LinkedIn - Relationships Matter - So Consult!!

5:58 pm PDT, Oct 20, Mike Landis, Florida
1) Many group administrators are slow to respond to membership requests - I have identified well over a dozen groups that may well have an infinite approval process. Given that it is impossible to tell which groups have an infinite approval duration, the limit of ten can have a serious impact on member's ability to join. 2) The fifty group limit is also a serious constraint given the degree of duplication, there are 441 knowledge management groups, 317 business intelligence groups, 55 statistics groups, 55 business analytics groups (many overlapping the statistics groups), 49 computational science groups, 35 Motorola related groups, 32 artificial intelligence groups, 18 natural language groups, ten mobile computing groups, six Matlab groups, six quantitative finance groups, two Tektronix alumni/employee groups, even two neural networks groups, and I haven't even touched the recruiter oriented networks. People are multi-dimensional (some have more dimensions than others). I have attended multiple universities, worked at multiple companies, have worked in high tech sales, product/program management, and maintain multiple areas of technical expertise. I have developed software in C/C++, Smalltalk, CommonLISP, Scheme, PHP, SQL, FORTRAN, and Matlab and considered Ruby, Python, and Perl before going a different direction. Fifty groups is really only workable for kids still in college, or shortly after graduation. It doesn't come anywhere near close to being a workable limit for someone with three decades of experience. I am involved in the investment community, talent acquisition, outsourcing, corporate strategy, corporate marketing, product management, marketing, merchandising, technology leadership, algorithm and software development, etc. If there has to be a limit, 1000 would be closer to workable given the duplication. Any limit on the number of groups will drive people interested maximizing their network toward the very largest groups. Ultimately, a groups utility devolves into a popularity contest. Small groups get squeezed out because multi-dimensional people don't have room to include them. Limits are bad for small groups, good for big ones. If LinkedIn wants to squeeze small groups out of the network, limits on the number of groups members may participate in is a very effective lever for achieving that objective.

I have only recently really begun to rely on LinkedIn and started bumping against the limits within a few weeks. If the point is really to discover groups with shared interests that you could potentially pose questions to, then LinkedIn's group limits have very seriously impaired the potentially usefulness of the site. Three weeks after beginning to take LinkedIn seriously, I have already had to seek out alternatives. I am actively using TechCrunch, TradeVibes, FaceBook, CodeProject, CodeGuru, GoogleGroups and a number of special purpose forums and blogs - windows mobile, MySQL, etc. I have begun to investigate decisionstats, marzar, xing, and viadeo. LinkedIn is essentially forcing me off their site. If LinkedIn management really had vision, they'd be doing everything they could to keep their existing clientele on their site. Unfortunately, someone at LinikedIn had a vision, the world grew up around them, and they can't let go of the initial vision. That strategy feeds their competition; LinkedIn's importance will fade over time and one of the upstarts will rise to displace it. I am in the process of trying to figure out which one that will be right now.

3:38 pm PDT, Sep 11, James Tritten, New Mexico
I might understand a limit of 50 groups if someone from LinkedIn had explained that it was taking too much memory space and that was a problem. I might have understood if I thought that the loading of hundreds of logos was bothering people who used a telephone line to connect to the internet. But nothing like that was explained.

I have already shifted my networking to other providers. I will likely drop my business memebership from LinkedIn once I get these other networks up and running. Too bad, LinkedIn was the best and now it is nothing but a problem.

10:38 am PDT, Sep 7, Adrienne Sasson, Pennsylvania
I have been having great success with LinkedIn and fun as well meeting people throughout the world. Part of that success is through groups. Group discussions should be led by the group leaders. I don't see the sense of the "powers" of LinkedIN to disassemble a group without regard to the group leaders or members, unless the group is blatantly the acting outside of boundaries of good will set forth by the rules and regulations of LinkedIN. As to limits of groups joined...nonsense. That shouldbe decided by the member and the group leader. Why limit networking? That's why we are here.

