LinkedIn’s Desktop Doublespeak

(Also posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/linkedins-desktop-doublespeak-duncan-k-g-campbell)

I previously wrote a rather general criticism of LinkedIn’s new website design and experience, likening it to Microsoft’s Windows 8 and the attempt to unify the experience of keyboard and mouse-driven interfaces on (primarily) desktop computers with touch-driven interfaces on (primarily) mobile devices. A seamless experience is a noble goal indeed, but there are differences between mobile and desktop devices. Also, the desktop offering is a web site whilst the mobile offering is an app – though it is still possible to access the web site from a mobile device. So, why should someone using one interface be restricted by the limitations of another interface rather than playing to the advantages of each interface?

My previous article also touched on the contrast between the uncritical adulation of the new design by the professional commentariat and the dissatisfaction voiced by individual users of LinkedIn and their own experiences.

I was in two minds over whether to follow up with an article on the same subject, but LinkedIn’s press release is still at the top of their own Newsroom page, so in this article I would like to delve a little deeper into LinkedIn’s own claims and see how those match up to reality as experienced by myself and others.

LinkedIn’s own press release for the new LinkedIn desktop makes a number of claims and gives a number of hints. Let’s examine the main points in this press release in more detail.

“Streamlined navigation: […] With one simple click on the “more” icon on the navigation bar you can also launch into other experiences that matter to you, like LinkedIn Learning.”

The “more” icon was renamed to “Business”, but it now appears as “Apps” – presumably some of the 3-times-a-day updates facilitated by the new technology stack that the press release also mentions? – but are the contents really “apps”? Also, the contents include Groups which was not mentioned in the list of experiences that matter to me and other users – a hint as to what LinkedIn thinks of the Groups feature?

“Smarter messaging that helps you connect and unlock new opportunities: With our new real-time messaging interface, you can message a connection wherever you are on LinkedIn.”

That’s odd because I tried to send a message directly to a contact in response to his status update in my news feed but couldn’t. That’s hardly helpful.

“Richer Feed to keep you informed: With a combination of algorithms and human editors working together, we’ve fine tuned your Feed to surface the most relevant content from people and publishers you care most about. We’ll also be adding new ways for you to dive deep into specific topics relevant to you and follow trending stories.”

This is perhaps my greatest gripe with the new LinkedIn experience: “relevant” content.

The people and publishers I most care about are the ones in my network; can I easily see their content? No. The feed is jumbled up by someone's or something’s own idea as to what might be relevant to me. If I could sort the feed chronologically – like one used to be able to do – then I would be able to easily see the content from the people in my network. LinkedIn is not a newspaper or a magazine where I am quite happy to accept that editors have an editorial line and will decide what gets published in what order, but I also expect the order of articles in a newspaper or magazine to stay the same, except for those “most viewed/commented/shared” lists.

In order for me to be better informed I read from a variety of sources and relish serendipitous discovery of new things. Algorithms (as they are generally designed to behave at the moment) are the enemy of such breadth and variety – watch one video by a crazy conspiracy theorist on YouTube and then see your YouTube recommendations fill up with more crazy conspiracy theorists. Such recommendation lists further funnel people into intellectual silos, a practice which is the antithesis of what it means to be intellectual.

“More intuitive search: You now have one universal search box to easily find people, jobs, companies, groups and schools. You can refine your search by using filter options on the right hand side, with the ability to search posts coming soon. Also, we're investing further to better understand signals on what they searching for? Or who you are searching for so we can bring you the best results for any search query.”

The search functionality appears to be fine, but it was not a major part of my interaction with the LinkedIn website so I cannot really say whether it has improved or not.

“Greater insight into who’s viewing your content: You can now see who’s reading and engaging with the content you share, including the company, job title and location of the people who are interested in your updates.”

I used to be able to see who’d liked my comments in Groups or replied to conversations I’d replied to in Groups, but not now.

I used to be able to see who’d liked or commented on my updates before, so what’s really changed for the better?

“Better suggestions to make your profile stand out: […]”

Those better suggestions include asking me to indicate my location when my location is already part of my profile.

