I believe the technical term is “Oops!”
…

Management of endorsements should be equally accessible by both parties to allow for modification(s) – and more specifically, deletion as deemed warranted by the endorser.

 

Recipient control over endorsements is by design. We want people to be careful when giving endorsements, so they should only be given when you know the person for a while and don’t expect to have to take the endorsement back.

Endorsements are not the same as true references–they are there for screening purposes. Like other candidate-provided references, they tend to be positive. But having them upfront makes it more convenient to tap this information and used it at the front end of the cycle.

A skilled interviewer can probably get some more info on the phone from those references, but the most meaningful references are those NOT provided by the candidate. That’s what LinkedIn’s reference search is for: http://www.linkedin.com/rs.

Business and Pro account holders also have the “one-click reference” link on profiles–those also yield off-resume references. We’ve received some excellent feedback on this capability. Many people understand the value of backdoor references, but it is rarely done because it is so time-consuming to find them and get the cooperation of the person who has worked with the candidate.

It isn’t simply whether the endorsement was sincere when it originated, but whether circumstances themselves have since altered the perception/reputation of the individual in question. Linkedin doesn’t allow us to retract our endorsements, unless we agree to completely disconnect our connection with the individual – a nuclear option so to speak. The alternative adds insult to injury. I’d prefer a silent release – allowing us to retract without a whimper, yet maintain the connection as an option.

Endorsements should reflect life circumstances to retain relevance. All parties should have the means to part ways as friendships and professional relationships tend to do. At present, only the recipient of the endorsement holds authority over the endorsement. In fact, only the recipient has the ability “Management Endorsements.” Upon reviewing our endorsements we are instructed to change which endorsements appear with the checkboxes provided, as we deem fit. http://www.linkedin.com/endorsements?display Logic demands that both the endorser and the recipient should have equal authority to designate whether the endorsement is available to the viewing public. An endorser should have as much right to retract an endorsement as a recipient does to post or pull an endorsement.

Unfortunately, social networking services have spawned a rash of undeserved endorsements. I like to think that good endorsements are like heartbeats… we’re each born with only so many of them, so you’d better not use them up too quickly.

Looking forward to more posts.

Let me be a naysayer and look at the darker side of LinkedIn (or any other tool) endorsements. This has briefly been touched on but let me go down the rabbit hole a little further with this thought.
Just because someone leaves an endorsement saying someone is the ‘ant’s pants’ does that necessarily make it so. Human beings for years have mastered the art of spin and we see instances of authors asking for endorsements on the back pages of their books to drive the perception of credibility by the author and their subject, but after reading some of these books you realize that it did not live up to the hype of the endorsements.
Could enough mutual collective hype by a consortium of individuals looking to leverage such a tool for self promotional purposes, tilt external perception to far away from someone’s actual real abilities?
When we boil it down the real reason that we ask for endorsements (like the back cover of a book) is to make people feel more comfortable buying that product. The product in this case is the person and in the majority of cases the actual end transaction is a job (be it FTE or contractor services).
Not trying to start another Area51 alien conspiracy theory but just offering up another angle on the subject

If so, it needs to be treated as the “precious jewel” that it is.

Thanks for the reminder.

It will be fun and interesting to see your thoughts in the blog.

Karen