Although I suspect I will piss off a bunch of people by saying this, here's a problem that I see with a lot of very well-meaning and in many ways very valuable advice that tenured/tenure-track faculty give contingent faculty:
Tenured/tenure-track (TTT) faculty tend to give advice that is intended to help contingent faculty become just like them. It's advice that is based on future prospects, on the assumption that contingent faculty will ultimately join the tenure-track ranks, and that envisions contingent employment as a transitory stage in academic life. You will earn a Ph.D., you will probably (unless you are very very lucky) work in temporary positions for some period, and then you will either get a tenure-track job or you will leave the profession.
After all, this is the model with which many TTT faculty are familiar. In the current job market, I'd be willing to bet that many more TTT faculty have a few (or more) years of temp work under their belts than don't, and they probably all know people who found contingent employment unsustainable and left the profession. So naturally, such TTT faculty think that they understand the way the whole contingent faculty thing works.
The thing is, there is a whole cohort of people out there for whom contingent employment is their career. It's not a transitory stage. It is what it is. Sometimes this is because those faculty wanted tenure-track jobs and couldn't get them, sometimes (many times) it's not. But in either case, it means that contingent faculty actually occupy a completely different position from TTT people. They're not proto-TTT faculty. They are something else entirely.
For people in that position, much of the advice intended to transition them to a TTT position is not helpful and does not address the realities of their lives. Many contingent faculty are not trying to get a better, permanent job in the future, because they know that isn't going to happen. Instead, they want help configuring their current position to be humane and sustainable. That is not the same thing as advice on how ultimately to land a TTT position.
Hence, quite a bit of both sides talking past each other.
People use the term "adjunct" to mean all kinds of completely different things, so much so that I think the term has become pretty unhelpful. I'm following the practice of labor activists to use the umbrella term "contingent faculty" to mean anyone who is not tenured or on the tenure-track or on some kind of contract-based equivalent. If I say "adjunct," I mean people who are hired by the course on a temporary basis. Pay is by the course, often not providing benefits. You can be a full-time adjunct, but usually by stacking courses at different institutions. To refer to people who are temporary but who teach full time, who usually are paid a salary and receive benefits, I use the terms lecturer/instructor interchangeably. I also use the term VAP, or visiting assistant professor; I tend to think of these as people who are explicitly filling in for someone who is on sabbatical or to cover a line that is definitely going to be filled with a tenure-track person in the very near future (like someone who fills in during the year a department runs a national search for the line), although this definition may be my own little creation. It's the visiting thing, though, that to me implies the kind of limited term that, for instance, a sabbatical replacement mandates, and distinguishes these people from lecturers/instructors.
 To be fair, I used to think I knew how it all worked based on my own experience as an adjunct/lecturer before getting on the tenure-track, and after getting off the tenure-track. The observation I make here is based on seminar research I did earlier this year, which helped flesh out my perspective a bit beyond my own experience.