[notahacker]

Judging by the content I get served, the kind of content that performs best is outsourced to ChatGPT

And written in a very specific way

Not like that. Like this.

The aversion to conventional paragraph structures is as important as the bragging.

And it's not that that opinions are strong, or genuinely held, or even that well-defined.

It's just the AI favourite "not this, this" pattern you get when you ask it to write persuasively or express a strong opinion. And a lot of line breaks.

And the stories are the sort where at the start, the individual makes it clear just how committed to hustle culture they are, and at the end, everyone claps.

I work in a field that is actually quite interesting even to people outside it, and some of the people I'm connected with have actual expertise, reputation and sometimes strong opinions they even sometimes express on LinkedIn

But the algorithm prefers GPT-written fake stories with lots of one sentence paragraphs, most of them focused on recruitment.

That sounds like mediocrity to me.

In most cases it probably doesn't even need expertise on ragebait. LLMs can do that bit

[torginus]

My impression was all 'content' that does well on LinkedIn (including the stuff I like), is because people want to engage with the creator in hopes they get in their good graces which will somehow help them land a job, or they're in a pact with others and like each others' content.

Recommending others and getting recommended by folks whose word means something might be meaningful, but that's about it.

Regular (and often painfully below average) rubes with a dozen self-appointed titles (SaaS platform evnagelist, Innovator, Tinkerer, Father), who post articles like 'Here's what murdering a homeless man taught me about b2b sales' are the definition of cringe.

[notahacker]

I think you're quite right that most content gets likes and engagement from people promoting their company, their mates in the industry and people whose attention they want to attract, and usually doesn't spread much beyond that. That's the case whether it's genuinely interesting or generic promotions.

But the "viral" content seems to be something else entirely: as you point out a lot of the people are rubes running pre-product start-ups or consulting, and surely there are more people wanting to impress people with actual budgets and teams and products. Feels like they're successfully catering to an algorithm calibrated for bored but easily impressed scrollers (as well as other rubes and bot-operated accounts that want to share their equally unlikely takes on B2B sales) rather than their network.

Recently I saw a recruiter posting side by side screenshots of the engagement with a high effort collection of industry info she'd compiled with infographics and links, and a copy/paste of an unfunny meme with a tagline applying it to her industry. You'll never guess which one had 10x the engagement...

[oytis]

Engagement slop is next level, I wouldn't even call this mediocrity. I rather meant genuine thought leaders. E.g. in my area of expertise (embedded systems) there are a couple of people who dominate LinkedIn on advice in that area.

Their advice is not necessarily bad, but not particularly original either. They just beat their drums with half a dozen of opinions they paraphrase over and over. They seem to have certain experience as engineers, but I wouldn't expect them to be particularly good ones.

On the other hand, I know a couple of outstandingly good engineers I have worked with, who also have some mindshare on private blogs and conferences, but nowhere near the thought leaders, and definitely not on LinkedIn

[cootsnuck]

Now here's the question then...do you wish those outstandingly good engineers (who do seem to want to share their thoughts hence the blogs and conferences) were sharing some of their good thoughts on LinkedIn?

Do we wish more worthwhile people were posting on LinkedIn? Or do we think that posting on LI is incompatible with sharing worthwhile thoughts?