posts only this kind of content two or three times in a row and I do not associate them with anything else (especially with original content, i.e. THEIR OWN posts or articles), then I turn off the “Follow” function, obviously still maintaining the connection. Why obviously? Well, your network of contacts is important because of the contacts of your contacts. So, what I am aiming at is keeping the water flow down, but not shutting off the entire water-pipe network...

Now, on to the key issue - what are the criteria for disqualifying the content and disabling the “Follow” function? Let me repeat it – these criteria are mine. Everyone should define their own. I'm assessing them in a very simple language:

a)   nonsense such as: "I was there, it was great / I'm going there, it will be great / I am here, it is great". The fact that someone was or is somewhere doesn't bring any value to me and is a nuisance. Even if this delighted participant adds what was discussed there, it is not enough for me. It can only be saved by summing up key theses/conclusions, so that I could think about it myself. Without it, sorry, time to go

b)   wise and philosophical quotes, mostly invented, illustrated by photos of Einstein, Lincoln, Coelho etc. And on top of it all, the most arrogant and narcissistic ones – self-quotes. All the more so because 99,99% of these “own” quotes are merely recycled thoughts of great people, incomparably wiser, verified by time and history

c)   OlegV himself (maybe “itself”? has anybody seen him alive?) and OlegV-type wisdom. There is more of such philosophers assuring us that it is better to be healthy instead ill. When somebody brings such a wisdom to my dashboard (giving a like or comment “oh, so true!”), time to go

d)   posts starting with "I know this is not Facebook, but..." and on with a picture of a kitten, a puppy, a sunset, holiday memories, their child, their neighbor's child, a skateboarding accident, a political commentary, etc.

e)   self-indulging rubbish showing just “by the way” how amazing / cool / jazzy / relaxed / great / sweet / romantic / deep someone is, i.e. "There is nothing like a successful day on the golf course after a week of saving the world”, or “Breakfast in Zurich, lunch in Warsaw, and in the evening I bought a skyscraper”, or “It may seem to you that my life is beautiful, but I am just like you and sometimes I get a sore throat, so give me a hug", etc. If anyone has a nouveau riche complex (financial or intellectual) and must strengthen their faith in themselves this was, well... not in my waterfall

f)    false wise men, who set themselves only in the positions of reviewers of others, but do not create anything and do not put out any original material that others could evaluate. The only thing they "create" is criticism, always and everywhere, often fierce, arrogant and crossing the boundaries, leaving behind only burnt ground. There are some villains like these in LI. First, I observe them and deliberately enter the discussions (even brawls, it's funny sometimes) to check the depth of the player. It soon turns out that he is only a shallow puddle, not a well, and then... time to go. Their attitude results probably from further complexes and low self-esteem. When they bully others it improves their self-esteem. But let the doctors deal with it, not the members of the LI community

g)   intrusive sellers of everything: paintings, real estate, t-shirts, motivational rubber bracelets, insurance, all kinds of -coins, etc.

h)   faithful soldiers of their employers, who have the company logo tattooed on their forehead and flood the waterfall with advertisements of their employer and all the "wonderful, fantastic, inspiring" events happening in the company. I say "no" to that

i)     put your own additional criteria here...

An important note – if, apart from such empty gibberish, someone publishes their own original content, I turn a blind eye to the above activity. I am willing to pay the price. Original content for me is something that contains the didactic element, knowledge, conclusions, a reliable description of a business case, thoughts and reflections for further deliberations.

Effect of the procedure described above? Systematically, on a daily basis, I clear the waterfall. Much less empty foolishness, much less time wasted on scrolling, a greater likelihood that something valuable will come up. LI is in the phase of dynamic growth, so the rate of appearance of any material, including ordinary useless hay, is enormous. For me, an indicator that at least I am beginning to achieve some balance is the fact that LI gets breathless and resends me material that have already been posted. And that is good, because it's supposed to work for me, not me for LI! (yes, I am na?ve…)