Justin Oberman Questions LinkedIn’s Algorithm for ‘Thinkers’ vs. ‘Publishers’

In a recent LinkedIn post, Justin Oberman explores the frustrations many creators experience with the platform’s content-sharing limitations, suggesting it may be better suited for publishers than for prolific thinkers.

Oberman likens the experience of having ideas suppressed by the algorithm to that of a child being told they must wait to share their thoughts. He highlights a common dilemma for active content creators: the platform’s algorithm appears to discourage frequent posting, even when ideas are abundant.

“Imagine having a bunch of great thoughts and being told to wait 18 hours to share them like ur a child asking for dessert.”

This sentiment points to a perceived conflict between LinkedIn’s reward system and the natural flow of creative ideation. Oberman elaborates on the consequence of this algorithmic behavior, noting the accumulation of unshared ideas.

The Graveyard of Untimely Ideas

Oberman details how his personal ‘notes app’ has become a repository for post ideas that never see the light of day due to the platform’s constraints. This digital graveyard represents a loss of potential engagement and discussion that could have been sparked by timely content.

“The notes app on my phone has become a graveyard of potential linkedin posts that peaked at 9:47am on a tuesday and were never seen again.”

The core of Oberman’s critique lies in what he perceives as a paradox within LinkedIn’s strategy. As he points out:

“The irony is that LinkedIn rewards consistency but penalizes frequency.”

This observation suggests that while regularity in posting is encouraged, the ability to share multiple thoughts or updates within a shorter timeframe is actively hindered. This contrasts sharply with other platforms where rapid-fire content sharing is not only permitted but often celebrated.

Comparison with Other Platforms

To further illustrate his point, Oberman contrasts LinkedIn’s approach with that of other social media and publishing platforms. He notes the flexibility offered by Twitter and Substack Notes, which allow for a much higher volume of posts within a given period without apparent penalty.

“Twitter or Substack notes lets you post 15 times before lunch and people thank you for it,” Oberman writes, emphasizing the different user experiences and algorithmic behaviors across platforms. This comparison underscores his view that LinkedIn’s current structure may not be optimized for individuals who generate ideas at a rapid pace.

Thinkers vs. Publishers on LinkedIn

The concluding thoughts from Oberman pose a fundamental question about the platform’s intended purpose and design. He directly questions whether LinkedIn serves as an ideal environment for deep thinkers versus those who operate more like traditional publishers.

“Maybe LinkedIn isn’t built for thinkers. Maybe it’s built for publishers.”

In Justin Oberman’s view, this distinction is crucial. The platform’s algorithmic tendencies, as he interprets them, favor a more curated, less frequent output, which might align better with a publisher’s model of releasing polished content periodically. Conversely, the spontaneous, idea-driven nature of a ‘thinker’ may find itself at odds with these constraints, leading to the frustration and unshared content Oberman describes.