10:03 am PDT, Sep 7, Dan Balluff, Minnesota

5:41 am PDT, Sep 7, Rodney McNabb, Texas
I have no problem with the items listed above. I DO believe more control needs to be initiated before the prolification of new groups gets out of control. I do not, however, agree on limiting membership in each group to only 50 members. I believe membership within each group should be unlimited. The 'Group Creator' should have control as to who is allowed to join and to remain (therefore possibly be deleted) from within their group.

At this point in time, I cannot say whether or not LinkedIn's avoidance of action will cause me to cease utilizing their software...but it could most certainly cause me to stop using the 'groups' section of it.

4:49 pm PDT, Aug 26, Stacey Mills, Ohio

10:21 pm PDT, Aug 22, Arsen Yeremin, California

1:58 pm PDT, Aug 22, Bob Kaplow, Illinois

9:01 am PDT, Aug 22, Jay Langdon, Arizona
Less likely. I'd like to be a premium member, but these changes continue to negatively impact my ability to network professionally.

1:52 pm PDT, Aug 15, Julie Oliveira, California
I thought that LinkedIn is a networking tool for us to gather information and increase our business. It is becoming a "controlled site." Why the restrictions at this point. MAYBE THEY SHOULD ENFORCE THIS WITH THE NEW MEMBERS AND LEAVE THE EXISITING MEMBERS AS IS!!!!!!!!! We have all worked diligently to get where we are.

It saddens me but I will be forced to leave!

3:22 am PDT, Aug 15, Steve White, United Kingdom

6:35 am PDT, Aug 14, Geri Kleeman, Illinois
It will definitely limit my use and promotion of LinkedIN to others

I won't leave but I will start to use more tools in it's place

1:40 pm PDT, Aug 13, Kathy Robbins, North Carolina
Impact for me is similar to Marcs Re: “We really tried to balance the needs of all of our users with the realities of cost, time & technology.” Expediency is a poor excuse. It’s not a problem to delay launching new features. It’s a HUGE problem when you disrespect users and remove their work by forcing them to leave or and especially to remove groups that they’ve invested time in. Ever hear about doing no harm, or evil in the case of Google? Respectfully this action by LinkedIn continues a long history of “improvements” that: > remove features > have no user input > come with no information. There is no FAQ or forums for questions on this change. > are poorly planned. We won’t provide your more info and you have a week to make changes or else. > penalize innocent members > show no respect to legitimate users’ time and energy by not grandfathering changes I know of no established company, none as large as LinkedIn, and certainly none that are Web 2.0 and live and die based on user support that act in such a purely anti-user way. It’s reasonable to: > respond to user complaints > set up a user-moderated forum for abuse > improve your technology to set up a group application process and provide tools to group owners to facilitate better group management and reduce inappropriate memberships. It’s poor practice to use the blunt instrument of limits that hurts users who have done nothing wrong. I’m especially incensed as I run an alumni group that gets the abuse you identify. I take the time to appropriately qualify members. I take responsibility for group management. So now because there are group owners who DON’T do their job and manage their groups, you penalize OTHER people, including innocent LinkedIn members and groups owners like me who do their job! That is wrong in so many ways. 1. GROUP OWNERS There has been no communication to me as a group owner. Why not? I had to write Customer Service to learn that the group limit includes groups I own and “The total number of groups includes a limit of 10 that you may own.” Is that true? So if I own 50 groups I have to cancel 40 of them? You didn’t think that was important enough to tell people? Were you just going to wait for owners to learn that after you automatically and arbitrarily removed their groups? I find it unconscionable that I invest my time and energy to promote and manage my groups and help evangelize LinkedIn ... and then the company would so cavalierly force me to kill them. How can you possibly justify that? 2. INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIPS Why shouldn’t a LinkedIn user want to join 100 or even 1,000 groups if he has a legitimate interest? LinkedIn’s myopia is astounding and emblematic of other limits LinkedIn has set. This is pre-Internet thinking when one’s life was confined to what you could touch and feel, when groups were big formal beasts and so a person would only have access to and could join a few organizations that included your college alumni assn, a few interest groups, and the Chamber of Commerce. This group limit is akin to saying we’re happy to offer you restaurant dining but you can only pick from 5 restaurants in your city. Technology has come a little way since then. My world is no longer defined by real-world groups in my little town. It now includes my metro area, my country, the planet, and purely online communities. If I have an interest in 18th century coastal Chinese architecture or a specific product or web site, the Internet now enables me to find a group with like minded people. Just like this very site at getsatisfaction.com. And many groups have several legitimate subgroups. My college has general, graduation year, and area of interest groups. Major cities have dozens of business and networking groups. I have literally hundreds of areas of interest. There are dozens of legitimate career and job organizations, each of which offers me different programs, networkers, features, locations, discipline concentrations, etc. and so each gives me unique value. As a result I belong to SEVERAL HUNDRED different groups that include 150 Yahoo groups and professional, career, hobby, city, interest, and networking groups. And many of these now have LinkedIn groups. Now I know the average user is not that engaged with LinkedIn. He is not well plugged in online. If he happens to come across a LinkedIn group, he may join it. But he doesn’t seek them. And so 50 may be a reasonable limit for him.

