Ah ha! The Penny Drops

I've just had quick lessons in the advisability of thinking through decisions to their logical conclusions and understanding how something works before using it.

Whilst trying to 'get my profile out there', as advised by many of the successful writers at one of the groups I attend, I have, amongst other things, logged onto LinkedIn.  The ability and willingness of new writers to self-promote is, apparently, favourably regarded by the publishing world - it can bring along with a writer a ready-made audience, thereby reducing the company's risk on a completely unknown voice.

I think I have mentioned previously my techno-twit tendencies when it comes to all things www and computer-based.

Yesterday I received a phonecall from someone, who shall remain anonymous, making assumptions about what went on in my life.  I was, until this morning, confused as to how they came by the information.

These three sets of facts are LinkedIn.  

The caller knew someone who had viewed, in a third party capacity, my profile on aforementioned website (I had noted that a particular person had paid me a visit, but didn't mentally follow through the consequences at their end).  Now, I'm not saying that anything on my profile was an untruth - absolutely not.  However, like any CV, you need to, let's say, skew a profile in order to aim it at your intended target.  If I'm applying for a secretarial job, I'll highlight my secretarial skills;  if I'm heading down the receptionist route, I'll bring those experiences to the fore.  None of these ploys, if honestly engaged, cause inaccuracies, untruths, or for the reader to be misled. They simply change the direction of the beam from my angle-poise lamp.  We are all our own PR agents these days.  In this particular case, I am trying to highlight my writing credentials.  I want my writing to be the bit that people see, not for them to focus on the other stuff that I do in order to shore up my life to enable me to write.

Now, this information could be seen, if read in a particular way (ie, without the entirety of the brain engaged, or by someone looking for justification of an erroneous belief), to imply that I do a limited amount of salaried work and spend the rest of my time in my garret creating.  Ah, if only that were possible.  Proof, I suppose, that 2 + 2 doesn't always = 4.  It can = 6 if you look carefully enough for the extra 2 standing in the shadows.  Unfortunately, one cannot impose conditions on how people read the information in front of them.  You have to have a certain amount of faith that the people who read internet profiles are aware of how these things work.

So my attempt at self-promotion was sent slightly off-course by one mistake, thereby causing the scenario described above.  I hit a return key when I should have hit the 'skip' button and sent an invitation to everyone I have ever emailed in the entire history of my internet life to become one of my connections instead of the chosen few, which was what I had originally intended.  This included Argos, Sainsbury's, a couple of job websites, the OU, some guy who came to fix my daughter's laptop about 18 months ago and people from my past who I probably wouldn't have included (for various reasons, some of which may have something to do with the wrong people being able to get hold of pieces of information that could be taken out of context).  I thought it might cause problems as soon as I'd realised what I'd done, but wasn't au fait enough with the website to understand how to correct the mistake until far too late and invitations had been accepted.  Certain connections have now been severed, not necessarily because of the connectee (not a word, but what the hell, it's been an irritating 24 hours), but because of the third party connection.  I didn't think through the consequences of my actions.

Now the question is, do I put the fourth party straight, thereby possibly giving away even more information that really isn't any of their business, or do I refuse to engage any further and let them get on with believing whatever they want, erroneous or otherwise?  Answers on a postcard, please.