LinkedIn InMaps

January 26th, 2011 | by Jason Alba |

There is a little buzz about LinkedIn InMaps… it shows you your network graphically.

It’s supposed to be pretty cool.  You can read about it, and see an image, here.

I went to try it and this is what my InMap looks like:


So there you go. I can’t comment on the value of this.  Cool, perhaps, but I don’t know what value this provides.  I’d love to know what you think.

Here’s a post from Steve Tylock about this – he got his to work.

Anything exciting here, folks?

  1. 3 Responses to “LinkedIn InMaps”

  2. By Will Kintish on Jan 27, 2011 | Reply

    I think the boys ( and girls) at LinkedIn must be scratching around for something to do. I too cannot see the value of the map. Unless of course you like modern art and have space on one of your walls to hang a new oicture!!

  3. By Fred Dempster on Jan 27, 2011 | Reply

    @will – I have to agree, yet there are those dudes selling framed pictures of your DNA for decent bucks… hmmm … could be a business in this – - sorry Jason, yours would not be good behind the couch!

  4. By tony on Feb 19, 2011 | Reply

    I think the idea behind the map is that of most social network graphs – to see exactly how the members in your network related to you in relevance (who are the true connectors, the experts, etc) and importance (what companies, interests, familiarity). If you are looking to find out this information w/ the traditional linear view available on the connections page, it’s a little more difficult to find the high-level relationships of everyone. You could do it through shared connections on each profile, but you’re a little too granular at that point and would wind up making a mental picture of who knows who, anyway.

    I can see this being valuable in a few ways:

    - seeing who the real connectors are – those who either know the biggest number of people in your network and perhaps have the largest networks themselves. Helpful for further networking or gaining insight into what makes a ‘connector’ connect.

    - seeing how ‘balanced’ your network is – if you see a large color group but recognize they are all from only one segment of your real network, this could be flag that your online network is not fully representative of those you know. Time to reach out to whatever segment is missing

    - recognizing the strength of your connections – how many of your connections are weak vs. strong? Have you focused only on strong connections w/ the thought that only those people would be worth linking to? Weak connections can provide new information and open doors in unexpected ways.

    - industry/expertise/service – are you leveraging your own ‘connecting’ opportunities by putting similar contacts in touch? Also, similar to the balance point above, are you weak in some industries or services where you’d like to develop more connections?

    There are more but these are the ones that come to mind now.

    It definitely feels experimental so far. For example, I haven’t really figured out how useful the coloring is, though. Since you can’t seem to alter how things are colored, you wind up with overlap based on whatever the algorithm thinks the relationship is. For example, I have probably 15 people that I would like to keep separate but are colored according to a larger group due to some unknown property value.

Post a Comment