I could also touch on how I now see less news on a single Feed page than before, how it is harder to scroll on the Feed page because of the delayed loading of images causing it to jump, h

ow the faster site is now slower, etc. but perhaps those things will be fixed as part of the 3-times-a-day updates.

I cannot help but think that LinkedIn is now a network that no longer has the benefits of a network, is a news site that lacks the benefits of a news site, and is a forum that lacks the benefits of a forum.

LinkedIn's Windows 8 Moment

(Also posted on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/linkedins-windows-8-moment-duncan-k-g-campbell)

If you’re reading this on LinkedIn’s website, then welcome to LinkedIn’s very own Windows 8.

LinkedIn’s new website is slow, it has less functionality than before and the remaining functionality is harder to use.

The LinkedIn app for mobile devices already offered me little in the way of functionality so the bulk of my interaction with LinkedIn was via the web site.  Now those two experiences are barely distinguishable, both being as equally useless as the app was before and remains so.

Why, you might ask, is my ire so raised?  Why the vitriol when praise aplenty has been heaped on the new web site design?  Why indeed.

Searching the web for comments on the new website design leaves me to wonder whether I’m living in some sort of parallel universe as there is nothing but complete praise for LinkedIn’s new look and level of functionality from the professional commentariat.  But take a look at the comments on those articles (where comments are allowed) and there is nothing but rejection of the new design – take Wired’s article for instance https://www.wired.com/2017/01/new-linkedin-looks-just-like-facebook-smart-move/.

(Shades of the media living in their echo chambers and not recognizing the forces leading to M5S, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Brexit and Trump?)

What in particular do I find so distasteful about the new website design?  What is the oh-so-precious functionality that I miss?

The greatest loss for me is the loss of chronological sorting of items in the “news” feed.  The writing for this has been on the wall for many months since the default order became LinkedIn’s own random sorting of items rather than sorting by date.  Is it so perverse of me to actually want to see things in order?  Is it so unusual for me to want to look through the updates of the people in my network in the order in which they happened?  Why would I only want to see what’s “top” based on some echo-chamber inducing ranking algorithm that changes periodically so if I browse down through that list I suddenly see items from weeks or months ago in amongst things from minutes or hours ago?

Knowing what’s “top” – however that’s determined – is occasionally of mild interest, but give people the choice!

LinkedIn claim that the loss of chronological sorting is only “temporary”, but is that “temporary” like emergency powers, or is it temporary like the dictatorship of Cincinnatus?  I have my own suspicions.

The Jobs section was already sorted according to some unknown ranking, which make it useless for anyone to discover a newly-listed job posting.

It’s slow.

No, I don’t have the figures to back up my assertion, but it is noticeably slower than with the previous design.

For my profile views I now know next to nothing.  The total number of views over the last 3 months is useless.  At least the old graph as well as being able to see one’s ranking for views within one’s network or organization was entertaining.  That even provided a little bit of gamification, but alas no more.

The website and the app are now barely distinguishable.  Yes, it’s great to be able to share code and present a familiar look between web and app versions, but the app is for use with a device that has limitations in its user interface – fingers.  A website is something that is expected to be accessible to people from someone using a screen reader to people using keyboards and mice or fingers.  On a website I expect to be able to open all links in new tabs, now some of the links are magic links that don’t work like that.  Popping up a window when hovering a cursor over a button allows one to glance at something without having to open a whole new page, but now one has to open a whole new page instead.  Did I mention that it’s also slower now?

There are many other areas with diminished levels of functionality with people complaining about the changes to searching within one’s network.  There are also too many other nit-picking details for me to bother with here.

As for features having been moved around, I’ve come to expect that.  I’ve even done it myself in products in order to group functionality in a more logical fashion.  But should Groups really be found under Business?  Seriously?

Sadly, we’re not members, for if we were then we would have a say in this “club”.  Instead we are users: users of a product that is our own data, for that is what one is in any social network even when that social network is for business and career networking and advancement rather than sharing cat videos and writing ungentlemanly abuse at strangers from behind the cloak of anonymity or pseudo anonymity.