Notes from the LinkedIn Field

booleanstrings Boolean Leave a Comment

[Edited Dec 8th: it is back working! And the search right now is truly Boolean. Enjoy while it lasts!] The field of LinkedIn.com search is currently, unfortunately, full of bugs. Following up on and expanding my last post, here are some observations.

  1. Often, results do not include some or all of the 3rd level connections. It seems random to me; any insights from the analytical minds are welcome!
  2. Sometimes, NOT is not respected. This search for cats not dogs produces a profile with the word dogs. Also seems random.
  3. Terms in the Keyword field are heavily interpreted – have been for a long time. Try, for example, java engineer (NOT java NOT engineer) – it brings up over 200 results. You never know what LinkedIn may decide sounds like a title. Here is how to avoid the interpretation – LinkedIn’s “Verbatim” mode (not entirely though; things may still happen):
  • Put every term in the quotes.
  • Use as many parentheses as you can.
  • Use the explicit AND.

Then, the results will get better.

Note that not all of us are affected by the above (see some differences in the comments.) Some members get reasonable results (but the interpretation part affects all, so use your quotes.)

Leave a Reply