If we cannot do mega networking there is no incentive to stay in LinkedIn. They show total disregard for legitimate users when they penalize the whole linkedIn users for a few bad people's mistakes. This is indicative of technology development that is doomed to fail in the long term.

3:43 am PDT, Aug 13, George Sturzu, Romania

6:14 pm PDT, Aug 12, Rivkah Roth DO DNM, Canada
In my position as a natural medicine professional, author, and lecturer, I belong to well over 50 groups - all related either to my medical expertise, coaching, social change, women enterprise, and IT related groups assisting with my internet education projects. In addition, I have started a group about DiabetesAvoidance on LinkedIn. All my networking is aimed at raising awareness to the global epidemic of diabetes and metabolic disease.

The presently planned changes to a 50 group limit STIFLE MY ABILITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I find this disappointing and rather unaccetable. I have put hours and hours into building a network with likeminded professionals and individuals with large networks who are in a position to avocate on behalf of early diabetes risk recognition and avoidance. I strongly urge LinkedIn to reconsider their restrictions.

9:27 am PDT, Aug 12, Michel Hoffmann, Belgium
I am connected to about 80 LinkedIn groups. All these groups are related to my area of expertise, except a few alumni ones. I would not accept to be limited to 50 groups

I am present on Plaxo, Viadeo, Xing and 6nergies. If LinkedIn has a too restrictive policy, I am ready to quit from LinkedIn and to enhance my profile on the other networking sites

8:20 am PDT, Aug 12, Joe Gillespie, Illinois
I use common groups to reach out ot other members and learn about their interests. Therefore I belong to well over 50 groups and enjoy that aspect of LinkedIn.

I am deeply disturbed that LinkedIn keeps changing the rules of the game after I've invested countless hours of my time in developing certain attributes of LinkedIn. These changes have severely impacted my motivation to use LinkedIn as well as the extent of time I originally used to spend utilizing LinkedIn.

12:55 pm PDT, Aug 11, John Bridges, United Kingdom
Do you know how long it takes to manually withdraw from several hundred Li GRoups..? Why can't we just select which 50 Groups we want to remain in..?!

7:43 am PDT, Aug 11, Mark Hennessey, Iowa
Since I recruit across the country I belong to the networking groups in major cities to be in contact with local subject matter experts.

