Even LinkedIn looses, as they do get more noise in their data, so that their intel about you, their matching will become worse, when a lot of people are endorsed for things they do not like to highlight, or are endorsed by family even if the skills are not that "good"...
So everyone looses, even recruiters, as they get more false positives when searching for skills.
It is a short business-win for LinkedIn, but a long term loss.
But how do they differentiate between the two. How do they know, that endorsement a is less worth, than say endorsement b?
And how to be sure about the differentiation?
Bit I have to say I'm biased:
I really do not give much on these sites. I tried LinkedIn years ago, but nearly no one used it here in Germany. I used to use the local equivalent, but it really was a big waste of time, at least for me and all the people I know who used it.
Recruiter spam, self-exposers, and so on. Nothing ever came from it. Really nothing.
So these sites ultimately live of the dreams of people and of recruiters with the (imho) wrong incentives.
> But how do they differentiate between the two. How do they know, that endorsement a is less worth, than say endorsement b?
E.g. they know _when_ a user endorsed, and if they endorsed all four or individually. And they know more about the user--ie how often he endorses, and who he's connected to.
And, yes, I agree with your low opinion of linkedIn and co. (Even though a close friend of mine actually got a job with the MathWorks in Germany through linkedIn---she was cold-emailled by an internal MathWorks recruiter.)
So everyone looses, even recruiters, as they get more false positives when searching for skills.
It is a short business-win for LinkedIn, but a long term loss.