I wrote a very long comment and now i removed it but basically i think this article's more funny than it is a functionally effective satire; the idea's more interesting than well-executed -- BUT ALSO it's smart, and it's funny, and it's got an interesting premise and closes strong.
so it's not bad
but really, anyone else feel the argument (the actual argument being made) leaves a little to be desired?
points #3 and 4 don't seem to align to the article's premise/thesis : it seems more like the author wanted to satirize those elements of linkedin than had considered whether those steps would actually help a user 'win' (as defined so vaguely, once in the article) at the game of linkedin
the win-case presented for the game is so generic i don't understand what it has to do with linked in (except that the author wanted to write about linked in)
Anyone else see what I'm seeing? Any little bit? At all?