I am strongly considering dropping my premium membership

7:36 am PDT, Aug 11, Name not displayed, India
I believe that the biggest strength of social networks lies in co-creating the environment viz. the developer and the users collaborate to sustain/build an effective ecosystem that enhances networking. The key is doing this together. LinkedIN does give this freedom within the framework and hope that this is not restricted by putting in place policies that restrict the purpose for which we network on linkedIN.

more or less it could

6:15 am PDT, Aug 11, Name not displayed, Virginia

5:57 am PDT, Aug 11, Name not displayed, Florida

3:06 am PDT, Aug 11, Baruch Buchbinder, Israel
Social media like Linkedin has proven its benefits when people can meet other people for business opportunities like myself. Resticting the basic opportunity is a dead duck for me and I haet to say it but move on. If enough of us move on then Linkedin is not going to be worth much on the open market

If this continues then I believe I will move on and hopefully others as well

2:52 am PDT, Aug 11, Sara Magdalena Goldberger, France
In general I have a hard time understanding why LinkedIn want to curb their member's activites. Active members is the foundation of LI and by this they are cutting off the branch on which they sit. If it is an issue with many groups being too alike in interests, it should be made more difficult to start groups not joining them.

As of today, I am staying on. This might change in the future.

12:24 am PDT, Aug 11, Montaha Hidefi, United Arab Emirates
Although I am a newby on LinkedIn (joined 6 months ago) I found joining groups was one of the best features offered since they allowed me to connect to people from different backgrounds having different interests. I believe in a free world and as an adult only I have the right to decide how many groups I want to be affiliated to. How can LI decide for me? So I am thinking, to keep it within the limit of 50, in the future everytime I want to join a new group LI is forcing me to give up another group that I already have been a member of, so how much sence does this make? Most of all WHAT IS THE PURPOSE of this limitation?

Businesses that disregard the customer voice and only listen to their own inner voices are doomed to perdition. I am not going to continue being a member of a virtual organization that doesn't listen to me as a member no matter the size of the network.

11:41 pm PDT, Aug 10, Aimee Waerhouse, Pennsylvania
I have been an avid and loyal Professional level member (i.e. pay for services) for over 2 years now. In fact, I believe that I joined LinkedIn as a free member (and recommended your site to MANY colleagues) nearly since your inception. I highly value LinkedIn groups -- mainly for making new connections. When I first received the official email from LinkedIn regarding the upcoming limit of group memberships to 50, I did re-evaluate all of my groups. I can say that I removed myself from quite a few groups that I realized may be irrelevant to my business networking needs. However, as the number of groups grow, I believe that it is an incredible detriment to your organization (and its members -- both paid and free users) to limit us to 50 groups. Who knows how many more groups will be created in the future? I would hate to be forced to choose my "Top 50."

At this point, I have not decided whether the impending changes will cause me to leave LinkedIn. However, I would HIGHLY consider reducing my membership to the free user level. In addition, my company is in the process of considering the purchase of LinkedIn's Corporate Solutions (LinkedIn Recruiter). In fact, I am the person responsible for bringing this product to the attention to our Vice President of Corporate Recruiting. We have already had several positive conference calls and a demonstration with one of your talented sales reps (Fabian DaVita). While I am quite sure that my VP is unaware of the upcoming changes...I will certainly bring these to his attention -- which will likely have an impact on his purchasing decision.

3:22 pm PDT, Aug 10, Nuno Moreira Rato, Portugal

2:32 pm PDT, Aug 10, Name not displayed, Texas
I legitimately belong to and own a number of LinkedIn groups. I'm outraged that the time and energy I've invested in doing so is now wasted as I have to reduce the groups. They have every right to manage their network, but not at the expense of my personal network and effort.

I already use LinkedIn less and will decreasingly use it. All the limits they keep placing on it make it harder to do business or trust them. They're making it into a sanitized megadatabase.

9:39 am PDT, Aug 10, Michael Weaver, Tennessee
Limiting groups will only limit LinkedIns potential and impact.

If these changes go into effect most likely I will focus my networking elsewhere, I will probably keep my profile up, but not much more.

