Stop it, Eric...my head hurts ;-)

I've been following Eric Mariacher's posts recently as he's been attempting to understand users and connections on LinkedIn to come to a conclusion on how many connections is worth having.

His latest post MARIACHER’S NETWORKING LAW ;-) –OR- WHY DO MY FINDINGS DO NOT CONTRADICT REED'S AND METCALFE'S LAWS just makes my head hurt ;-). But it's well worth a read if you're a bit of a geek and into such things (which I am)

Eric follows on from his previous post, where he asks the question: Is it worth having 7000 or 100 LinkedIn connections?

His conclusion is that, as around 43% of LinkedIn users are passive (meaning only having 1 connection) then a user with 100 1st level connections has "access roughly to the same number of active LinkedIn users as [ a user] who has 7000 1st level connections".

Now, here's the rub. Eric's conclusion is based on his opinion that passive users are not of the same value as active users. Of course, in "networking" terms that is probably true. But that isn't the reason many people use LinkedIn.

What if you're a researcher, headhunter, sales person? Finding a named passive contact sitting there with just one contact can be extremely valuable.

By Eric's figures, someone with 7000+ connections (which must be Eric, he's ranked #27 on TopLinked) has access to 2.6 million 3rd degree connections (mainly passive users), whereas someone with 100 has access to 1.3 million users (this is of course not entirely accurate, I have around 1000 1st degree connections less than Eric and the same number of 3rd degree connections)

However, could that extra 1.3 million 3rd connections be worth the effort? For some people...yes it could.

Or should I say yes it was as 3000 is the theoretical ceiling for invites on LinkedIn now, so unless you're there now...forget it baby ;-)

Anyway, thanks for the analysis, Eric. Very enjoyable.

Technorati Tags - Online Networking, LinkedIn