The LinkedIn Shortcuts That Tempt Users—and What They May Cost

In a recent LinkedIn post, Richard van der Blom discusses the temptation to use platform shortcuts such as engagement pods, automated outreach and purchased followers. This article covers van der Blom’s post and its questions; it is not written by him. He says he has avoided those tactics while acknowledging that curiosity about them is common.

“15+ years on LinkedIn. Never used a pod. Never automated outreach. Never bought a single follower.”

Van der Blom frames his post around a hypothetical poll: if trying a shortcut carried no risk and no one would know, which would people choose? The question invites respondents to disclose what appeals to them, while the promise not to identify anyone makes the poll sound deliberately low-pressure.

A question about temptation, not an endorsement

As van der Blom notes, avoiding a tactic does not mean never wondering about it. His post explicitly acknowledges that curiosity, then asks readers to consider which option might tempt them and why. That framing shifts attention from a simple judgment about right and wrong toward the motivations behind the choices: reach, efficiency or a desire to grow an audience faster.

“Zero risk. Nobody finds out. Which shortcut would you test?”

The scenario is presented as a thought experiment rather than advice to use any of the listed methods. Van der Blom does not give results in the post itself. Instead, he says he plans to return to the question after the poll closes with findings from his algorithm research.

Promising a follow-up on account effects

According to van der Blom, the later discussion will focus on what happens to accounts that try each shortcut. That promise gives the poll a second purpose: it gathers readers’ stated preferences ahead of an explanation about potential platform effects. The post does not specify the research methods, findings or outcomes, so those details remain pending until his follow-up.

Why the poll’s framing matters

By asking what “tempts” people, van der Blom makes the poll about attraction as well as behavior. Readers can reveal a preference without claiming to have acted on it. His closing request—asking why a particular option is appealing—also invites discussion about the pressures that can make shortcuts seem worthwhile in professional networking.

Van der Blom’s post therefore leaves its central question open. Its stated conclusion is still to come: after the poll closes, he says he will share what his research shows about accounts that test these approaches. Until then, the post offers a prompt for reflection, not a reported verdict on the tactics.