6:17 am PDT, Aug 10, Steven L Bonnell, Pennsylvania
LI implies that they have over 25 Million users that a member may access to 'Find the people & knowledge you need to achieve your goals'... and LI strongly suggests that a member only 'Accept an Invitation' from someone that is known by the member. This results in the 1st-Degree contacts being Intentional connections and the 2nd & 3rd degree contacts being Random connections. However, by joining a Group, which creates the 4th-level of contact, which LI refers to as the 'GROUP' connection, you may now increase your amount of Intentional connections. > The 'Group connection' is VERY useful because this allows the access to the information on the individual's profile, yet, there does not have to be a 'linked-degree through an existing contact'. > The Group' status is totally voluntary - - with a Group on the same subject, a member is basically saying that: 1) I have an interest in this particular subject, 2) I am willing to discuss & share what I know, 3) I am making a point about my willingness. > Most USERS are not looking to have a connection with every one of the 25 Million members, just the members who have a 'common interest'. > WHAT an IDEAL SITUATION !! > IF you say I'm only stating the OBVIOUS, well it may not be obvious to LI! > With the proposed Limitations of ONLY being able to belong to 50 Groups and ONLY being able Manage 10 Groups, LI may have to redefine the implication of the 25 Million members to something such as: > OVER 25 Million users, and with our limiting restrictions, YOU may be able to Access Several Thousand Like-Minded members you need to achieve your goals.

I may not leave (LI got along without me & I got along without LI long before I joined), but the usefulness, and dedication, will definitely be decreased substantially. Just have to 'make the best of it' - or not.

4:57 am PDT, Aug 10, Peter Bambridge, United Kingdom
I am very disappointed by the attitude displayed by LI, and the limiting controls that are being instigated. I completely fail to understand any logic behind limiting the total number of groups I happen to want to be a member of. I also fail to understand why you might want to limit the numberof groups that I might apply to join at any one time.

I am concerned by the attitude and the approach, to such an extent that I am forced to wonder what the real objectives are here. It does not sound like open business networking to me. I would hate to have to take my entire network elsewhere where controls are more sensible and end user driven.

6:43 pm PDT, Aug 9, Name not displayed, Illinois
Why the limits? Is there a valid reason for this? I think NOT! Social networking should be unlimited and the proposed limits are really silly in this day & age! Don't lose all your members by implementing silly rules.

3:12 pm PDT, Aug 9, Arthur J. Plourde, California
My understanding of the purpose of the "Linkedin" site was to be able to furnish an site whereby idividuals would be able to provide background information of a personal nature concerning professions or business and be able to network with others in a free manner w/o controls and gates that would prevent the "Freedom of Speech and Exchange of Information". With all the modifications that the LINKEDIN organized board is making the experience of the intent and mission of having this ability seems to becoming lost in an effort to control links and membership. I don't sanction or support such action when an individuals rights are being devalued and tromped on by those who seek to control and manage people who participate by placing profiles on record with LINKEDIN. I believe that the owners of the website should cease and desist immediately all efforts to mute FREE SPEECH on their site less they subject themselves to formal judicial proceedings to make them end their tyranny on the internet. The airwaves in America are free, and this is part of the airwaves and ownership is by license granted by meeting qualification by the FCC. No one has the right to do what LINKEDIN is doing with respect to censoring the ability of those who have joined to act and speak freely and to be able to join other members groups.

1:43 pm PDT, Aug 9, Hugo HERNANDEZ, Georgia
Greetings. I believe that linkedin should respect the confidence that users put on the company as well as respect the confidemntiality of waht users decide regarding joininig people or groups.

If regulations proposed are in place, I regret to inform that I will reclute members and associates to different social media site. Regards and thank you for the collaboration. Hugo H

1:26 pm PDT, Aug 9, George Vrozos, Canada
Will force me to leave !!!

Will force me to leave !!!

1:06 pm PDT, Aug 9, Scott Vanderbilt, Virginia
I rely on member groups to expand my linkedin circle further out than just asking for emails. The more groups the better my chances of increasing my connections and business.I have already found vendors and business clients through the use of groups and not through the use of just email.

This will increase my chances of using another similar site. There are enough to choose from.

12:38 pm PDT, Aug 9, ScottGC Robinson, California
I'm motivated to use other services.

11:47 am PDT, Aug 9, Connie Madison, California